Juveniles in Gangs in Santa Barbara County

Conclusions 26

• CL1 Page 171
  The Santa Barbara County Treasurer-Tax Collector was not included in the creation of the tax portions of the cannabis ordinance.
• CL2 Page 171
  Members of the Santa Barbara County Chief Executive Officer’s office and Santa Barbara County Planning and Development staffs unduly and without apparent Board knowledge successfully sought changes to the April 26, 2019 Cannabis Advisory from the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, an independent agency, eliminating a one mile buffer
• CL3 Page 171
  There has not been effective odor control at the boundary of cannabis cultivation and related activities, resulting in significant public outcry about odor, quality of life and health concerns.
• CL4 Page 171
  The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors does not have a written Code of Ethics to formalize its ethical standards and guide its decision making processes.
• CL5 Page 126
  Disagree partially with an explanation Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:
• CL6 Page 126
  Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken
• CL7 Page 126
  Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule
• CL8 Page 126
  Requires further analysis, with a completion date of no more than six months after the issuance of this report
• CL9 Page 126
  Will not be implemented, with an explanation of why 2.0 B1 Death in Custody April 12, 2019 Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner - 60 days Findings: 1, 2, 3, 4
• CL10 Page 153
  Develop a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry to ensure production and availability of high quality cannabis products to help meet local demands and, as a public benefit, improve the County’s tax base;
• CL11 Page 173
  Provide opportunities for legal commercial cannabis cultivation, testing, packaging, transportation, distribution, manufacturing, and retail sale in appropriate unincorporated areas of the County, consistent with state law and County regulations;
• CL12 Page 173
  Develop a new regulatory program allowing for the orderly development and oversight of commercial cannabis activities and businesses, consistent with state law and existing agricultural industry practices, standards, and regulations;
• CL13 Page 173
  Encourage commercial cannabis businesses to operate legally and secure a license to operate in full compliance with County and state regulations, maximizing the proportion of licensed activities and minimizing unlicensed activities;
• CL14 Page 173
  Provide an efficient, clear, and streamlined commercial cannabis licensing and permit process and attainable regulations and standards to facilitate participation by commercial cannabis business in the unincorporated areas of the County;
• CL15 Page 173
  Minimize adverse effects of commercial cannabis activities on the natural environmental, natural resources, and wildlife, including riparian corridors, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and water resources;
• CL16 Page 173
  Promote energy and resource efficiency in all cannabis activities, consistent with existing agricultural and any other industry practices, standards, and regulations;
• CL17 Page 173
  Establish land use requirements for commercial cannabis activities to minimize the risks associated with criminal activity, degradation of visual resources and neighborhood character, groundwater basin overdraft, noise nuisances, hazardous materials, and fire hazards;
• CL18 Page 173
  Develop a regulatory program that protects the public health, safety, and welfare through effective enforcement controls(i.e., ensuring adequate law enforcement and fire protection services) for cannabis activities in compliance with state law, to protect neighborhood character and minimize potential negative effects on people, communities, and other components of the environment; and
• CL19 Page 173
  Limit potential for adverse impacts on children and sensitive populations by ensuring compatibility of commercial cannabis activities with surrounding existing land uses, including residential neighborhoods, agricultural operations, youth facilities, recreational amenities, and educational institutions. 165 Appendix 2 Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15043, 15092, and 15093, any unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the project (as modified by incorporation of EIR mitigation measures, and development standards shown in RV 01) are acceptable due to the following environment benefits and overriding considerations: A. The project provides for a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry to ensure production and availability of high quality cannabis products to help meet local demands, and, as a public benefit, improves the County’s tax base. B. The project enhances the local economy and provides opportunities for future jobs, business development, and increased living wages. Moreover, the project promotes continued agricultural production as an integral part of the region’s economy by giving existing farmers access to the potentially profitable cannabis industry, which in turn would provide relief for those impacted by competition from foreign markets and rising costs of water supply. C. The project expands the production and availability of medical cannabis, which is known to help patients address symptoms related to glaucoma, epilepsy, arthritis, and anxiety disorders, among other illnesses. D. The project allows for the orderly development and oversight of commercial cannabis activities by applying development standards that require appropriate siting, setbacks, security, and nuisance avoidance measures, thereby protecting public health, safety, and welfare. E. The project provides a method for commercial cannabis businesses to operate legally and secure a permit and license to operate in full compliance with County and state regulations, maximizing the proportion of licensed activities and minimizing unlicensed activities. Minimization of unlicensed activities will occur for two reasons. First, the County will be providing a legal pathway for members of the industry to comply with the law. Secondly, the County will use revenue from the project to strengthen and increase code enforcement actions in an effort to remove illegal and noncompliant operations occurring in the County unincorporated areas. F. The project establishes land use requirements for commercial cannabis activities to minimize the risks associated with criminal activity, degradation of neighborhood character, groundwater basin overdraft, obnoxious odors, noise nuisances, hazardous materials, and fire hazards. G. The project minimizes the potential for adverse impacts on children and sensitive populations by imposing appropriate setbacks and ensuring compatibility of commercial cannabis activities with surrounding existing land uses, including residential neighborhoods, agricultural operations, youth facilities, recreational amenities, and educational institutions. H. The project provides opportunities for local testing labs that protect the public by ensuring that local cannabis supplies meet product safety standards established by the State of California. I. The project protects agricultural resources, natural resources, cultural resources, and scenic resources by limiting where cannabis activities can be permitted and by enacting development standards that would further avoid or minimize potential impacts to the environment. 166 167 168
• CL20 Page 143
