We pay taxes, we suffer the consequences but we are not good enough for the state to give money for a problem the state lawmakers created.
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/news.php?id=125
Excerpt:
SACRAMENTO (June 8, 2017) – Grant awards from a voter initiative that reduces from felonies to misdemeanors certain low-level crimes and directs state savings to rehabilitative programs received approval today from the Board of State and Community Corrections.
Approximately $103 million in estimated state savings resulting from the enactment of Proposition 47 will go to 23 applicants whose rehabilitative programs were deemed most promising by a workgroup of the Board.
The criteria for the awards was established by language in the proposition, which directs 65 percent of the overall state savings to the BSCC to fund grants for mental health and substance-use disorder treatment. Assembly Bill 1056 added housing assistance and job training to the mix of eligible funding criteria. The bill targets for services people “who have been arrested, charged with, or convicted of a criminal offense and have a history of mental health issues or substance use disorders.”
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/news.php?id=124
Excerpt:
6-8-2017
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/news.php?id=124
Excerpt:
9 Counties to Receive $270m for Jail Construction, Improvements
6-8-2017
SACRAMENTO (June 8, 2017) – The Board of State and Community Corrections today approved conditional awards totaling $270 million to nine counties to finance improvements to local jail facilities.
The state lease-revenue bond financing, established in the Governor’s 2016-17 budget and Senate Bill 844, was earmarked for the 20 counties that have not yet received jail improvement funding, or that received only partial funding in previous rounds. SB 844 set aside $20 million of the total for Napa County to replace its jail, which was heavily damaged in an earthquake in 2014.
The legislation requires counties to improve housing with an emphasis on expanding program and treatment space, to create in-custody mental health or treatment space, and to establish space for reentry services. Successful applicants proposed projects that provide in-person visitation and included with their applications a description of efforts to address sexual abuse.
This is a late reply to an important issue, but I needed to find the actual government websites and reports.
ReplyDeleteSo let's start:
http://www.cjcj.org/news/11348
Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice
"Published: April 14, 2017
Fifty-eight California cities and counties have submitted applications for programs to be funded through Proposition 47.
An estimated $103 million is available for these programs, but the amount being requested by all 58 public agencies totals about $225 million."
"Public agencies—defined as county, city, or tribal government departments—must be the lead applicants for this funding, but they are required to share at least 50 percent of awarded funding with a nonprofit partner. This funding is intended to strengthen programs that address the underlying factors of crime, end pipelines to incarceration, and ensure that individuals are supported to reduce the commitment of new offenses. Community-based services are essential in establishing this support and improving public safety."
This page not only provides links to more sites but also give a list of all the counties which have applied for funding.
Besides the Big Counties (LA, Sacto, etc), much smaller counties have applied:
Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Mendocino, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Trinity, Yolo & Yuba.
The page also shows which government agency applied for the grant.
The official website
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/s_bsccprop47.php
And on that page, there is a header:
Prop 47 Ranked List
Click on it, and it opens. You can then download a list of all the applications that were approved, and the amount.
Placer County Health and Human Services asked for $990,000;
Plumas County District Attorney $1,000,000
Yolo County Heath and Human Services Agency $5,928,615
One can go further and see what each applicant requested and what it would be used for.
So if Humboldt County or Eureka or any other public entity in Humboldt County applied, who were they and why were they turned down?
In order to qualify the government entity must work with a non-profit group that would share in the work and the funding.
I don't know who you've talked to about this program and how Humboldt (who certainly have their not-so-fair-share of criminals sent to prison) either didn't get their act together to apply or if there was no non-profit group willing to work with them, or what.
It's not a lot of money to be doled out and, yes, they look at the number of released offenders when deciding on the award amount. But if Trinity County's application was approved by the ESC (which recommended but didn't have the final say)---they're smaller, a much smaller government, and they still were able to apply and get on the list?
Was this discussed by the Board of Supervisors at all?
Have local groups (that might be able to use the funding productively for the people they serve and the County) so lack confidence in the County to be a good working partner, or worse, don't trust the County to get an application right?
IF--big IF--the County determined that they couldn't meet the qualifications (number of released inmates), then why not let the public know that they tried. At least show they tried!