2022-2023 Final Report

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F6

Conclusions 47

• CL1
  The Sheriff shall respond to Findings F1.1, F1.2, F1.3 and F1.4 and Recommendations R1.1, R1.2, R1.3 and R1.4.
• CL2
  The Probation Department shall respond to Findings F2.1, F2.2, F2.3, F2.4, F2.5, F2.6, and F2.7 and Recommendations R2.1, R2.2, R2.3, R2.4, R2.5 and R2.6.
• CL3
  The Lodi Police Department shall respond to Finding F3.1 and Recommendation R3.1. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Michael D. Coughlan, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J Stockton, California 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Krystal Gonzalez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected]. 25 26 2022–2023 San Joaquin County Grand Jury School Safety in San Joaquin County: Developing a Culture of Safety Case #0322 Summary The 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury examined, through the lens of a layperson, the safety measures in place at the 14 public school districts and the San Joaquin County Office of Education (SJCOE). These safety measures are mandated by California Education Code 32280- 322895.5. Through multiple interviews, site visits, and expert witness testimony, the Grand Jury found while many protocols have been established in the County, there is no unified approach to school safety. Rather, safety planning often consists of a patchwork of policies and procedures and 27 many of the Comprehensive School Safety Plans (CSSPs) required by law are boilerplate documents that are rarely specific to school sites. Schools in San Joaquin County are safer because of recent efforts by school districts, but more can be done. Districts can create more opportunities for meaningful involvement by parents, students, and staff in safety planning efforts. Parents/guardians can ask school officials about safety at their child’s school site. Law enforcement must be more involved in the process of development, implementation, and annual updates of the CSSP, including participation in safety training/drills, building relationships with students and staff, and helping to create a culture of safety. While the issue of school safety is vast, the 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury review focused on the following areas:
• CL4
  Comprehensive School Safety Plans.
• CL5
  Observations during school site visits.
• CL6
  Safety training. The 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury found CSSPs were not school site-specific and displayed a lack of parental and law enforcement agency involvement, safety training was intermittent, and drills were predictable. The Grand Jury also found a lack of meaningful staff and student discussion regarding school safety, school sites that were inconsistent in visitor check-in procedures, and evacuation maps missing or lacking clarity.
• CL7
  Asking if school emergency guidelines are tested and exercised.
• CL8
  Determining whether your school has policies and procedures on security and emergency preparedness.
• CL9
  Examining access to school campuses.
• CL10
  Making sure accurate and timely safety information is shared. Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and
• CL11
  an increase in the population of At-Risk Youth who are more challenging to manage;
• CL12
  staffing issues, including insufficient number of available floor personnel, and lack of leadership;
• CL13
  lack of sufficient training for administrators, onsite management, and staff necessary to deal with the challenges presented by the enactment of new laws and regulations;
• CL14
  lack of interagency cooperation within the County; and
• CL15
  lack of foresight and preparedness to deal with Criminal Justice Reform as it pertains to youthful offenders. The Grand Jury found that the issues noted above bring into question the overall effectiveness of the County's current commitment to caring for At-Risk Youth. The collective findings of this 54 investigation indicate that the County can be its own worst enemy when it comes to developing solutions to the ongoing problem of providing a safe environment for these At-Risk Youth, while also providing the services necessary to foster an ideal and secure environment where they can grow into productive citizens. Unfortunately, no magical solutions exist to solve the problems affecting these youth. All the witnesses interviewed by the Grand Jury expressed sincere concern for the welfare of the At-Risk Youth in our County. All County agencies involved in the care of this very vulnerable segment of the County's population must come together to create, implement, monitor, and advocate for better programs, care, and treatment of At-Risk Youth. These agencies must stop blaming each other for the deterioration of care for At-Risk Youth. The Grand Jury is aware of recent attempts to improve interagency cooperation. However, it has yet to see any significant evidence of progress that can result in real solutions. Safety should be the primary focus of the agencies responsible for caring for these children. If these children do not feel safe, they may run away, act out, withdraw, or become susceptible to those who prey on them. These At-Risk Youth will view their experience with “the system” as something to survive and not an opportunity to improve the quality of their lives. Listed at the top of the Foster Youth Bill of Rights are the following:
• CL16
  To live in a safe, healthy, and comfortable home where he or she is treated with respect; and
• CL17
