Can an Electronic Monitoring Program for Pre-Trial Detainees Help to Reduce Jail Overcrowding?

The San Mateo County men’s jail has been overcrowded each year since 2001. Over the last ten years, incarcerated populations have ranged from 120% of bed-rated capacity in 2002 to 147% in 2007.21 2. From 2002 through 2007, 50 percent of the average daily population of the San Mateo County men’s jail facility consisted of pre-trial detainees (PTDs); since 2007, the pre- trial detainee (PTD) average daily population percentage has steadily increased to 76 percent in 2011.

San Mateo County has zero (0) pre-trial detainees on an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) and nine (9) pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees on an EMP.

The Grand Jury found that significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day is available if selected pre-trial detainees are released into an EMP.

Currently, there is a risk assessment tool in use to determine eligibility for EMP with pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees. This risk assessment tool is not used with pre-trial detainees. Sheriff’s Office Information: San Mateo County Sentenced vs. Pretrial in Custody Inmate Population Percentage. 8 6. Based on the U.S. Department of Justice adult male arrest data provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, the violent crime index in the county has remained relatively stable from 2001-2009.

According to information gathered from interviews conducted by the Grand Jury, the reasons for the increase in the pre-trial detainee male jail population (compared to pre- sentenced/sentenced detainees) in recent years are due to two main factors: • The types of charges that detainees increasingly face (immigration holds, gang affiliation, violent crimes, sex crimes, DUIs, outstanding warrants) are offenses that eliminate eligibility for any form of release. • To comply with the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), in 2008 the Sheriff’s Office changed its classification system for parole holds and others with pending cases or warrants from sentenced to pre-trial. This increased the pre-trial detainee population by 10-15%.22 8. The statistics reported by the U.S. Department of Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics (see, Appendix B) from data provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office do not support the first factor listed in Finding #7.23 9. The Sheriff’s Office and the Probation Department have not budgeted for studying or implementing an EMP for pre-trial detainees.