  When there has been an increase in gang activity in the past, non-profit organizations and task forces have formed to offer needed programs. But now their function may be to support and supplement the transition from suppression to rehabilitation by Santa Barbara County Probation Officers, Sheriff’s Deputies and municipal police officers to gangs. Law enforcement officers are adapting to an uneasy legal framework created in Sacramento. Often, the Jury heard that what sounds good in legislative chambers may not always work well on the streets. There needs to be a stronger coordination among all police officers and Sheriff’s Deputies to share intelligence and information and prevent gang activities in one community from having repercussions in another. Gang units in every jurisdiction could facilitate this coordination. Law enforcement agencies are stretched thin these days. The Probation Department and the District Attorney’s Office need to assist them with expertise and strategies. Pooling of these resources would help make anti-gang efforts more effective and long-lasting on the streets. Community organizations must help sustain the efforts of law enforcement. Working together is crucial. Transformation of juveniles before they become criminal gang members is the ultimate goal, but it just might be the coordinated intelligence and watchfulness of law enforcement that allow the first steps toward that goal. 135
• CL21 Page 144
  FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 No comprehensive database exists to identify gangs and gang membership. Recommendation 1 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, the Probation Department, the District Attorney and the police departments of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Guadalupe and Lompoc pool their resources to establish a comprehensive data base that includes a gang roster across jurisdictions. Finding 2 The number of programs available to at-risk youth, including those through the Santa Barbara County Probation Department, is declining. Recommendation 2 That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to reestablish youth programs including the after-school programs. Finding 3 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department disbanded its gang unit in 2017. Recommendation 3 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff organize and fund a gang unit within the next budget cycle to address gang activity in Santa Barbara County and its contract cities. Finding 4 Students in middle schools and elementary schools are increasingly recruited into gangs. Recommendation 4 That the Santa Barbara County Superintendent of Education assist elementary and middle schools in instituting and renewing programs that dissuade students from gang membership and provide alternatives. Finding 5 A wide variety of vocational, educational and counseling programs are offered at Los Prietos Boys Camp for at-risk youth. Recommendation 5 That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors support the Santa Barbara County Probation Department in continuing the programs at Los Prietos Boys Camp and extending them into the community. 136
• CL22 Page 145
  Finding 6 Gang activities cross jurisdictional boundaries of local law enforcement agencies. Recommendation 6a That the Santa Barbara County District Attorney form a consortium including the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, the Santa Barbara County Probation Department and the Police Departments of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Lompoc and Guadalupe to hire a full-time crime analyst and share data to reduce gang crime. Recommendation 6b That the Santa Barbara County District Attorney form a consortium including the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, the Santa Barbara County Probation Department and the Police Departments of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Lompoc and Guadalupe and hire staff that would apply for grants to fund anti-gang programs. Finding 7 The Lompoc Police Department’s radio system is not secure and gang members are able to listen to police communications. Recommendation 7 That the Lompoc City Council fund a new and secure radio system for the Lompoc Police Department. REQUESTS FOR RESPONSE Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department – 60 days Findings 1, 3, 6 Recommendations 1, 3, 6a, 6b Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 5, 6, Recommendations 1, 2, 5, 6a, 6b Santa Barbara County District Attorney – 60 days Findings 1, 6 Recommendations 1, 6a, 6b Santa Barbara City Council – 90 days Findings 1, 6 Recommendations 1, 6a, 6b Santa Maria City Council – 90 days Findings 1, 6 Recommendations 1, 6a, 6b 137
• CL23 Page 146
  Lompoc City Council – 90 days Findings 1, 6, 7 Recommendations 1, 6a, 6b, 7 Guadalupe City Council – 90 days Findings 1, 6 Recommendations 1, 6a, 6b Santa Barbara County Superintendent of Education – 60 days Findings 4 Recommendations 4 138
• CL24 Page 147
  CANNABIS Publication of the 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury June 30, 2020 139
• CL25 Page 148
  CANNABIS SUMMARY The action taken by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to certify the development of a robust cannabis industry as the primary objective of the cannabis ordinances has altered the quality of life in Santa Barbara County, perhaps forever. The fulfillment of that objective dictated the actions taken by the Board from the excessive allowance of licenses and acreage, creation of an unverified affidavit system, ignoring widespread odor complaints, not acknowledging the conflict between cannabis cultivation and traditional agriculture, to rejecting the environmentally superior alternatives of limited cannabis development. Instead of a balanced approach carefully evaluating how the cannabis industry would be compatible, both as to amount of acreage and location, the Board simply opened the floodgates. These ordinances must be amended. INTRODUCTION The 2019-20 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) received several requests for investigation of the actions of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors (Board) surrounding the creation and passage of the Ordinance 5026, adding Chapter 50A of the Santa Barbara County Code; Ordinance 5027, amending Chapter 35-1 of the Santa Barbara County Code, the Santa Barbara County Land Use and Development Code (LUDC); Ordinance 5028, amending Article II, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance of Santa Barbara County (CZO); and creation and passage of Ordinance No. 5037, adding Chapter 50 of the Santa Barbara County Code, Licensing of Commercial Cannabis Operations (License), and related impacts. The Jury, comprised of professional people, including attorneys and CPAs, former law enforcement, business owners, government officials, and educators, spent countless hours reviewing documents, reviewing Board and Santa Barbara County Planning Commission hearings and interviewing numerous witnesses including the five members of the Board. The rules of the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury do not permit the naming of individuals within a report. The intent of the investigation, initially undertaken pursuant to California Penal Code Section 919(c), was to examine the process of the creation and passage of the ordinances and resulting issues. The Jury does not express an opinion on the legalization of cannabis. This investigation by the Jury was hindered by the denial of its request for subpoenas to be issued to non-government witnesses who might have been helpful to the inquiry. The investigation was further hindered by a two month delay in the final production of requested documents from the County of Santa Barbara that was purported to be responsive and complete. During the investigation, the Jury learned that all documents requested have not been provided. The California Supreme Court has stated, “In California, unlike some other American jurisdictions, the grand jury’s role as a vigilant ‘watchdog’ over the operations of a variety of 140
• CL26 Page 149
  local government activities has a long and well respected heritage.”97 The Grand Jury is aware that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors initiated a process in July, 2019 to review and possibly amend the cannabis related ordinances. The insights and recommendations provided by the Jury in this report should be of great assistance in creating a legal cannabis framework going forward that will best serve the interests of the residents, local businesses and the agricultural industry of Santa Barbara County.

