Score: 0 (0/1/0)
Santa Clara County Grand Jury • 2017-2018

In The Era of Reform

Published: May 21, 2018 31 pages
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12

Findings and Recommendations 10 findings

F1
The Grand Jury found no advantage to having a separate DOC in the operation of the jails.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1B
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors should clarify the roles in jail management for: the Department of Correction, the Chief of Correction, the proposed correctional administrator position, the Undersheriff, the Office of Correction and Law Enforcement Monitoring, and the Community Correction and Law Enforcement Monitoring Committee. This should be done by Dec. 31, 2018.
F2A
The Grand Jury found morale among correctional deputies is low due to chronic understaffing, mandatory overtime shifts and a new grievance system that deputies believe is open to abuse.
No recommendations for this finding
F2B
The Grand Jury found a widespread perception among correctional deputies that they have diminished control over inmates in the jail, putting them at a disadvantage in performing their duties.
No recommendations for this finding
F2C
The Grand Jury found that the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office has taken new steps in the past year to boost hiring, greatly reducing correctional deputy shortages at the Main Jail and Elmwood.
No recommendations for this finding
F3A
The Grand Jury found there is an unmet need for training programs at the Main Jail and Elmwood geared to inmates serving multiyear sentences.
No recommendations for this finding
F3B
The Grand Jury found there is an unmet need for vocational training programs at Elmwood geared to women inmates. The Grand Jury also found a gender bias in the limited program opportunities for women inmates, which fails to prepare them for transition to post-jail life in Santa Clara County.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Grand Jury found the lack of understanding of the relationship between the recent rise in juvenile crime and lower incarceration rates prevents effective means to reduce juvenile crime.
No recommendations for this finding
F5A
The San Jose Police Department, at the time of this report, was taking steps to eliminate the needless expense by updating outdated procedures for staffing its Pre-Processing Center with a sergeant on paid overtime.
No recommendations for this finding
F5B
The San Jose Police Department puts itself at needless risk of a lawsuit from a detainee or a citizen’s complaint by not following BSCC procedures for restraining prisoners at its Pre- Processing Center.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2016/Responses/ResponseSCCSheriff092216.pdf 14 http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2016/Responses/ResponseSCCSheriff100416.pdf 15 http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2016/Responses/05.15.17%20Response%20SCC%20CO B%20-%20Mental%20Illness.pdf 16 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/probation/Documents/JPD%20Services%20Annual%20Report_2016_FINAL. pdf Prop 57, which lets judges instead of prosecutors decide if a juvenile will be tried in adult court. Also, 38% of the fiscal 2016 arrests and citations were lower level offenses or offenses by first-time offenders who went to the County’s impressive array of diversionary services (counseling and more) and therefore were not recorded as official arrests. The Juvenile Justice System remains focused on prevention-oriented and school-based programs and services. At the same time, the well-publicized decline in staffing at the San Jose Police Department (SJPD) is acknowledged as among factors in the lower arrest rates for both juveniles and adults. SJPD now is regaining staff, and the initial decline in arrests resulting from Props 47 and 57 has ended. The County DA reports a significant spike in juvenile offenses in calendar 2017. The DA says total juvenile filings rose 20% in 2017 to 1,399 from 1,162 in 2016. The filings are Welfare and Institutions Code Section 602 Petitions, for criminal acts, and violations of probation (VOP). This comes after four consecutive years of declines in filings. DA officials say the 2017 increase is even more dramatic than it appears because the new laws make it harder to file both 602 Petitions and VOPs. The early part of 2018 saw the trend continue. (See chart below) 316 Juvenile Crime Filings (Petitions) Jan. 1 thru March 5 224 238 204 2015 2016 2017 2018 Some types of crime saw big leaps in juvenile participation. The DA says in 2017 residential burglary jumped 128% to 185, auto theft accelerated 51% to 208, robbery rose 21% to 120 and carjacking more than tripled to 28. Organized groups of juvenile offenders were responsible for much of this increase, Probation, DA and law enforcement officials agree. But they don’t agree on some other things. Where Probation says as few as 10 youths accounted for a big chunk of the spike, DA officials attribute much of the increase to more than 50, and as many as 100, in the organized groups. Juvenile recidivism rates for the lowest-level offenders remains admirably low, at just 2% to 3%, but for the highest level of offender, it has risen to 43% in fiscal 2016 from 32% in fiscal 2015 and 40% in fiscal 2014. Law enforcement officials have expressed some frustration to the Grand Jury about a lack of programs for some repeat offenders who do commit the most serious crimes, since only the most serious offenders and violent felons can be sent to the state Division of Juvenile Justice (formerly the California Youth Authority). In Santa Clara County, incarcerated juvenile offenders go to Juvenile Hall or get assigned to the six- to eight-month James Ranch program. Officials see a need for programs that give repeat offenders a “time out,” which could mean moving them to a facility outside the county and thus away from potentially bad influences or, could mean offering an 18- to 24-month “step-down” program, similar to what’s offered by Contra Costa with its Youth Offender Treatment Program and Girls in Motion program. Probation officials, on the other hand, point to their success with diversion programs and their continued motivation to keep youths in environments more constructive than jails or ranches. “… Incarceration is the single-biggest predictor of criminality,” Laura Garnette, the 18 County Chief Probation Officer, recently told the San Jose Mercury News. Meanwhile, the County is part of an innovative state pilot program, SB 1004 , that makes use of one of the Juvenile Hall buildings, which otherwise has sat mostly vacant due to juvenile justice diversion efforts. Under the pilot program, being tested in five counties, this facility will house adult offenders ages 18-21. These inmates get access to the rehabilitative programs offered at Juvenile Hall. As of March, the program just housed four of these young- adult offenders, but it’s expected to house 10 males and 10 females shortly. William F. James Ranch (Inspection Oct. 5, 2017) The James Ranch is a locked detention facility that houses juveniles (ages 13-19) who have been committed by the Juvenile Court. Its program runs six to eight months. The Ranch houses males and females. Its capacity is 96, but according to officials the Ranch has been housing fewer youths in recent years. On the date of the Grand Jury’s visit, the Ranch housed 56 youths. Youths are categorized at Levels 1 through 4, advancing in levels based on participation in and compliance with the facility programs and rules (cooperation, 1 7 Recidivism refers to a new offense committed by an individual within a set period that can vary, and the start of the clock on the timing of recidivism varies for different programs. In general, this refers to a person committing a new offense within a year of release from an earlier offense. 18 https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/22/amid-juvenile-crime-spike-officials-work-to-meld-
No recommendations for this finding

Additional Recommendations 1

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

Conclusions 26

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 3

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

San Jose City
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office
Santa Clara County Sheriff Elected County Office