Editor’s note: This is excerpted from the 29-page report by the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury on county jail operations. Email your feedback to Jondi Gumz at [email protected]
•••
The Sheriff’s Office’s senior leadership believes that more staffing is most needed to improve performance and safety.
For the past several years the Corrections Bureau has operated with the minimal staffing thought to be necessary, and mandatory overtime to staff each shift has been more the rule than an exception. The Main Jail day shift includes the Watch Commander (a sergeant), two Senior Corrections Officer for housing and booking, and 13 corrections officers assigned to specific posts in the facility.
The night shift has the same number of senior people as working on days, but with one less CO, as at night there is only one CO in the Control Room instead of two. Assignments for each shift are noted on a chart with the names of the CO assigned to each position on that shift. Beneath these levels is a “red line” below which are slots for three additional COs, but they are never filled.
A substitute is called in whenever a CO assigned to work one of the slots calls in sick, is injured, or otherwise is unable to work. Normally COs get three days off for every three 12-hourshifts they work. Often this results in filling the shift roster with COs being required to work mandatory overtime.
As a consequence it is not uncommon for COs to put in five, and even six shifts per week. The work is both stressful and exhausting. COs are responsible for filling out reports and other paperwork that document their activities. The COs assigned to housing units supervise them from a control booth outside the locked units.
But COs are constantly going in and out of the units like yo-yos. Their duties include mandatory hourly safety checks, serving three meals per day, collecting dirty laundry and distributing clean laundry, distributing and collecting grooming supplies, distributing commissary items purchased by inmates, dealing with requests by individual inmates, supervising inmate movements in and out of the housing units, supervising open time, assuring that inmates are in their assigned cells when it’s time for “lock down,” and often responding to calls for assistance from other COs when needed.
Intake, booking, and release Cos deal with all movement in and out of the facility including new bookings, releases, and inmates being processed in and out for court appearances, as well as assisting COs in the various housing areas as needed.
When the CO assigned to a specific area is not at the control booth he/she will not hear a call from an inmate’s in-cell intercom.
Employee turnover among COs is frequent. Many Cos see their employment as a stepping stone to law enforcement, and will leave if they are able to switch into the SO’s Operations Bureau or another agency.
Further, the pay scale for beginning COs in Santa Cruz County is at the lower end of pay scales in neighboring counties. It is $579 less per month than in Monterey County and $1240 per month less than in Santa Clara County. Many COs have long commutes to work in the Main Jail.
Few, if any, can afford to live in close proximity given the extraordinary cost of housingin most of Santa Cruz County, and a good number of COs live “over the hill” or beyond into the Central Valley where affordable housing isi n greater supply. Management has lauded the dedication and competence of the COs. Yet low morale, butnout, and employee retention are both persistent and problematic.
Budget and Board of Supervisors’ Oversight
The budget for the Sheriff’s Department is reviewed annually by the BoS. In June 2020county budget reviews were conducted; the adopted budget detail may be found in the “The County of Santa Cruz Adopted Budget | Fiscal Year 2020-21.”[70] In particular, the Sheriff’s budget was reviewed on June 23, 2020 as item no. 52.[71] The Board Letter, which introduced the proposed Sheriff’s budget, stated that: Over the next year, the department will be focused primarily on public safety and the community we serve as well as providing care and resources for the population in our correctional facilities.[72] (Justice in the Jail: Published June 17, 2021/Page 13 of 29)
An examination of the specifics of the Corrections Bureau budget, found on pages236-238 of the County budget document, shows the following:
- The 2020-21 Corrections Bureau budget is increased approximately $2.2M over the 2019-20 budget.
- Salary and benefits increases account for all of this increase.
- Total staffing equals 151 positions, 11 positions remain unfunded.[73]
The total staffing (151) does not mean that there are 151 people available to work. The number of people able to work is reduced by the number of unfilled positions due to resignations, terminations, and retirement, or people unavailable to work due to illness, injury or vacation.
What is apparent is that for many years the Main Jail has operated with the fewest possible number of people on the job each day, and then only by requiring COs to put in mandatory overtime to the extent that it has had a negative effect on both morale and performance. Poor morale and overworked, tired workers lead to mistakes.
The Grand Jury is aware that there are many competing interests for limited county resources. Both the COVID-19 pandemic and the CZU Lightning Complex Fire imposed unprecedented and unforeseen pressure on those resources. However, we note that the county is currently defending three civil actions related to events in the jail at a substantial cost to the County. Might these resources be better spent on prevention, i.e., on adequate staffing?
