Santa Clara County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
2004-2005 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report James Boys Ranch Safety and Security
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
Security of the James Ranch is compromised because no barrier controls are in place to prevent a juvenile housed at the facility from escaping into the nearby neighborhoods. The reported increase in the severity of juvenile crime of the James Ranch residents is an adequate basis for Probation to re-evaluate its no-barrier philosophy for the James Ranch. Area residents concerned for the safety of their families due to escapes by juvenile offenders housed at the James Ranch have started a grassroots organization to participate in dialogues with Probation, law enforcement and County officials.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1A
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors should review options and funding to enhance security of the James Ranch, monitor the use of the recently approved Global Positioning System, and, if use of GPS does not prove successful in deterring escapes, consider alternatives such as a perimeter fence.
R1B
Probation should continue to sponsor regularly scheduled, well-publicized community outreach programs with residents of Morgan Hill neighborhoods adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the James Ranch.
F2
Since no fencing is currently in place to prevent escapes by James Ranch juveniles, a temporary contract with the Sheriff provides added security inside and outside the James Ranch facility. Extra James Ranch staff has also been added to augment security by providing more personnel to detect and discourage escape attempts.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2A
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors should secure funding and extend the contract with the Sheriff to provide full-time deputies to patrol the James Ranch property and vicinity.
R2B
Probation should keep in place the additional staff already allocated to the James Ranch so that the heightened internal security measures at the James Ranch can be sustained.
F3
Limited funds allocated to Probation by the Board of Supervisors make it difficult to implement new juvenile programs such as rehabilitation methods similar to the “Missouri Model”.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3A
The Board of Supervisors should direct Probation to seek alternate funding sources, such as private endowments, partnership grants and the Federal government, to cover the 12 cost of enhancements to security and to facilitate the implementation of programs to rehabilitate juveniles housed at the James Ranch, including aftercare programs once the juveniles are released back into the community.
R3B
To improve the chance of success of program implementation, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors should provide funding for increased training of Probation staff so they become more knowledgeable and proficient in the core skills relating to their juvenile rehabilitation duties. Orientation sessions for incoming juveniles should be intensified and supervised by staff trained in juvenile rehabilitation.
F4
Programs are currently structured and limited to 120 days for juveniles sent to the James Ranch for rehabilitation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Probation should request the extension of treatment/rehabilitation programs at the James Ranch to range from 120 days up to 240 days, allowing additional rehabilitation time to enhance the potential for a more promising positive outcome for the juveniles enrolled in these programs. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 5th day of May, 2005. ________________________________ Michael A. Smith Foreperson 13
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R71-01degA selinevuJ 000,1 rep stserrA latoT Figure 5: Overall National Juvenile Crime Index – Total Arrests per 1,000 Juveniles Ages 10-17 As shown in Figure 6, the overall national index of juvenile violent crime increased from about 3.1 per 1,000 arrests in the early 1980s to peak at about 5.3 per 1,000 in 1994 (a 71% increase). Since 1994, the juvenile violent crime index has dropped to a rate of about 2.7 per 1,000 (a 49% decrease), which is below the rate of the early 1980s. The proportion of murders among juvenile violent crimes peaked in 1993 at 2.9% and then dropped to 1.2% in 2003 — the lowest level since 1980. The proportion of forcible rapes among juvenile arrests for violent crimes peaked in 1986 at 6.7% and had fallen to 4.6% in 2003. The proportion of robberies among juvenile arrests for violent crimes had fallen from a high of 50.1% in 1980 to 27.8% in 2003. In contrast, the proportion of aggravated assaults among juvenile arrests for violent crimes had risen steadily from about 43% in 1980 to 66.4% in 2003. The proportion of Property Crime Index offenses among all juveniles arrested fell from 35% in 1980 to 21% in 2003. 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 8
Conclusions 21
-
CL1 Page 12Since no fencing is currently in place to prevent escapes by James Ranch juveniles, a temporary contract with the Sheriff provides added security inside and outside the James Ranch facility. Extra James Ranch staff has also been added to augment security by providing more personnel to detect and discourage escape attempts.
-
CL2 Page 12Limited funds allocated to Probation by the Board of Supervisors make it difficult to implement new juvenile programs such as rehabilitation methods similar to the “Missouri Model”.
-
CL3 Page 13Programs are currently structured and limited to 120 days for juveniles sent to the James Ranch for rehabilitation.
-
CL4 Page 11Security of the James Ranch is compromised because no barrier controls are in place to prevent a juvenile housed at the facility from escaping into the nearby neighborhoods. The reported increase in the severity of juvenile crime of the James Ranch residents is an adequate basis for Probation to re-evaluate its no-barrier philosophy for the James Ranch. Area residents concerned for the safety of their families due to escapes by juvenile offenders housed at the James Ranch have started a grassroots organization to participate in dialogues with Probation, law enforcement and County officials.
-
CL5 Page 14Charter of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, Article V, "Officers, Boards and Commissions," Section 504, (amended and ratified by the voters March 2, 2004), http://www.scvmed.org/scc/assets/docs/628168County%20Charter.pdf. (Last viewed 5 May 2005) [Defines Probation Department under the County Executive.]
-
CL6 Page 14Juvenile Probation in Santa Clara County Fact Sheet, February 2005, Pgs. 1-3
-
CL7 Page 14James Ranch Report, 3 March 2005, Pgs. 5, 9 and 11 4. 1993-94 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Inspection of the William F. James Ranch
-
CL8 Page 14Gilroy Dispatch “Electronic Security Considered” 31 March 2005
-
CL9 Page 14Morgan Hill Times “Two escape from William F. James Boys Ranch in MH” 2 April 2005
-
CL10 Page 14Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Last viewed 2 April 2005)
-
CL11National Criminal Justice Reference Service (Last viewed 2 April 2005)
-
CL12 Page 14Altschuler and Armstrong, Reintegrative Confinement and Intensive Aftercare, (Last viewed 2 April 2005)
-
CL13 Page 14County of Santa Clara Probation Department Procedures Manual, William F. James Ranch for Boys, Rev. July 2004
-
CL14 Page 14Kansas City Star “Missouri Juvenile Justice Practices Praised, and Copied, as National Model” 5 March 2005.
-
CL15 Page 14Juvenile Justice Commission of Santa Clara County, 2003-2004 Annual Report.
-
CL16 Page 14Juvenile Justice Commission of Santa Clara County, Annual Inspection Report for the William F. James Boy’s Ranch, May/June 2004.
-
CL17 Page 14Morgan Hill Times “Escape Prompts Call for Better Security” 22 Jan. 2005
-
CL18 Page 14The Pinnacle News “Fed Up With the Boys Ranch” 21 Jan. 2005
-
CL19 Page 14San Jose Mercury News “Residents Worry about Boys Ranch Escapes” 24 Feb. 2005
-
CL20 Page 14DiIulio, John. Body Count: Moral Poverty – And How to Win America's War Against Crime and Drugs, Simon & Schuster, 1996
-
CL21Boys Republic, 2004 Annual Report, Pg. 6 14 Interviews
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office