2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Rand to Fe Final Report June 30, 2017

Conclusions 36

• CL1
  There is a Custody Deputy shortage in the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department.
• CL2
  The Tecolote Tunnel is a single point failure location that is in urgent need of maintenance and reinforcement.
• CL3
  None of the Santa Barbara County south coast water purveyors has established capital replacement accounts.
• CL4
  Radio reception in some areas patrolled by the deputies working out of Santa Barbara County Substations is poor with many dead spots.
• CL5
  The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria have not included representatives at the policy-making level of parents and at-risk youth who would be directly affected by the services of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety.
• CL6
  Internal surveillance cameras at the Santa Maria Police Department have not been installed.
• CL7
  Not all Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Deputies have been trained in the use of various restraint systems being used by different agencies throughout the County.
• CL8
  The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has shown support for the development of an at-risk youth program in North County by allocating $75,000 in budget year 2016-17, of which approximately $50,000 remains.
• CL9
  The meetings of the Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board do not adequately reveal to the public the competing and conflicting objectives.
• CL10
  Assist all water agencies throughout the County to secure Federal and State grants that enable these purveyors to generate additional sources and employ more efficient systems for delivery;
• CL11
  Manage the Lake Cachuma water supplies to the south coast and secure the long-term reliable delivery of that water to purveyors;
• CL12
  Set priorities for management for all water resources in the County. The Santa Barbara County Water Agency comes closest to being that independent, impartial, forward-thinking agency capable of achieving these three objectives. The Santa Barbara County Cooperating Partners already recognizes the SBCWA as the lead agency. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors must aggressively encourage the United States Bureau of Reclamation to designate the Santa Barbara County Water as the agency to manage Lake Cachuma’s water supplies when the Lake Cachuma contract is renewed in 2020. 84 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 No single entity has decision or enforcement power within Santa Barbara County to lead regional planning.
• CL13
  The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that the Santa Barbara County Department of Public Works, Laguna County Sanitation District and Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller carefully planned a comprehensive process to fund system upgrades and replacements with the least financial impact on its customers. The Jury found that the Laguna County Sanitation District’s management exercised comprehensive planning and forward-looking leadership on behalf of its customers. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 13 LAGUNA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT This Page Intentionally Left Blank 14 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury VETERANS STAND DOWN
• CL14
  VETERANS STAND DOWN Never Forget INTRODUCTION The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) would like to join the public in recognizing the many veterans that reside in this County. Their courage and sacrifices should never be forgotten. This report highlights Santa Barbara County’s involvement with the Veterans Stand Down, an annual event where the veterans receive goods and services. For the past five years, Fifth District Santa Barbara County Supervisor Steve Lavagnino and his staff have organized a Veterans Stand Down. On October 15, 2016, a one-day event was held at Santa Barbara County Fairpark in Santa Maria. Like other Stand Downs across the United States, local organizations gathered to provide assistance with food, housing, clothing, health screenings, Veterans Administration (VA) and Social Security benefits, voter registration and counseling. Referrals were given to other necessary services such as legal advice, college programs, substance abuse treatment, and medical insurance. Businesses and County agencies came to recruit prospective employees. It should be noted that Santa Barbara County employees and representatives of 97 organizations donated their time to help the veterans. This report spotlights the care our community demonstrates for our local Santa Barbara County veterans, including homeless veterans.