  To be free from physical, sexual, emotional, or other abuse or corporal punishment. The Quality Parenting Initiative (QPI), which has been effective in other counties in California and throughout the country, is also available to San Joaquin County. This program is sponsored by the Youth Law Center, a national organization cooperating with the State of California. QPI could provide a way to help relieve the pressures felt by those agencies responsible for the care of our At-Risk Youth. While QPI is intended to be a customizable solution for each county, addressing its goals, resources, and values, it does require buy-in from all the agencies that affect At-Risk Youth care. Other programs and placement options were cited as necessary for the more difficult-to-manage youth. Alternatives with more structure and accountability by the youth and programs similar to the Discovery ChalleNGe Academy and Camp Peterson were identified by several witnesses. In addition, systems like the Catalyst Program, successfully run by CHS that helps youth aging out of the foster care system, could be an option. Catalyst provides a safe environment for these older individuals while assisting them with real-life skills to transition into the community successfully.
• CL18
  Develop, adopt, and implement a plan to improve public communications and outreach.
• CL19
  Reinstitute periodic outreach events to inform the public about the GSP and the status of its related implementing projects.
• CL20
  Identify ways to better find and engage with members of disadvantaged communities (DACs), including non-English speakers, in the San Joaquin Subbasin.
• CL21
  Update the website to provide easier, more comprehensible access to ESJGWA financial information.
• CL22
  Update the Flood Control & Water Conservation District’s website to provide convenient access to financial and project information related to the use of Zone 2 funds.
• CL23
  Explain the differences between the fiscal year-end ESJGWA fund balance reports and the annual independent audit balance sheets.
• CL24
  Update the website, esjgroundwater.org, to ensure full compliance with the provisions of SB 929, SB 272, and Government Code Section 7405.
• CL25
  Update the website and Board Bylaws to reflect the actual dates and times for Board meetings.
• CL26
  Update the website to enable easier public access to meeting minutes.
• CL27
  Identify the members of the Board on the website, meeting agendas, and official written documents.
• CL28
  Consider ways to enable and promote increased public attendance at open meetings.
• CL29
  Formalize the status of the TAC as a standing committee and bring it into compliance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
• CL30
  Monitor the expiration dates for any relevant governance or contractual documents and GSP implementation deadlines to ensure the Board can act before any lapses occur.
• CL31
  Ensure staff support is adequate for efficient, cost-effective operations. 77
• CL32
  The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors shall respond to: Findings F1.2.1, F1.2.2, F1.3.1, F1.3.2, F2.2.1, F3.1.1, F3.1.2, F3.1.3, F3.1.4, F3.1.5, F3.2.1, F3.2.2, F3.2.3, F3.3.1, and F4.2;
• CL33
  The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to: Findings F2.2.2 and F4.1;
• CL34
  The San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller shall respond to: Findings F2.2.3 and F2.2.4;
• CL35
  City police departments of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy.
• CL36
  San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office.
• CL37
  College, university, and school departments of public safety, i.e., San Joaquin Delta College, the University of the Pacific, and Stockton Unified School District.
• CL38
  San Joaquin County Jail and Lodi Jail.
• CL39
  Juvenile Deten�on Facility under the Juvenile Deten�on Service within the San Joaquin County Proba�on Department. 115
• CL40
  Agencies with significant security concerns, i.e., The Port of Stockton and the California Health Care Facility. The Grand Jury had presenta�ons from all of the agencies except the California Health Care Facility. Jury members toured six city police departments (Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy) and also toured the San Joaquin County Jail, the Lodi Jail, the Juvenile Deten�on Facility, the Port of Stockton, and the California Health Care Facility. Interviews were also conducted. The police chiefs and the San Joaquin Sheriff were asked to comment on the following issues:
• CL41
  Collabora�ve rela�ons between law enforcement and ci�zens.
• CL42
  Community Mental Health Response Program.
• CL43
  Homelessness issues.
• CL44
  9-1-1 dispatch policies.
• CL45
  Mass casualty and ac�ve shooter response policies.
• CL46
  Racial profiling percep�ons.
• CL47