Board of Supervisors’ Oversight
The BoS is ultimately responsible for setting the county budget and overseeing how public funds are spent, including if they are spent properly, wisely, and are sufficient fordoing whatever needs to be done.
Historically the BoS receives information regarding events, issues, and needs of the SO’s
Corrections Bureau through various sources. They include informal one-on-one communications with the Sheriff, articles appearing in the local press, or what individual supervisors may read or be told by others. When serious events occur, the Sheriff may call individual supervisors, and if necessary, appear before the BoS in closed session.
But there is no formal structure or transparency by which the BoS is timely and regularly kept informed about the Corrections Bureau.[42][74][75][76][77] As a result, all the public ever knows is what appears online, in the local press or on the local news.
Stories concerning the Corrections Bureau make the news almost exclusively when bad things happen in the jail, of which there have been far too many. In fact, the only established recurring process or communication concerning the operation of the Corrections Bureau occurs when it is time to address budgeting.
The process involves the Sheriff interacting with the County Administrative Officer concerning the budgetary needs of the SO including its Corrections Bureau. The Sheriff will make a written and/or oral presentation to the BoS when the SO’s budget is on the agenda.
When special circumstances have warranted it, the Sheriff has gone to the board and requested and obtained special allocations.[42] One example is the approximately $1.5M allocated in February 2020 to replace the defective and outmoded emergency backup generators by late 2021.[12]
The money’s there, but it will be another year and a half before the Main Jail has adequate backup power capacity to run essential systems.[17][42] This illustrates why ad-hoc, informal communications cannot provide the oversight and transparency that could — and would — make for better, more efficient, and less costly operations.
Grand Jury Oversight
It might be argued that an oversight board is not needed because of the Grand Jury. California law mandates that every county in the state impanel a Civil Grand Jury each year.
Each year, the County Superior Court convenes a Civil Grand Jury of 19 jurors with a term of one year. Like most juries, grand jurors are individual citizens who volunteer their time and energies. Their responsibilities include examining resident complaints, inquiring into the “public prisons in the county,” and conducting investigations and producing reports on topics they select intended to improve the operations of a wide range of local governmental boards, agencies and departments.[78]
The Grand Jury’s oversight broadly encompasses every aspect of local government, including county, city, education, and other aspects of local concern. On the other hand a Sheriff Oversight Board or an Inspector General will develop an ongoing and in-depth understanding of the SO’s entire operations including corrections, financial needs, funding opportunities, and state requirements.
The Case for a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General, as Provided in Assembly Bill 1185 (Government Code §25303.7) Assembly Bill No.1185, which added § 25303.7 to the Government Code, was enacted and signed by Governor Newsom on September 30, 2020,and became effective January 1, 2021. It allows the board of supervisors in each of California’s 58 counties to establish either an appointed “sheriff oversight board” or “inspector general” to assist the board of supervisors in its duty to supervise the conduct of county sheriffs.
The law specifically states that such oversight shall not obstruct the “independent prosecutorial functions of the sheriff and district attorney.” Nor does the law limit the board’s budgetary authority over the sheriff.[79] (Appendix D has the full text)
The statute makes no provision regarding compensating a sheriff oversight board or inspector general. The BoS can appoint citizens willing to volunteer their time or it can establish compensation as it does for any board-appointed advisory board or commission. There is no requirement that costs associated with an oversight board or inspector general come out of the sheriff’s budget.
Even before AB 1185 was enacted, the counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Sonoma, and Santa Clara each had adopted provisions creating independent bodies to monitor county corrections and law enforcement functions.
Since AB 1185 was signed into law, San Francisco County’s voters adopted it, and Santa Clara, Sonoma, and Los Angeles Counties amended their respective ordinances to give their oversight board subpoena power as authorized in Government Code § 25303.7.
An oversight board or an inspector general would have similar investigatory powers, as does the Grand Jury, but with both significant differences and additional advantages:
- It would not cease to exist, and need to start fresh each year with a new group of citizens.
- It could act as an advocate for the Sheriff’s needs for resources before the Board of Supervisors.
- It could issue periodic reports calling attention to issues of public interest concerning the operation of the Sheriff’s Office including its Corrections Bureau.
- It would provide the public with greater transparency of the operations of the Sheriff’s Office, which every year consumes the single-largest slice of all local and state taxes expended by the county.[81]
- In the end it will save money because oversight will bring about more efficiency, improved morale and working conditions, and reduce human error.