• CL15
  The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury commends all those who participated in the 2016 Stand Down, including Santa Barbara County Fifth District Supervisor, Steve Lavagnino. The Jury found the event was a success. As Supervisor Lavagnino stated to the news media, “In 2012, we started with an idea and a handful of people and now we have a committee of more than 100. It’s a group of very talented people and everybody’s coming together to try and help veterans.” Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. 18 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
• CL16
  DETENTION FACILITIES IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SUMMARY The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) visited all detention facilities in the County. The Jury learned that, although many agency buildings were built 20 to 50 years ago, they were found to be safe and in serviceable condition for staff and arrestees. In the process, the Jury learned that some of the challenges facing the law enforcement community include radio communications and personnel vacancies. In October 2016, ground was broken on the new Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s North County Jail in Santa Maria. The Main Jail will remain in operation. It continues to be overcrowded and in need of major upgrades and repairs. Overall, the Jury was generally satisfied with the management and condition of the detention facilities in Santa Barbara County. INTRODUCTION As mandated by California Penal Code Section 919(b), the 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) inspected County jails and detention facilities. These facilities included the following: Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office:  Santa Barbara Main Jail  Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Substations: o Santa Maria o Carpinteria o Isla Vista Foot Patrol o New Cuyama o Solvang o Lompoc Valley Santa Barbara County Probation Department:  La Posada Juvenile Hall  Los Prietos Boys Camp  Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center Rustic decoration over Court Holding Facilities: the holding cell in New  Santa Barbara Cuyama  Santa Maria  Lompoc Municipal Jails and Holding Facilities:  City of Lompoc  City of Santa Barbara  City of Santa Maria  City of Guadalupe In addition, the Jury visited the Santa Barbara Sobering Center and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Coroner Office. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 19 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT
• CL17
  The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury learned that some of the problems in the law enforcement community are radio communications and personnel vacancies. In addition, many agency buildings were built 20 to 50 years ago and it was found they are still safe for staff and arrestees. Ground was broken on the new Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s North County Jail in Santa Maria in October 2016. The current Main Jail located in Santa Barbara will continue to be used; however, the infrastructure needs major renovation. 26 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 Radio reception in some areas patrolled by the deputies working out of Santa Barbara County Substations is poor with many dead spots. Recommendation 1 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office upgrade its radio system ensuring coverage in all areas, which will help protect deputies and citizens. Finding 2 There is a Custody Deputy shortage in the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department. Recommendation 2 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department hire more personnel to fill these vacancies. Finding 3 Internal surveillance cameras at the Santa Maria Police Department have not been installed. Recommendation 3 That the City of Santa Maria complete the installation of the cameras. Finding 4 Not all Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Deputies have been trained in the use of various restraint systems being used by different agencies throughout the County. Recommendation 4 That all Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Deputies receive training in various restraint systems used by different agencies throughout the County. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 27 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Responses to Findings shall be either:  Agree  Disagree wholly  Disagree partially with an explanation Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:  Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken  Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule  Requires further analysis, with analysis completion date of no more than six months after the issuance of the report  Will not be implemented, with an explanation of why Santa Barbara County Sheriff – 60 days Findings 1, 2, and 4 Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 Santa Maria City Council – 90 days Finding 3 Recommendation 3 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – Informational Copy – No Response Required 28 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
• CL18
  BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS The Eye of the Camera SUMMARY Across the nation, law enforcement body cameras are becoming a valuable tool in evaluating disputed actions on the part of both police officers and the public. Recorded footage is sometimes critical in ascertaining guilt or innocence. What the camera records can be played in courts and in the media. The public is now highly media conscious and often insists on seeing what has been caught on camera in the interest of fairness and transparency. This tool is becoming more available to law enforcement throughout California. The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) looked into a citizen’s question about the use of body cameras by County law enforcement agencies. Within Santa Barbara County (County), law enforcement agencies have discussed body cameras and reached different conclusions. No law enforcement agencies, with the exception of the Isla Vista Foot Patrol Sheriff’s Substation and Guadalupe Police Department, have taken the action of supplying cameras for all its officers or deputies. For those agencies that permit the individual use of body cameras, the cost of purchasing and maintaining the cameras may fall on the law officers themselves. It appears that in the future body cameras will become a standard part of the law officers’ equipment as much as dashboard cameras are now. While not failsafe, the data provided by cameras can offer protection for both the officers and the public. The cost of the cameras and supporting technology will be expensive and the implementation will be complex. The Jury proposes that each law enforcement agency that utilizes body cameras have a policy for the use of and storage of their recordings in addition to existing policies for dashboard cameras. This policy must be transparent.
