Daily Journal: Day 19
February 4, 2008 Monday — It’s time to get some community, professional, and governmental feedback on the proposed use of the Hacienda.
Below you will find a quickly drafted appeal addressed to the Planning & Development Department. All of your concerns and letters of appeal are welcome. Please read the letter below and send your specific concerns to:
Planning and Development Department
Attn: Appeal the proposed use of the Hacienda
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721-3604
Reference is made to this document: State’s FRCCC Strategy Described
Hi Donn,
Thank you so much for your time on Friday. Your department has been open and transparent, and I truly feel like this is going to be an eye-opening and positive experience for all involved — especially the women that may or may not become inmates at this facility.
One housekeeping item: I left the building forgetting to pay for our photocopies. I will bring in a check for $35 today.
Regarding the attached details on the FRCCC:
As we discussed in your office, Elaine and I will provide you with information regarding the FRCCC as we obtain it. The attached document is particularly detailed with regards to whether or not this facility is a prison. In it the FRCCC is referred to as the new “mini-prison” and is based on the strategic vision of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Throughout the attached document the CDCR places emphasis on collaboration with local government and the community. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for law enforcement to be involved in this program.
Operational Concerns:
It would be most informative to reference page 9. There are apparently Facility Guidelines for the FRCCC that were provided to MHS at the RFP stage. I request that those guidelines be added to the planning commission staff report and taken into consideration before further recommendations on the CUP is made. I am attempting to locate the guidelines, but it might be quicker for you to just ask MHS for the copy they have on file.
Reviewing the guidelines will help in clearing up the following discrepancies:
* Please reference page 12 (page 20 on pdf) #4 — there are “no in or out privileges.” I consider this a gross misrepresentation of operations to the planning commission in the original CUP approval. Also see page 15 second & fourth full paragraphs: “similar to some urban county jails” and “secure locked facility.”
* Please reference page 12 #2 — Law enforcement involvement is a key component of the facilities operations. Law enforcement is expected to collaborate with CDCR parole agents. Law enforcement has not been informed that they will play a central role in the success of the women in the facility.
o In the same paragraph you will read that the 4500 women identified by the state for FRCCC placement are at “serious risk for re-offending.”
o Law enforcement is a key component to the success of this program, and they admittedly had heard nothing about it from MHS.
Concern about impact on the neighborhood:
* Please reference page 9 “Medical, mental health, and dental services will be handled in the community.” The FRCCC relies on community care (medical, mental health, and programs) that is not in place in the community. I oppose the facility being in the proposed location because the area does not have a medical facility or a clinic. I further request that the planning commission inquire as to how and where the women and children will be transported for care.
I am currently in the process of locating the Facility Guidelines referred to in the attached document. I request that you include the entire document to the staff report, and reference pages 8-15 as evidence that this facility is in fact a prison. Page 14 actually calls them “mini-prisons.”
Further steps:
We will be requesting further input from the medical community, mental health services, community based service providers, and the police. My guess is that they were not informed by MHS, Inc that their services would be required for the FRCCC population. When they are properly informed of the impact of the FRCCC on the community, I am certain they will have a response to the CUP.
Addressing The Concern Over State Action if a “Group Home” CUP is Denied:
Overall I would like to say that this is an example of how a somewhat good idea (based on a successful Illinois project) can go very wrong. A basic requirement that the CDCR has imposed on contractors (like MHS) is getting political and community buy-in for the FRCCC.
I have heard that there is concern over a lawsuit or state action should the council reject the CUP for a group home facility. The assumption is that group homes can’t be discriminated against. However, the state does not view these facilities as group homes. Further, the state has made it clear that they do not want the facilities placed in areas that are not going to be supportive of their placement.
Any such concern over a group home challenge could be overcome by referencing the attached document, which makes community, government and service provider buy-in a requirement. According to the attached document the state’s strategy with the FRCCC is to work with willing political and community partners. Without political buy-in, community support, and local service providers, the state implies that failure for this population is fairly certain. San Diego MHS, Inc has failed to show proof that they have attained any one of the three.
One last point:
Please add to the concerns that there is a child care facility proposed on the site, and C-6 Heavy Commercial does not allow for child care facilities at all. No CUP is available for this facility. I would assume this is due to the dangers of having children in a C-6 zone, environmental and otherwise. If a lawsuit were brought it would likely be for these children who should not be susceptible to poor air quality and other environmental concerns because their mother is in prison.
I hope that this information further informs your process. I will be staying in touch and request that you share this new information with anyone interested, particularly the applicant. In addition, to the degree practical please keep myself and Elaine informed regarding their response.
Sincerely,
Carissa
NOTE:
I am including the article below to reference architectural guidelines in place for the FRCCC sites. I will make an attempt at locating these guidelines, however, I assume MHS has these and would provide them to you if requested.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/2006_Press_Releases/press20060707.html
Corrections to Release Requests for Proposals for Female Community Correctional Rehabilitation Centers Focus on reducing recidivism, supporting prison reform
Sacramento -The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) will issue a request for proposal (RFP) for nearly 4,500 community-based beds in Female Community Correctional Rehabilitation Centers (FCCRC).
“The RFP is part of our strategic plan to reduce recidivism and provide rehabilitation for female offenders, and it supports Governor Schwarzenegger’s prison reform efforts, including the special legislative session he called last month,” said Acting CDCR Secretary James Tilton.
“There are 11,600 female state prison inmates,” Tilton said, “but only 867 of them are housed in community-based beds, such as the Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility, though nearly 6,000 of them are eligible for community based placement.”
As part of the female offender reform efforts, more than 4,300 minimum-security inmates serving time for non-serious, non-violent offenses would be moved from more expensive lock-ups into a Female Community Correctional Rehabilitation Center. The centers, designed for 75, 100, and 200 inmates, would provide inmates with educational and vocational programs, substance abuse treatment and education, group and individual counseling, family counseling and reunification programs, sober living skills, wellness, recreational and religious programs, and links for community services.
“Women offenders would be placed in a center near her county of commitment,” said Wendy Still, Associate Director for Female Offender Programs and Services. “Not only would she have access to structured rehabilitative programs, she would be living near her family and children. This should or will strengthen her ties with her children, enhance family reunification, and help break the intergenerational cycle of crime,” she added.
CDCR has focused on female offender reform and strategic plans for improving outcomes for female offenders since a task force was created in January 2005. It established a Gender Responsive Strategies Commission to address the significant growth of the female inmate population, lower recidivism, and to address the differences in male and female incarceration, management and rehabilitation.
“Treatment and rehabilitative programs would be tailored for each woman from the time she arrives at the rehabilitative center to the time she completes her parole,” Still said.
The Female Community Correctional Rehabilitation Centers, secure facilities staffed by CDCR custody staff around the clock, would also be staffed by state and contract employees to provide rehabilitative programs, oversee operations, and provide medical, mental health and dental care. Dr. Barbara Bloom, a nationally recognized female offender expert, assisted CDCR with the program design. A contracted architectural firm has developed facility guidelines for the design of the centers.
The Request for Proposals for the Female Community Correctional Rehabilitation Centers is a major step forward in undertaking female offender reform and addressing the historic levels of overcrowding in all state prisons.