.
Feedback

Supervisors Adopt Realignment Plan

Under the plan, San Mateo County will take on around 600 additional inmates by 2014.

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday adopted a strategic realignment plan that aims to accommodate hundreds of low-level offenders that are now being sent to county jails and local reentry programs instead of state prisons.

Chief Probation Officer Stuart Forest, whose department will oversee the county's realignment plan, said the county should be prepared to take responsibility for around 600 additional inmates by 2014.

Since the state's realignment mandate went into effect in October 2011, around 66 inmates who would have gone to state prison were sentenced to jail or placed under mandatory supervised probation in San Mateo County, according to the probation department.

Forest said the county's local implementation plan — which was developed by a community partnership of county officials, chief law enforcement officers, prosecutors and human services experts — incorporates a range of rehabilitative approaches to dealing with non-violent inmates, both before they are released from jail and after.

"The local implementation plan is based on broad, interdisciplinary cooperation," Forest said.

The county's approach is to reduce recidivism through a combination of re-entry programs and services, including vocational job training, substance abuse treatment, housing support services, probation supervision and mental health programs.

Forest acknowledged the complexity of the plan and its goals, but said it incorporated a fair amount of flexibility to make necessary changes as realignment progresses.

"The local implementation plan is flexible enough to respond to unforeseeable changes in the population it serves," he said.

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to adopt the plan.

Board President Adrienne Tissier praised all parties that were involved in preparing the realignment plan, and let the public know that implementing the myriad of programs that were coordinated to deal with a steady influx of inmates is still a work in progress.

"At the end of the day, it isn't absolutely everything that everyone wanted, but it's a good framework," Tissier said.

"We're going to be able to determine what's working in the best interest of the entire community," she said.

Supervisor David Pine agreed, adding that he was confident that the community's broad-based strategy to drop recidivism rates was destined to be a success.

"I really have confidence in our county partners," Pine said. "I think we're going to be surprised with the positive outcomes we're going to have."

— Bay City News

 

Got Patch? Sign up for our newsletter by clicking on the "Patch Newsletter" link on the top right of our homepage.

To receive news feeds about Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated Coastside between Montara and Pescadero, visit Half Moon Bay Patch on Facebook and "like" us here. Follow us on Twitter here.

Want to blog for us? Click here.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jon DeLong May 18, 2013 at 06:45 pm
With so many good Mexican restaurants in the area, why bother?
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
Carol Wexler May 18, 2013 at 02:42 pm
I would consider volunteering at the California State Parks but dogs are not allowed and I wouldRead More need to bring my dog.
pae May 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Misha, I understand where you're coming from, but that's what we don't want to do. One reason thatRead More all dog owners are being discriminated against is those few who don't follow the rules. It doesn't matter that there are bicyclists and horseback riders who don't follow rules, they're "OK," it's the dog owners who pay the price. We want an area where our dogs can exercise freely and legally, where we won't be bothered by people who are afraid of dogs or dislike them, and where they're not at risk from horses who spook. For those of us who live surrounded by Rancho land especially, we don't want to have to drive miles to a small, fenced lot with crowds of others seeking to exercise their dogs in the same small area. We're paying for this open space with our tax dollars, and we want to have access to it. There's plenty of room for everyone.
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.