Observations 22

• OB1 Page 150
  Ad Hoc Committee - The use of an Ad Hoc Sub Committee that was not open to the public and not subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act).98 98 The Ralph M. Brown Act, codified as California Government Code 54950 et seq. 142
• OB2 Page 151
  Robust Cannabis Industry - The approval of the primary objective of the Cannabis Ordinance Project to be the development of a robust and economically viable legal cannabis industry.
• OB3 Page 151
  Access Granted To the Cannabis Industry - The granting, by the Board, of nearly unfettered access to cannabis growers and cannabis industry representatives during the creation of the ordinances.
• OB4 Page 151
  Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts.
• OB5 Page 151
  Rejection by the Board of Environmentally Superior Alternatives - The rejection of Project Alternatives including the Environmentally Superior Alternative of Reduced Registrants. 6. “Skunky” Smell - The allowance of unpermitted operators to continue to operate with no effective odor control in place.
• OB6 Page 151
  Impact on Agriculture - The failure to consider the impacts of cannabis cultivation on traditional agriculture knowing the State of California requirement of testing for pesticides on cannabis.
• OB7 Page 151
  Legal Non-Conforming Status.
• OB8 Page 151
  Affidavit System - The employment of an unverified affidavit system to qualify growers as legal non-conforming and the failure to determine the scope of the claimed qualifying use.
• OB9 Page 151
  Taxation - Santa Barbara County was one of only a few counties within the State that did not tax cannabis cultivation on a square footage basis. In addition, the Santa Barbara County Treasurer-Tax Collector, an elected position, was excluded from the creation of the tax portion of the License ordinance. Also, the allowance for cannabis acreage far exceeded the demand in California.
• OB10 Page 151
  Statement of Overriding Considerations.
• OB11 Page 151
  The Interference with the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District - The Santa Barbara County Chief Executive Office’s (CEO) staff and P&D staff interceded and revised the Cannabis Air Quality Advisory issued by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), an independent agency.
• OB12 Page 151
  Ethics - The acceptance of campaign contributions by Board members at or near the time the donor had a matter pending a decision before the Board. Ad Hoc Committee On February 14, 2017, the Board voted to establish an Ad Hoc Sub Committee (Ad Hoc) consisting of two Supervisors. The stated purpose was to review and create regulations for adult use and cannabis cultivation in the County.99 The Ad Hoc was created as a body not subject to the Brown Act and not open to the public. The Board decision not to have open meetings on the ordinances created issues. One issue was the lack of transparency that inevitably results when the public is excluded from the process, especially on such a controversial matter as cannabis. In contrast, the 2015 Board, which 99 February 14, 2017 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting “Board Letter” santabarbara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2957248&GUID=605FD80A-4670-40ED-B1DD- EDBDB3C7A65D&Options=&Search= 143 included some current Board members, voted to create an Ad Hoc Sub Committee, subject to the Brown Act and open to the public, to engage in discussions with the Santa Ynez Valley Band of Chumash Indians regarding similarly controversial land use issues. Of concern to the Jury was the fact that agendas were not prepared and minutes were not taken for the Ad Hoc meetings. The Jury learned that notes and minutes were not prepared in order to avoid any Public Records Act Requests for such documents. The lack of a paper trail does not fit with the concept of open government which seeks input from all interests. This unchecked process led to an imbalanced perspective. A major issue according to witnesses interviewed by the Jury was that the process created by the use of the Ad Hoc resulted in a top down decision making process. The normal process provides for multiple public meetings held by the P&D staff with community input. The normal process allows for exploration of potential impacts to the various parts of the County prior to Board involvement. The Ad Hoc inserted the Board at the beginning of the process and not at the conclusion after community input. A recent example of the normal process would be the proposed amendment of the LUDC to adopt new development standards, permit requirements and procedures regarding winery developments. The Board directed P&D staff to update the then current winery regulations as part of the 2011/2012 Long Range Planning Annual Work Program.100 As the November 1, 2016 Board letter recounts, the staff conducted extensive stakeholder engagement and public outreach to gather information and discuss winery ordinance issues that should be addressed in the ordinance update. The public outreach included eighteen separate group meetings with wine industry and agricultural groups, neighborhood groups and non-profit organizations. In addition, there were five public meetings, beginning in August 2012 continuing through February 2013, which discussed among other topics, neighborhood compatibility and wine ordinance structures, permitting, monitoring and enforcement. In March 2014, based on the community input received during the public outreach process, the P&D staff prepared draft ordinance language for public review. In June of 2014, the staff revised and finalized the draft ordinance. There were hearings before the Planning Commission that occurred in August and September of
• OB13 Page 134
  Are gang members street terrorists or are they youth needing treatment and services? These representations do not signify two different camps in our legal and social systems, but rather two varying degrees of adaptation to recent state laws in both Probation and law enforcement. Probation With the new laws on the books, Probation is at the center of formulating a developmental approach for youth crime. In fact, the leadership at Santa Barbara County Probation has declared that they no longer deal with gangs; they instead deal with high risk youth. Young offenders are no longer detained as long or not at all. They are returned to the community for treatment and wraparound services. These community supportive services are needed to address the trauma that 85 Mike Males as quoted in Evan Sernoffsky and Joaquin Palomino, op. cit. 126