Conclusion
Based on everything learned in this investigation we believe that it is critically important that everything be done to assure the health and safety of jail staff and inmates alike, and to go the extra mile to compensate for the reported structural deficiencies of the Main Jail.
This paramount need includes the SO and the General Services Department making every effort to prioritize maintaining the necessary equipment and systems and upgrading them when necessary as expeditiously as possible.
This need includes assuring that the Correction’s Policy Manual is current,and that necessary amendments be adopted to better control inmates’ access to potentially dangerous items. This need includes providing the Corrections Bureau with sufficient personnel to both fully staff the facility and reduce the dependence on mandatory overtime that is detrimental to both morale and efficiency.
Last, but certainly not least, we believe that it is essential and in the public interest to improve oversight by adoption of a Sheriffs Oversight Board or Inspector General as authorized by Government Code § 25303.7.
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the issue be brought up before the Board of Supervisors. If the Board won’t adopt it, put it on the ballot and let the voters decide.
Findings
F1) The Board of Supervisors has failed to assert and exercise proper oversight within their purview of the Main jail.
F2) Adoption of a Sheriffs Oversight Board or Inspector General under Government Code § 25303.7 will provide necessary public transparency and structure to support the Board of Supervisors’ supervision of the Sheriff’s Office Corrections Bureau.
F3) Adoption of a Sheriffs Oversight Board or Inspector General under Government Code § 25303.7 will provide an effective advocate before the Board of Supervisors and the public regarding the Sheriff’s needs. (Justice in the Jail: Published June 17, 2021 Page 16 of 29)
F4) The Correction’s Policy Manual must provide timely, comprehensive, applicable, and consistent guidelines for jail operations that serve to assure the safety of inmates and staff.
F5) The policies in the Correction’s Policy Manual regarding razors do not sufficiently assure that razors cannot be used by inmates to harm themselves or others.
F6) Events of violence and death in the Main Jail contrast negatively with the Sheriff’s Office mission, visions, and goals.
F7) Old and outdated equipment and systems in the Main Jail are detrimental to safe, efficient, and effective management of the facility.
F8) Long delays in replacing the backup power generators put staff and inmates at risk in the event of a power failure.
F9) Limited staffing and requiring mandatory overtime of Correction Officers at the Main Jail are detrimental to performance, staff morale, and contribute to human error which can threaten the health and safety of staff and inmates.
Recommendations
R1) Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code§ 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county.(F1–F9)
R2) Within six months the Board of Supervisors should agendize and open for public comment issues raised by Government Code § 25303.7.(F1–F9)
R3) Within six months the Sheriff should propose for the Board of Supervisors’ review and approval an increase in Correction Officer staffing and associated budget to reduce the need for mandatory overtime and to sufficiently staff the Main Jail.(F1, F9)
R4) Within six months the Sheriff should amend the Correction’s Policy Manual to remove inapplicable provisions and to add provisions relating to razors that more effectively limit and control the conditions of their use by inmates. (F4, F5)
R5) Within three months the Sheriff’s Office and the General Services Department should establish formal protocols for regular monthly meetings to review the status of all correctional facilities, including providing estimates of completion for any repairs and/or replacements that are outstanding, and prioritizing items that directly affect the health and safety of inmates and/or staff. Such meetings should be documented and open to inspection by the County Administrative Officer and the Board of Supervisors. (F7, F8)
R6) Within 60 days the Sheriff’s Office and the General Services Department should provide a written report to the Board of Supervisors and the Chief Administrative Officer providing both the specifications for, and a timeline for, completion of each stage of the project to replace and/or repair the backup emergency power system, and thereafter update such report every thirty days until such project is completed. (F7, F8) (Justice in the Jail: Published June 17, 2021 Page 17 of 29)
Commendations
C1) The Grand Jury commends the Sheriff, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Chief Deputy of the Corrections Bureau for their aggressive, efficient, and entirely successful actions that prevented any outbreak of COVID-19 in the inmate population.
C2) The Grand Jury commends the Sheriff, the Sheriff’s Office and the Chief Deputy of the Corrections Bureau for adopting innovative programs designed to promote reentry and reduce recidivism.
C3) The Grand Jury commends the Sheriff, the Sheriff’s Office and the Chief Deputy of the Corrections Bureau for fully cooperating with our investigation and providing requested documents and information.