Packed Forum on Realignment Tackles Community Concerns

Both budget woes and legal concerns were front and center at Friday’s public forum on government services realignment, which will shift several major services currently administered by the state into local hands.

Part of Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to solve California’s budget problems, one of the most controversial elements of “realignment” is a move to slash state prison populations by housing more inmates in county and local jails. But many other services, including mental health services, foster care, and probation supervision, are also slated to shift increasingly to local agencies.

The forum was hosted by state Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner and Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson and included representatives from health care, social services and corrections agencies. Speaking to a room packed with community members at  in Berkeley, panelists expressed cautious optimism that realignment could benefit local communities if done correctly.

“We agree that it may be better to provide these services here at home,” said Carson, adding that county agencies could coordinate among themselves in providing services to clients and their families.

Skinner expressed hope that realignment of prison services could save taxpayers money. “If we keep our low-level offenders in local or county facilities, or in programs like rehabilitation and other programs offered by county and local agencies, the cost per person is far less than it costs to incarcerate in state-level facilities,” Skinner said.

Panelists worked to dispel notions that the proposed changes would result in a flood of violent felons being released into local communities—a concern that was exacerbated by a recent Supreme Court ruling that California’s state prisons are unconstitutionally overcrowded.

“Nobody who is currently in prison right now will be released to the local community,” said Erin Sasse, chief of external affairs for the state Department of Corrections. Only non-serious, non-violent, non-sexual offenders would be sentenced to serve time in local or county jails, Sasse said. More serious offenders would continue to be sentenced to state prison.

Alameda County Chief Probation Officer David Muhammad mentioned ideas to reduce the amount of time inmates spend in jail. Prisoners could get six months taken off of their sentence if they get their GED, for example. “We want to incentivize achievement,” Muhammad said.

The new sentencing structure would apply primarily to future cases, not current ones, said Michael Corbett of Suter, Wallauch, Corbett and Associates, a lobbying firm working with the county.

Under the proposed plan, courts would also handle parole revocation hearings and more money would be allocated to county courts, district attorneys and public defenders.

“This realignment proposal is going to change the administration of justice as we know it,” said Corbett.

Carson emphasized three components he deemed crucial for a successful realignment: flexibility in coordinating services, constitutional protection from potential lawsuits and a guaranteed funding source that could not be whittled down by future legislators and policy-makers.

“We keep only 15 cents of every property tax dollar to fund services in Alameda County,” said County Administrator Susan Muranishi. Much of the remainder in property tax revenue is transferred to the state to support programs like education. Next year, the county anticipates transferring $326 million.

With a  looming for next year, Muranishi said, “We need a long term stable revenue source.”

The panel also included Lori Jones, interim co-director of Alameda County Social Services, and Alex Briscoe, director of Alameda County Health Care Services.

A lively public feedback period drew comments from diverse community members, including people who had served time in the prison system and representatives from service providers and community-based organizations.