• OB14 Page 135
  these youth face on several fronts: poverty, educational deficits, substance abuse, family neglect, isolation, and mental health problems. Santa Barbara County has two juvenile detention centers, the Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center (Hall) and Los Prietos Boys Camp (Camp). Both are run by the Probation Department. The Probation Department has devised a new assessment tool that is used for booking. Gang membership is no longer an item checked in the assessment upon entry. The CalGangs ID System was discontinued as advocacy groups and law enforcement were concerned about wrongly identifying a youth as a gang member, and thus negatively impacting their life and future. When juveniles are brought to the Hall or the Camp, they are instead assessed for a host of social, mental, educational and environmental factors that indicate whether they are at low or high risk of recidivism if returned to their community. Moreover, Santa Barbara County youth are admitted to the Hall only if they are a danger to themselves or to society. However, to be housed in either facility, the juveniles, or wards of the court, need to be checked for gang affiliation for their own safety, especially for room assignments at the Hall. Staff must now rely on the youths’ self-affirmation or on previously known data before placing that young person in detention. Then, the Camp can learn of gang affiliation from the Hall, but they also have to rely on personal familiarity with the local gangs. At the time of the Jury’s visit, it was estimated that 33 percent of those in the Hall are active members in a gang and 60-70 percent of the youth in detention have a gang affiliation. At the Camp, officers estimated about 50 percent of the wards are gang members and up to 75 percent have some gang affiliation. As recently as 2016, many of those in the Hall and the Camp were there for probation violation. Santa Barbara County had the highest rate of these cases in the State, a fact that alerted Probation to the need for change. Minor violations of probation no longer result in arrest or detention, and Probation compliance sweeps, formerly thought effective, are no longer held. For example, socializing with gang members is no longer considered a violation of probation. A Probation Officer told the Jury that they do not want to criminalize a youth for living in a gang neighborhood. While it is true that a gang label can stigmatize a young person, Probation staff need to know any affiliation to keep the youth safe from attacks or bullying at either the Hall or the Camp. The juvenile detention staff work hard to get gang members from the different gangs to trust each other. The wards will be in the units together, and the Probation Officers will be attentive to any tension or threats between the various gang affiliates or members. At the Camp, where sleeping is in an open dormitory, the gang members are co-mingled in bed assignments. However, separating gangs in the dormitory can actually be more problematic as they can then form power groups and threaten the other groups. As staff recognize, the saying is, “Inside, go along to get along.” Yet fights do occur. A Probation Officer at the Camp estimated one or two incidents monthly. Gang members can co- exist at this time, even forming friendships. But when they return to their communities, old identities return and gang rivalries take precedence. The détente provided by the Camp is short- lived. In fact, the week before the Jury’s visit, a youth just released from Los Prietos was killed by gunshot in a gang confrontation in Lompoc and the Jury was told by many of the wards at the Camp that they felt the loss. The reality of reforms in the laws applying to juveniles is that far fewer are detained. When they are taken to the Hall, if they are taken at all, they are often released to their parents or just let go. The effect is that only the more serious offenders are now in the Hall: 83.3 percent youth 127
• OB15 Page 136
  detained for a felony versus 15.2 percent for a misdemeanor.86 By contrast, in 2016 the percentages were reversed: 38.4 percent were detained for a felony and 63.0 percent for a misdemeanor. Experience has shown that mixing low-risk and high-risk juveniles can result in deterioration of character in those young people who have not yet turned criminal. Probation Officers told the Jury that the reverse does not happen; the more hardened youth do not rehabilitate because of the presence of milder offenders. Both the lower numbers of juveniles detained, and the higher concentration of more hardened juveniles have restricted the numbers of those being transferred to the low security Los Prietos Boys Camp. As a result, many boys who would thrive at the Camp are not placed there. At the Camp, the wards learn both vocational and social skills and they recapture educational credits. The one-on-one attention they receive in class encourages learning. The Jury heard from both the staff and the wards themselves how the juveniles begin to change at the Camp. Some even do not want to return home to face the pressures and divisiveness of their community. The Jury has been told several times that the boys will self-sabotage by breaking rules or committing infractions to stay longer. The Jury also learned that the juvenile court judge at times cannot send the juveniles to Camp long enough to fully benefit from the programs that it offers. The Jury learned that because so few wards are now at the Camp, its closure is being considered. This is an unfortunate unintended consequence of the new laws. Furthermore, closing either the Hall or the Camp would cause some of the wards to be sent out of the County. Being away from their family and community would impair the wraparound rehabilitative services that Probation now states are the foundation of their juvenile programs. The new cornerstones of juvenile justice and probation are programming and services. Diversion to programs, it is hoped, will keep young offenders in school, in community programs and out of a jail cell. The local Probation Department (Department) has always had contracts with community programs, and now it is building more pathways to treatment, as services are integral to its rehabilitation and intervention mission. The Department has invested in new staff to research and assess “trauma-informed, evidenced-based programs,” from a variety of sources, according to their materials. New staff are performing thorough research to find programs that are cost-effective and result-oriented. California Probation is committed to the diversion and treatment for youth and has proposed the Elevate Justice Act of 2020, which would keep youths 18 and 19 in their system.87 In this effort, some long-standing contracts have been retained with the Family Service Agency, the Community Action Commission and the Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. These agencies have participated in Moral Reconation Therapy88 for substance abuse and El Joven Noble or Los Compadres programs for character development. In the past, these programs have been successful. However, other programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) and Understanding the Juvenile Justice System, which were claimed to be effective in informing 86 Santa Barbara County Probation Department handout, “Memorandum 2019 Juvenile Detention Profile,” October 14, 2019. 