How many PTDs are currently in your EMP? ________ How many total convicts (tried and sentenced) are in your EMP? ________ 9. Do you have active, budgeted plans to expand EMP? ________ for only PDTs? ________ 10. [OPTIONAL] Please provide any comments regarding other aspects of expanded utilization of EMP for PTDs, such as: • beneficial results re recidivism, re-entry, family, restitution opportunities, medical cost savings etc • opportunity to substantially reduce prison overcrowding • legal liability exposure or control restrictions, when releasing PTDs into EMP • citizens' safety concerns • added infra-structure and support costs, need for staff training/organization • other Thank you for taking the time to answer this survey. NONE OF YOUR RESPONSES WILL BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU OR YOUR SPECIFIC COUNTY. If you wish to receive a copy of our final published report, please note on your returned responses and we will forward a copy to you. Appendix D: Adjacent Counties Use of EMPs for PTDs Alameda County: The Pretrial Services Division24 at the Superior Court provides verified information for recently arrested defendants to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. The judge or commissioner uses the information to determine a defendant's eligibility to be released from jail on his or her own recognizance - without posting bail. The Division interviews defendants and conducts an investigation into each defendant's ties to the community, potential danger to the community, reliability for attending court dates, and prepares a written report for each defendant interviewed. Currently there is not an EMP for PTDs in place for PTDs. Sacramento County: The Pretrial Services Unit is a part of the Criminal Law Division. The main responsibility of Pretrial Services is to interview defendants arrested on felony charges. Interviews are scored based on residency, length of time in the greater Sacramento area, employment and criminal history. The Pretrial Services provides the magistrate (judge on call) with the information; the magistrate determines whether the defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance.25 This unit operates seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. PTDs would be eligible for EMP should the court decide to place them on a Supervised O.R. When the EMP starts in May 2012, the court will determine who (out of the jail population) will be allowed to be released on Supervised O.R. The court’s determination will be made during arraignment and not on the day of arrest. This was to alleviate the challenges of individuals who might be released on Supervised O.R. and the DA then decides to not file/drop the charges soon there after. As of April 2012, the number of eligible PTDs for supervised OR is approximately between 7 to18 daily.26 Santa Clara County:27 Office of Pretrial Services (OPS) is a stand-alone county department that only handles pretrial matters. It is not part of Probation. It provides supervision using electronic monitoring for defendants with Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) as a condition of release from a judge’s order. The Court refers the defendants to Pretrial Services for EMP consideration. The defendants are screened so that certain technical requirements are met to ensure the proper use of the electronic equipment. A risk assessment is also conducted and a report with a release recommendation is generated for the Court. Generally, the judges will consider the use of alcohol monitors for PTDs for DUI matters if the individuals have the ability to pay a private provider. Probation does not have the exact number of those PTDs on alcohol monitors. However, as of early April, the OPS supervised five PTDs who were assigned to a private vendor’s alcohol monitoring device. 24 http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/Pages.aspx/Pretrial-Services-Division 25 http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/virtual-courthouse/jail/pretrial.aspx 26 Per email from Sacramento Sheriff’s office 27http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/scc/chlevel3?path=%2Fv7%2FSCC%20Public%20Portal%2FLaw%20and%20Justice%2FPr e trial%20Services%2FSpecial%20Programs 15 Santa Cruz County: Pretrial Services is part of Probation Department. As of April 2012, the male jail population contained approximately 54% pre-trial detainees. There were 25 detainees on EMP; 25 detainees were on Supervised OR. With the exception of ICE holds and parole holds, everyone is assessed with the Virginia Assessment tool28. Additionally, Santa Cruz is a member of the California Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS)29 and adheres its standards and recommendations that set out the core values underlying the basic operation of pretrial service programs. Santa Cruz does not charge the PTDs for EMP because Santa Cruz owns the ankle bracelets. The Pretrial Service Unit recommends five types of release: 1) pre-arraignment release; 2) own-recognizance Release (OR); 3) supervised release, including home and work visits and drug/alcohol testing; 4) intensive supervised release with an electronic monitor and/or an alcohol monitor; and 5) post sentence electronic monitoring.30 In 2003 the Civil Grand Jury reported on the overcrowding of the Santa Cruz jail. In response to the GJ report, the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s office enlisted the services of the Vera Institute of Justice to analyze the office’s strengths and relative weaknesses in terms of jail overcrowding. After a lengthy study, the Vera Institute made several recommendations, which have subsequently been institutionalized by the department. For example, the department joined California Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS) and adopted its standards as well as agreed to use the Virginia Risk Assessment instrument for pre-trial detainees. Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI) Instruction Manual 29 California Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS- Standards and Procedures for Pretrial Service Programs 30 Santa Cruz County Probation Department Jail Alternatives: Summary and impact of programs 2005-2010 16 Appendix E: GeneralReferences - Suggested Reading 1. California Association of Pretrial Services: Release Standards and Recommended Procedures. Website: pretrialservicesca.org 2. Cook County, IL. Grant for up to $1 Million for Sheriff’s EMP Website: http://blog.cookcountygov.com/2011/10/06/pres-preckwinkle-announces-up-to-1- million-for-sheriff%E2%80%99s-electronic-monitoring-program/ 3. Pretrial Justice Institute Website: http://www.pretrial.org/Pages/Default.aspx 4. ProTrac Development Inc.: Monitoring Probation Devices Website: http://www.protracdev.com/ 5. Santa Cruz County “Jail Alternatives” 2010 Website: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CGAQFjA B&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us%2Fprb%2Frpts%255CJailAlt.pdf&ei=Q1atT5OOLdTWiAKzkezrAw&usg=AFQj CNEH2FP8k4iRS1c7UDZAm7kPBNx8PQ&sig2=RzeikNb8za8LtR1fWwN2jQ 6. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Custodial and Non-Custodial Measures: Alternatives to Incarceration. Website: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CFcQFjAC &url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unodc.org%2Fdocuments%2Fjustice-and-prison- reform%2Fcjat_eng%2F3_Alternatives_Incarceration.pdf&ei=lFStT6KWFcqfiALf7InuAw& usg=AFQjCNGBsmAGiYKzG4V37G3ZiEW8kPyiBA&sig2=ev3ryE5g7LJ3zRTKc1UnSQ 7. VERA Institute of Justice Website: http://www.vera.org/ 8. Virginia Risk Assessment Instrument Training Manual Website: www.dcjs.virginia.gov/corrections/documents/vpraiManual.pdf 9. Washington County Sheriff’s Office, Washington County, WI: Electronic Monitoring Program. Website: http://www.washingtoncountysheriffwi.org/em.php 10. WTTW 11: Chicago Tonight: Electronic Monitoring Website: http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/comment/3507 17 GREG MUNKS COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SHERIFF Office of the Sheriff CARLOS G. BOLANOS UNDERSHERIFF TRISHA L. SANCHEZ ASSISTANT SHERIFF 400 COUNTY CENTER  REDWOOD CITY  CALIFORNIA 94063-1662  TELEPHONE (650) 599-1664  www.smcsheriff.com September 24, 2012 Honorable Gerald J. Buchwald Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice and Records 400 County Center, 8th Floor Redwood City, California 94063 Re: Grand Jury Report: Use of Electronic Monitoring Program for Pre-Trial Detainees Dear Judge Buchwald, The Sheriff’s Office appreciates the 2011-2012 Grand Jury’s report concerning the use of the Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) for Pre-Trial Detainees (PTDs). We have reviewed the report and provide the following responses to both the findings and recommendations pertaining to our agency: FINDINGS: 1) The San Mateo County men’s jail has been overcrowded each year since 2001. Over the last ten years, incarcerated populations have ranged from 120% of bed- rated capacity in 2002, to 147% in 2007. Response: Agree. 2) From 2002 through 2007, 50 percent of the average daily population of the San Mateo County men’s jail facility consisted of pre-trial detainees; since 2007, the percentage of pre-trial detainees (PTD) of the average daily population has steadily increased to 76 percent in 2011. Response: Agree. We attribute the substantial shift in percentages to a number of factors, including our robust Alternative Sentencing Bureau, which reduces the number of inmates serving their sentence in our correctional facilities. 3) San Mateo County has zero (0) PTDs on an EMP and nine (9) pre- sentenced/sentenced detainees on an EMP. Response: Agree. 4) Significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day is available if selected PTDs are released into an EMP. Response: Respectfully disagree. We believe that it is difficult to accurately compare the EMP costs versus incarceration costs. Our calculations indicate the figure for San Mateo County would be a savings of approximately $7 per inmate (this figure includes the additional costs of monitoring, supervision, infrastructure, administrative expenses, etc.) dependent at least in part upon the number on the EMP at any given time. 5) Currently, there is a risk assessment tool in use to determine eligibility for the EMP with pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees. This risk assessment tool is not used with PTDs. Response: Agree. 6) The violent crime index in the county has remained relatively stable from 2001- 2009. Response: Agree. 2 7) The reasons for the increase in the PTD male jail population (compared to pre- sentenced/sentenced detainees) in recent years are due to two main factors:  The types of charges that detainees increasingly face (immigration holds, gang affiliation, violent crimes, sex crimes, DUIs, outstanding warrants) are offenses that eliminate eligibility for any form of release.  To comply with the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), in 2008 the Sheriff’s Office changed its classification system for parole holds and others with pending cases or warrants from sentenced to pre-trial. This increased the pre-trial detainee population by 10-15%. Response: We agree in part with this finding; another reason for the increase in the percentage of male PTDs is the aggressive use of alternatives to incarceration for the sentenced population and the use of early release through the imposition of modifiable sentences. 8) The statistics reported by the U.S. Department of Justice Statistics (see, Appendix B) from data provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office do not support the first factor listed in Finding #7. Response: Agree. We note that the data source for the U.S. Department of Justice Statistics is the FBI Unified Crime Reporting Program that lists the details of arrests made by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. The PTD male jail population of San Mateo County consists of arrests made by all agencies within San Mateo County, and on occasion, other entities, such as the California Highway Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 9) The Sheriff’s Office and the Probation Department have not budgeted for studying or implementing an EMP for PTDs. Response: Agree. 10) Elsewhere, EMPs for PTDs have been implemented to varying degrees:  Santa Cruz and Santa Clara have purchased their own ankle bracelets and related equipment.  Santa Cruz and Sacramento have an active budget for EMP expansions and Pre-trial Services.  Santa Clara has one PTD on the EMP; Santa Cruz has 25 PTDs on the EMP; and Sacramento’s EMP for PTDs began May 2012. 3  Santa Cruz is a member of the California Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS) and uses the Virginia Assessment tool to determine eligibility of PTDs for the EMP.  San Mateo County spends $7-10 (not including monitoring, supervision costs) per day on the EMP for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees versus a $169 daily incarceration cost. Response: We agree with this finding, except for the last bullet point. The figure of $7-10 for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees does not represent the dollar amount costs for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees in San Mateo County. As previously mentioned, it is difficult to separate the precise relative EMP costs versus incarceration costs. Currently, San Mateo County does not employ the EMP for PTD’s. 11) Substantial literature exists for the study and guidance of non-incarceration options, eligibility guidelines, EMP applications, best-practices, etc. (See, Appendix D) Response: Agree; however, please note that Appendix D, that the Grand Jury refers to does not support this finding.

Elsewhere EMPs for PTDs have been implemented to varying degrees: • Santa Cruz and Santa Clara have purchased their own ankle bracelets and related equipment. • Santa Cruz and Sacramento have an active budget for EMP expansion and Pre- trial Services. • Santa Clara has one PTD on EMP; Santa Cruz has 25 PTDs on EMP; and Sacramento’s EMP program for PTDs begins May 2012. • Santa Cruz is a member of the California Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS) and uses the Virginia Assessment tool to determine eligibility of PTDs for EMP. • San Mateo County spends $7-10 (not including monitoring, supervision costs) per day on EMP for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees versus a $169 daily incarceration cost. Interview with Sheriff’s Office staff from ASB on March 7, 2012 23 U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, FBI, Uniform Crime Reporting Program; Date of Version: September 2011 9 11. Substantial literature exists for the study and guidance of non-incarceration options, eligibility guidelines, EMP applications, best-practices, etc. (See, Appendix D) Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes: 1. Overcrowding in the male jail facility would be reduced if the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office implemented an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) for pre-trial detainees.