  Staffing demands and recruitment strategies. In view of the na�onal concerns related to law enforcement use of force events, the Grand Jury members par�cipated in ride-along sessions with law enforcement agencies to observe the law enforcement officers’ interac�ons with the ci�zens they are sworn to serve. All Grand Jury members who spent �me with law enforcement officers during their ride-along sessions commented on the professional manner each of the officers or depu�es displayed. They demonstrated appropriate de- escala�on techniques and guidance with each of the complainants or suspects they encountered. Staff shortages is a common concern expressed by many of the law enforcement agencies. This results in longer response �mes to calls for service. Some agencies are having difficulty using the newly installed computer Data Base Management System (DBMS) which provides required data to the Department of Jus�ce. This report includes informa�on gleaned from the presenta�ons, facility visits, independent research of agency websites, documents provided by the agencies, and individuals’ ride-along observa�ons. A lis�ng of the types of calls for service jurors observed during their ride-along sessions follows the agency descrip�on. Collabora�ve Rela�ons Between Law Enforcement and Ci�zens A focus common in all the agencies’ presenta�ons was their effort to inform and engage with their communi�es. This was seen as a crucial endeavor in a na�onal news climate where law enforcement is o�en viewed nega�vely. Outreach programs designed to engage and educate the public include enhancing website and social media presence, special events, coffee talks, iden�fying and working with youth-centered events and organiza�ons, and collabora�ng with businesses. This allows officers opportuni�es to interact with the community in posi�ve ways. Community Mental Health Response Program Police o�en interact with ci�zens with mental health issues. They coordinate with the San Joaquin County Behavioral Health Department. Mental health personnel are typically available only during business hours. Regardless of the hour or circumstance, they frequently did not get to the scene in 116 a �mely manner. Training on how to de-escalate such situa�ons and gain control without deadly force is an important effort and is now mandatory for all law enforcement personnel. Homelessness Issues Homelessness is a problem in San Joaquin County. Homeless encampments may be seen along the freeways, under viaducts, and in parks. During ride-along sessions, law enforcement personnel were observed to be professional and humane in their interac�ons with the homeless. Presenta�ons also emphasized this approach. Law enforcement provides informa�on about available support resources during their interac�ons with the homeless. However, more San Joaquin County resources are needed to establish adequate housing and support for the homeless. 9-1-1 Dispatch Policies Priori�za�on protocols are in place at all dispatch centers. Priority 1 involves crimes against persons and property that are in progress. Priority 2 are crimes against persons and property where response may be delayed, and Priority 3 designates an ac�on that may be delayed. A dispatcher’s job is a difficult one and takes significant training. Due to staff shortages, many departments had to come up with crea�ve solu�ons for making do with less. For example, Ripon Police Department Dispatchers serve as a dispatch center for Escalon and Lathrop. Lodi dispatchers have addi�onal jail du�es. Grand Jury members who did ride-along sessions with Lodi, Stockton, and the Sheriff’s Office noted the frequency of calls and officer staffing issues some�mes made it difficult to respond in a �mely manner. Mass Casualty and Ac�ve Shooter Response Policies The law enforcement departments are training in mass casualty and conduc�ng ac�ve shooter response scenarios. They adhere to mutual aid training protocols for tac�cal incidents and prac�ce with other departments. The University of the Pacific and Delta College police departments have trained with the Stockton Police Department. Due to recent na�onal events, training should be and is a regular ac�vity. Police chiefs noted that their officers were trained to not hesitate in responding in the event of an ongoing incident where ci�zens’ lives are in danger. Racial Profiling Percep�ons Crime reports note racial backgrounds to determine if inappropriate or unfair stops are occurring. AB 243 requires bias training for every peace officer and a refresher course every five years. AB 953 requires law enforcement to collect data on all officer contacts. This data is collected and sent to the California Department of Jus�ce (DOJ) to be analyzed sta�s�cally with the goal of elimina�ng racial and iden�ty profiling. Crime Sta�s�cs The police departments report crime sta�s�cs to the Uniform Crime Repor�ng (UCR) program. Several departments have crime analysts. Crimes are also analyzed through Mark43, which provides daily reports of incidents and trends. Crime sta�s�cs are reported and were evident in the presenta�ons. The� and traffic concerns are the largest issues in San Joaquin County. The University of the Pacific (UOP) and San Joaquin Delta College’s police departments also report sta�s�cs to the Department of Educa�on (DOE) as required by the Clery Act. 117 Staffing Demands and Recruitment Strategies All the law enforcement departments are faced with recrui�ng, hiring, and reten�on challenges, i.e., fewer people want to become law enforcement officers considering the news and nega�ve public percep�ons. Officer pay scales are typically lower in San Joaquin County than those in surrounding coun�es. Most of the law enforcement agencies expressed concern regarding recruitment. Prison Rape Elimina�on Act Compliance County custodial facili�es must be in compliance with the Code of Federal Regula�ons 28 (CFR Part 115) Prison Rape Elimina�on Act of 2003 (PREA). Failure to meet these standards can result in serious consequences for detainees and an inability to protect vulnerable individuals housed at the County custodial facili�es. This obliga�on to protect is ethically correct and required by law. Personnel at some custodial facili�es lacked a comprehensive knowledge of all PREA requirements and some facili�es were not in compliance.