87 “ICYMI: Probation Chiefs Announce New Proposal that Elevates and Evolves Juvenile Justice,” Chief Probation Officers of California, Accessed May 20, 2020, https://www.cpoc.org/post/icymi-probation-chiefs-announce-new- proposal-elevates-and-evolves-juvenile-justice 88 Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) uses moral reasoning to decrease substance abuse and recidivism. It uses a cognitive-behavioral approach to address ego, social, moral and positive behavioral growth. (Santa Barbara County 2019 Comprehensive Multi-agency Juvenile Justice Plan) 128
• OB16 Page 137
  wayward youth of the consequences of their actions, have largely been discontinued.89 Several probation workers and non-profit leaders have told the Jury that there are no known successful programs that work specifically for gang intervention. However, there are two possibilities that are not used in Santa Barbara County: The Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program is a gang, delinquency and bullying prevention program provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to middle and elementary school students. The highly successful quasi-military Grizzly Academy in San Luis Obispo also confronts the consequences of gang activity. Such an academy could be instituted at Los Prietos Boys Camp for those who have completed high school. The new programs focus more on prevention and intervention than suppression. The Jury was told that youth make the decision to get out of a gang or go deeper around the age of 18 or 19, so diversion programs are essential, and these would include skill-building and family therapy. Youth need a wide variety of programs from sports to technology to keep their interest. Many youth advocates told the Jury that job coaching would be especially appropriate for youth in high school. But there is a shortage of job coaches, as well as basic vocational classes in the County schools. However, new protocols for services were not set for implementation until later in 2020, meaning there have been delays in having programs immediately accessible to the juveniles. According to one Probation Officer, contracts with many service providers are in the making, but the programs themselves are still “just a thought.” Moreover, participation in Probation programs is voluntary in the sense that transportation, family involvement or a financial charge may preclude attendance. These factors will certainly be ironed out as the year progresses. Juveniles continue to be assigned to Probation. Deputy Probation Officers and Juvenile Institution Officers monitor youth up to the age of 18. In recent years, there has been a steady decline in the number of Probation Officers working with juveniles, and the officers have less interaction with them. High-risk youth will be seen twice a week by Probation Officers with a small caseload; low and medium-risk youth will be part of a larger caseload and seen less often. Probation Officers can go to the homes but in practice do not usually go inside. In some cases, this means the youth will not be supervised as closely. Some law officers state that this allows the youth to misbehave more often. Additionally, there are no daily report centers for juveniles now, as there are for adults on probation. In 2016, the once successful after-school programs at the Alternative Report & Resource Centers were eliminated because of lower numbers of youth and reduced funding. The Jury was told that when juveniles stay in a gang and move up the ranks, they are assigned the harder tasks, even murders. At age 18 they become the responsibility of adult Probation Officers. Probation for adults focuses more on compliance with the law rather than rehabilitation, but there are many services still available to them. Because of the reforms in the approach to juvenile crime, some frustrated officers were reported to be leaving the department. Probation has formulated an additional training program for the officers which has 20 hours of sessions on interpersonal relations. Rather than confronting youth about their mistakes, officers learn how to talk to them and gain their trust. One Probation Officer remarked that such a shift in attitude should require at least 60 hours of training, rather than 20 hours. Nonetheless, this shift in approach has taken place. 89 The DARE program is still active in Santa Maria. 129
• OB17 Page 138
  Law Enforcement Those in law enforcement are watching the shift in juvenile justice more warily. For police officers and Sheriff’s deputies, changes in detention and incarceration have taken away some of their bargaining tools for cooperation with and information from gang members. As a result, they see the communities’ safety deteriorating. The Sheriff’s Department admitted that there could be under-reporting of crimes. The Jury learned from law enforcement that arrests are down, but that does not necessarily mean that crime is down: “The kids haven’t changed. The laws have.” One officer said that Proposition 47 has made things harder for them by reclassifying some felonies as misdemeanors, which may not lead to an arrest. This is especially worrisome for those in law enforcement who work with juveniles because the younger ones are learning that there are few consequences to crime. If juveniles are not held accountable, police officers told the Jury, petty crimes may develop into more serious crimes such as murders and drug or human trafficking. The Jury was told by police officers that older gang members are pushing juveniles to commit crimes knowing that there would be few or no consequences for the juveniles. The current trend in treatment that focuses on rehabilitation, they say, misses the mark without accountability. The juveniles who might be picked up for a legal offense are returned to their community and family more often than they used to be, when detention had been a favored form of prevention and punishment. Currently, law enforcement officers say these youth are back on the street the same day to potentially commit additional violations. Police officers in one department told of a 12-year old who committed a robbery but was not detained because of his age. Soon after, the released juvenile assaulted someone with a metal pipe. It is not unusual for some juveniles to gather after school and look for trouble, especially on Fridays. Vandalism, graffiti, and beatings can happen; car thefts and joy rides also occur. When nothing happens after such incidents, either from not enough officers on the streets or from reduced legal consequences, youth learn that they can commit crimes with impunity. The Jury heard that some younger gang members are even creating trouble in ways the elder ones do not approve. If the main gang activity is to make money by selling drugs, guns or sex trafficking, drawing unwanted attention to the gang interferes with those enterprises. Police gang units are being eliminated. The two police departments that continue to have gang units, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria, are often credited with “keeping a lid on it,” a phrase heard a number of times by the Jury. As one officer said, “You can’t stop gang crime, but you can stay on top of them.” One member of a gang unit told the Jury that local gangs know that the unit now works only four days a week, so they plan incidents during the other three days. The City of Santa Barbara Police Department has three officers in a gang unit and one sergeant; there used to be eight members. Santa Maria Police Department used to have a unit that focused on gangs; now it is a Special Enforcement Unit that can be called to work on narcotics or any other emergency. Gangs have long been a problem associated with narcotics. Santa Maria used to have five dedicated gang detectives working with five narcotics officers. Now there are only a total of five. Lompoc Police Department used to have four officers in a gang unit and three in a narcotics team. Now they have one officer assigned to gangs, narcotics, and intelligence. All other officers are needed for street patrol. A gang unit does more than arrest gang members. Their interfacing with gang members on the streets often results in good intelligence. The gang units cultivate informants in the community. 130
• OB18 Page 139
  That way, police can then be proactive and stop incidents before they happen. To do this, they must be present on the streets and they must gain the trust of some gang members and others in the community so that they can stay informed of potential problems. This information is sent through the police department so that detectives can begin investigations. A major loss in gang control has been the elimination of a gang unit in the Sheriff’s Department. The unit became a victim of budget cuts beginning in 2008, ending with its elimination in 2017. The Sheriff’s Department does not cover the cities that have their own police departments, but the Sheriff Deputies do patrol all the other regions that interface with those cities. The Sheriff’s greater resources and manpower assist the other police departments as requested. This assistance would be especially helpful for gang activity in Goleta or Carpinteria near Santa Barbara, and in Orcutt near Santa Maria. Previously, there were more gang sweeps and targeted operations to take out the leadership of certain gangs. The Jury was told by several officers that picking off the leadership of gangs can quell violence for a time. The Sheriff still participates in gang sweeps and other large-scale joint efforts. For example, in January 2020, the Sheriff’s Department was central to a three-county sex trafficking raid, the sixth annual Operation Reclaim and Rebuild enforcement operation.90 Mostly, local law enforcement feels the absence of central gang intelligence from the Sheriff’s Department. Prosecutors in the District Attorney’s Office have also noted the loss of participation of the Sheriff’s Department in gang intelligence. In order to secure convictions with gang enhancement, prosecutors depend on lengthy and detailed records. If no department has the workforce dedicated to building gang cases, they cannot go to court with evidence of a gang crime. The person being tried will then stay in the local jail with a shorter sentence at the county’s cost, rather than a longer sentence in a state prison. This might not seem to be an active problem in Santa Barbara County, but when gangsters know there is no gang prosecution, the County can find itself susceptible to true criminal gang activity. This occurred when the MS-13 gang moved into Santa Maria and again when gang members from Los Angeles came to Montecito after the 2018 mudslide. If Santa Barbara County appears weak in gang suppression and prosecution, the Jury was told, it is inviting virulent gang activity to come here. The absence of a gang roster or gang member identification for both juveniles and adults also hampers the information that law enforcement needs. Only the Lompoc Police Department gave the Jury an estimate of 600 gang members and associates in the City; other law enforcement officers said they could not guess current numbers. Even the Sheriff’s Department gave an “anecdotal number of thousands” in the County. This impairs the ability to know who is affiliated with a gang, who is hanging out with whom, and who is rising in the ranks of the gang organization. The State’s CalGang System that identified all known gang members on a database has been curtailed. There used to be a regional gang sheet with names, monikers, dates of birth, photos and other information. The Jury heard that law officers will call each other to try to identify new and old players in the field. To stay ahead of gang activity, officers need to have such information readily available. Known gang members are required to register with law enforcement if they have more than a misdemeanor. This does not appear to happen in the 90 “Detectives Participate in Statewide Human Trafficking Enforcement Operation.” Edhat, February 7, 2020, Accessed February 7, 2020. 131
• OB19 Page 140