Commendations 2

• CM1
  Lincoln Unified utilized the Raptor system at the site visit and took our badges at the end of the tour, utilizing best practices in visitor sign-in procedures. Banta Unified employed the best physical barrier system. Their check-in procedure involved being buzzed in through a half-door to a small waiting area where identification was checked and the sign-in form was completed with both time and date before being buzzed into the office. Classrooms At least one classroom was toured at each school. Evacuation routes were posted in all classrooms visited. Some maps were better than others. Some maps were too small, and one school posted a 45 campus map in every classroom but didn’t mark the classroom’s location or what route to follow for evacuation. There were inconsistencies across the school sites visited regarding door-locking procedures. The schools visited by the Grand Jury usually kept doors locked at all times. While one school said that it kept doors locked and closed, the Grand Jury observed a classroom door propped wide open. Many schools utilized a lock block system, which allowed the door to be opened while quickly returning to a locked position with a slide or flip of the switch. Some schools utilized a standard key system for locking doors. Some schools used flip charts with summaries of what to do in different types of emergencies. The schools that do utilize this form of emergency procedures communication did not always post them in the same area of each classroom or notify all staff that they had them. One school’s Assistant Principal conducting the Grand Jury’s tour was unaware of the flip charts, what they were, or where they were located. About one-half of the classrooms visited had some form of an emergency information packet (folder/binder) and a few classrooms had emergency backpacks or tubs with paperwork and supplies to be taken in the event of an emergency. A majority of the schools visited had window coverings, consisting of vertical or horizontal blinds, but some were old and in disrepair. If the classroom had uncovered door windows, they would need to be shielded in the event of a lockdown. Two of the schools utilized a magnetized shield that was the same size as the window to slide over to cover.
• CM2
  New Hope Elementary School District covered its windows with magnets that had emergency procedures printed on them, serving two purposes. Jefferson Unified utilized very creative ways to obscure windows with the use of long roller shades installed above the double glass doors to the library. They also used emergency kits in the classrooms and found an inexpensive and effective way to use a magnet to allow the door to be open while still locked. Common Areas The Grand Jury considered the common areas (cafeterias, gymnasiums, libraries, and multipurpose rooms) to be the most dangerous place to be during an emergency. The majority of the common areas lacked adequate evacuation route signs. Some schools had no evacuation route signs, some had one or two posted near a door, but not consistently at every door. Most had other safety equipment available, such as fire extinguishers and Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). One school’s AED box was open and empty. These observed deficiencies are particularly significant when the public is using the space during non-school hours. 46 Campuses Overall One expert emphasized the importance of campus culture, “[a]nd just looking at the overall climate of the school…school engagement, school ownership, school pride, school artwork and items that children make and contribute that are part and present in the overall school.” Most schools visited were well-maintained and tidy. Whether they were built recently or decades ago, the majority of campuses toured showed the care and pride of the staff that worked there and the students who attended. Some were freshly painted, had newly planted landscaping, new bark spread out, new picnic tables, and new shade structures, or were very neatly maintained. One older campus desperately needed attention. The ramps to the portable classrooms were in disrepair, and the playground was in poor condition, with uneven surfaces creating puddles and tripping hazards. However, the campus that was in this state of disrepair had the best and brightest bulletin boards scattered throughout campus, each with a different theme, showing pride in their campus. Special Considerations Of the school campuses toured, there were several special considerations that should be addressed in the individual site’s CSSP. Several school sites were rurally located, resulting in emergency responders having a much longer response time. One campus was located in an area prone to flooding. Another campus was located much lower than the adjacent interstate, and a vehicle accident on the interstate could become airborne, potentially landing on the field of the school. One campus was located directly next to a major train track, and while the tour was being conducted, two trains went by. The Grand Jury asked the tour leader about planned emergency responses to train derailments and was informed that none existed. Relationships The campuses visited represented a spectrum of relationship-based leadership and school culture. A majority of the campuses visited appeared to have a positive school culture. Many administrators knew one or more children’s names and conversed with them, sincerely engaging with students. At one campus of 700 students, the Principal knew the staff, students, and parents/guardians. At the other end of the relationship spectrum, an Assistant Principal leading the Grand Jury tour seemed disinterested and disengaged with both the tour and student interactions, only stopping to ask a student why she was out of class.

Agency Responses 5

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