  County, according to one prosecutor. As gang members have affiliations with other cities in the area, it would be especially helpful to law officers in different parts of the County so that the officers are not operating blindly. When no one is tracking gang crimes or the number of gun seizures, no gang enhancements can be added to court prosecution. Recently, Lompoc has seen an explosion of gang violence. The lack of a gang unit and the low numbers of police officers have weakened its police force. There are police on the streets, but coverage is restricted. It must be noted that the changes in the laws have also hampered police suppression. The gangs in Lompoc now routinely use guns, but firing a gun at an uninhabited building or empty vehicle is no longer an arrestable felony offense. In March of 2020, a gunshot did no harm, but it did lead to the temporary arrest of eight people, including four 15-year olds. In March 2019, a random gunshot killed a young girl. Gang members in Lompoc know that the police force cannot cover all its streets, and the police force is not as prepared as it could be because of the dissolution of its gang unit. Worse, the Lompoc Police Department’s radio system is so out-of-date that gang members can listen in on the calls the police officers make to one another. Crimes are becoming more serious and more violent. Regular gang violence has also recently increased in Santa Maria, and to a lesser degree in Santa Barbara. There have been more frequent incidents and some arrests. Law enforcement officers have stated that what is notable about the arrests are that they are now finding pounds, not ounces of drugs such as meth, heroin and cocaine. The recent three-county sex-trafficking raid resulted in the arrest of three pimps and 14 solicitors in this area. Sometimes those detained are minors. More and more juveniles are used for the “dirty work” crime activity because they are treated more leniently in the justice system than any older gang member would be. The Jury was told that a countywide gang task force could enhance control over the ever- changing and developing gang activity. Since gangs don’t respect jurisdictions, the task force would be multi-jurisdictional. At this time, police departments, the Sheriff’s Department, the District Attorney and Probation meet monthly to share intelligence. Most School Resource Officers (SRO) meet with Probation once a month. These gatherings need more resources, such as a database and a crime analyst. A regional database could help coordinate the mutual aid that Santa Barbara County agencies need. This could include a mutual communication system that promptly taps into gang information and calls for assistance. Together, the agencies could invest in a crime lab and staff to do the paperwork for tracking gang crime. The additional staff could also apply for more grants. A recent California Violence Reduction, Intervention and Prevention (Cal-VRIP) grant proposal for North County was not approved. This meant the City of Lompoc did not receive the needed $150,000 for an action plan to reduce gang violence, and the South Coast Youth Task Force did not receive $283,333 for three years after that to build a countywide youth violence reduction strategy. The Lompoc Police Department’s limited resources did not allow them to collaborate in the application for this grant. A regional task force could become a major player in setting up what is needed for other grant applications to the state for gang impacted youth. The District Attorney’s Office covers the entire county and has active gang units. This office may be the appropriate agency to lead a county consortium for sharing gang information. Community At-risk youth and juvenile gang members are no different than other young people. They struggle in school and they want to have fun. Most of the students in school blend in together, 132
• OB20 Page 141
  with little differentiation for gang members. School dress codes may mention gang attire, but in the County there does not seem to be a consistent school policy against it. Being a gang member is not a criterion for expulsion. The California Education Code has changed regulations for suspensions and expulsions to keep students in school. Effective July 1, 2020, California public schools will no longer be able to suspend students in elementary and middle school for disturbing school activities or willfully defying school authority.91 High schools in the county now have SROs, some paid by the local police departments, some paid by the local school districts. The SROs that the Jury talked to said they treat all kids the same without racial or gang profiling. The SROs help the campuses with any extraordinary incidents, such as assaults, unauthorized people on campus, serious defiance, or vaping and drug citations. In fact, it was pointed out that schools are one place where students will see consequences for their actions: drugs on campus will bring a suspension. Parents also have civil and penal liability for the unlawful actions of their children.92 Depending on the officer, SROs can also offer a bridge to security. While it is rare that a student would seek out a police officer to tell them something in confidence, the Jury did hear that students often ask for information, especially after trouble in the area. Violence and gang incidents on school campus are rare. Most fights occur after school and on the streets. SROs, with their knowledge of who hangs out with whom, can monitor the areas where fights will occur and help to defuse situations. Also, they can provide leads and information to investigators and even parents, which is why some students do not trust them. Schools no longer have programs that speak to violence or gangs. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program (DARE) was eliminated in South County years ago although it is still operating in Santa Maria. Some cities still have the police-sponsored Police Activities League (PAL) programs. Overall, schools now depend on small group therapy and counseling to reach students in trouble, or they make referrals to other community resources. Family Service Agency, Fighting Back, Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (CADA), and more recently AHA!93 provide programs off campus and sometimes counselors on campus. Some of those community programs charge a fee. Drug and alcohol counseling is provided on most campuses. There is one group, Por Vida, in the Santa Maria Schools that addresses gang violence and cultural matters such as racism and ostracism. The average percentage of students who feel safe or very safe on campus varies according to region and grade level, as seen in the 2018-2019 California School Climate, Health, and Learning Survey (CalSCHLS).94 91 AB 420 amended California Education Code section 48900(k) by eliminating the authority to suspend a student out of school or in-school in kindergarten through third grade for “disruption” and “willful defiance.” Further, under AB 420 no student in kindergarten through grade 12 can be expelled for “disruption” and “willful defiance.” AB 420 came into effect on January 1, 2015. SB 419, which comes into effect July 1, 2020, extends the permanent prohibition of suspension to grades 4 and 5 and temporary prohibition until July 1, 2025 for grades 6 through 8. 92 California Penal Code Section 272. This section makes it a misdemeanor to act or fail to act in a way that causes a minor (under 18 years of age) to become a juvenile delinquent, a habitual truant, a dependent, or a ward of the juvenile court system. 93 AHA! stands for Healthy Attitudes, Emotional Harmony and Lifelong Achievement for Teens, Santa Barbara. 94 “School Safety, Secondary Students.” Calschls.org. Last visited 18 April 2020. 133
• OB21 Page 142
  Percentage of Students Who Feel Safe or Very Safe on Campus 7th grade 9th grade 11th grade Alternative Schools Santa Barbara Secondary Schools 72% 59% 62% 66% Santa Maria Secondary Schools 66% 60% 47% 69% Lompoc Secondary Schools 53% 43% 66% However, an official in the Santa Barbara Unified School District recently reported that the threat of violence at school is increasing. Since 2016, there has been a 41 percent rise in weapons-related offenses, a 32 percent rise in bullying and harassment, and more gang-related incidents in the community leading to confrontations at school. This heightened violence at school might be a harbinger of the cycle of gang violence in the community returning. A Santa Barbara school board member stated that “kids aren’t safe and don’t feel safe” and this is “a serious emergency for our district.”95 The board member noted that the numbers of offenses have gone down statewide but they are going up here. Criminal justice personnel, educators, administrators, non-governmental organizations, youth mentors and former gang members describe lack of school credits, education failure and reading failure as common concerns for at-risk youth in society. Many of the youth at the two juvenile detention centers in the County need to recover school credits either from many absences or from poor performance, often due to poor reading ability. At these centers they receive focused attention on reading skills. The County’s alternative schools offer similar one-on-one teaching as at the detention centers, helping students advance toward graduation. Research reveals reading failure is likely a cause for the frustration which can result in delinquent behavior.96 When asked, those working with juveniles have said that a low IQ is not a factor. But they have slipped through the gaps in educational instruction. For the students who do not feel connected to school, vocational education is often mentioned as an antidote. The job training at Los Prietos Boys Camp is credited with keeping the wards engaged and giving them more of a sense of self-worth. In general, programs that include job skills or even job internships are said to be what youth most want in their teen years. The leadership in Santa Maria understands this and is preparing to build a technical high school. The community will be asked to develop internships. Schools in Santa Barbara also have technical skills classes as well as technological programs. A shift in education that honors these career paths also honors the students who benefit from them. The Jury was told that students would like schools to be open longer. Bringing services as well as different classes to schools could help students in many areas. Mental wellness has become a constant concern in public schools nowadays. The off-campus treatment and counseling programs where schools now refer students could send their counselors to campus, making treatment more accessible and rewarding. Group treatment, such as the therapy groups at Los Prietos, could easily be held at school. One principal told the Jury there is less stigma in talking about problems in groups. Program counselors do come to some campuses in South County, and Santa Maria School District has asked Fighting Back to initiate counseling year-round at its schools. Programs do not have to deal only with substance abuse; counselors at Fighting Back said that students have begun looking to them for conflict resolution and other restorative 95 Delaney Smith. “S.B. Schools Getting Less Safe?” Santa Barbara Independent. March 12, 2020, https://www.independent.com/2020/03/11/are-santa-barbara-schools-getting-unsafer/ 96 Michael S. Brunner, Retarding America: The Imprisonment of Potential. Halcyon House, 1993. 134
• OB22 Page 143
  practices. With the practice of treating all kids as important individuals, counselors at schools could do a world of good to gang associates and wannabes who don’t feel part of the school community. Outside schools, non-profit organizations provide programs to nurture young people and promote new interests. Some of these organizations no longer exist. The South Coast Task Force for Youth Safety has been operative since 2009 and has fostered collaboration among civic, education and non-profit agencies to improve communication and coordination with services for at-risk youth. Groups such as Los Compadres and El Joven Noble work with youth violence issues and provide mentors. The need for more mentors is constant, both in North and South County. One innovation at Los Prietos Boys Camp is an effort to train a 16-year old youth to mentor a 14-year old; there has been some promise with this as a way to fill a void. It was suggested to the Jury that North County is not as developed in coordinated services as South County. The 2017 Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety in Santa Maria has not gained traction in the parts of the community where it is needed. However, the need for these services in North County is immediate. The Jury heard from a variety of sources that the non-profit community is better suited to lead the work of programming for at-risk and gang-affected youth because civic leaders have too many other responsibilities.

No Responses Found 1

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