• CL19
  The use of body cameras by law enforcement officers has been shown to have a positive effect on the operations of the men and women involved in being the peacekeepers of our communities. Although some consider body camera technology to be in its infancy, most officers interviewed are of the opinion that a body camera is a good tool that helps them in their work and interactions with the public. The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury concludes that the use of body cameras has the potential of providing greater transparency for both the public and law enforcement. Is it time for Santa Barbara County law enforcement agencies to adopt policies and procedures to incorporate this new visual technology to enhance the evolving role of police officers and sheriff deputies in our changing, technological society? Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. 32 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL
• CL20
  SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL A School Community in Transition SUMMARY The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) received several complaints about the educational practices and the work environment at Santa Maria High School (SMHS). The Jury focused its investigation on allegations of mismanagement of about $16 million from a Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) state grant; on communication conflicts between the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District (District), site administrators and teachers; on concerns regarding school safety and on the implementation of anti-bullying procedures required by Assembly Bill 9 (Seth’s Law). The Jury found most concerns to be the result of an educational program in transition. The QEIA grant recordkeeping followed state accounting procedures and the funds were used according to the grant requirements. Without a doubt, poor communication and conflicting educational practices existed between site administrators and teachers. The Jury found the conflicts to be associated with the new direction that the SMHS Principal, with the support of the District administration, had taken to address the unique needs of the student population. The introduction of the Common Core curriculum, schedule changes, and union contract-related issues exacerbated the conflicts. To enhance safety and security, the school is surrounded by security fences and has strategically placed cameras. Additionally, the District has adopted procedures required to address bullying issues. These policies are published on the District website, and the “bully button” link for reporting incidents is on the District and SMHS websites. The Jury found that relations between administrators and teachers are improving and encourages them to continue working together respectfully for the benefit of the students.
• CL21
  The 2016-2017 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury observed strained relations between the teachers and school leadership emanating from changes to the union contract, introduction of the Common Core curriculum and procedural and schedule changes made by the District and the school’s principal, but posits that poor communication was a two-way problem. However, the new school schedule and curriculum are now in place. A new union contract was negotiated in 2016 and there was also a change in Faculty Association leadership that year. Consequently, it appeared to the Jury that relations between school administrators and teachers are improving and encourages them to continue working together respectfully for the benefit of all students and the community. Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. 2 Flores, Peter and Domingues, Joseph. “Leading from the Strawberry Fields: Transformative Leadership in Santa Maria.” Association of California School Administrators Leadership, January/February 2017, pp 18-19. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 35 SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL This Page Intentionally Left Blank 36 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA POLICE HIRING
• CL22
  SANTA BARBARA POLICE HIRING Filling the Ranks SUMMARY At one time, the Santa Barbara Police Department had a difficult time hiring and retaining police officers. The Santa Barbara City Council worked with the Police Department to help fill vacancies, creating new advertising and incentive programs to face this challenge. The Police Department has successfully accomplished full staffing and now seems to be on a viable path to retain officers.
• CL23
  In October 2016, one year after acknowledging hiring difficulties, the Santa Barbara Police Chief declared all positions filled. The new recruitment programs and the vetting processes successfully accomplished full staffing. The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury commends the Santa Barbara Police Department and the Santa Barbara City Council for their initiatives for successfully filling vacancies in the Santa Barbara Police Department. Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. 40 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury WEST SANTA YNEZ ANNEXATION TO SANTA YNEZ COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
• CL24
  WEST SANTA YNEZ ANNEXATION TO SANTA YNEZ COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SUMMARY The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) received several complaints about the annexation process of the western area of Santa Ynez to the Santa Ynez Community Services District (SYCSD). Some homeowners in the affected area (see APPENDIX A) complained that there had not been enough community input or public meetings prior to the annexation. They said they had not received enough information about how the annexation would impact them, what the costs would be for connecting to SYCSD’s sewer line, and how a protest filing opportunity worked. This report is about a small portion of the Santa Ynez Valley that was designated by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors as one of 24 “Focus Areas” of greatest concern from a public health and water quality perspective. The Jury determined that the SYCSD and the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission had followed policies and procedures required for an annexation but their communications with landowners and registered voters were minimal and confusing.
• CL25
  The Jury sees the option provided to landowners in the affected area to connect to the sewer system as beneficial, especially as the total cost may be amortized over 20 years. At the same time, the Jury understands that not all landowners may choose to connect to the sewer system. They do not have to do anything until such time as their septic system fails. At that time, instead of hooking up to the District’s sanitary system, they may prefer to install an advanced treatment system and perform routine, ongoing maintenance as well as have official inspections by qualified inspectors at least once per year. Both these options will protect the groundwater from serious contamination. The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury determined that the Santa Ynez Community Services District and Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission followed statutory procedures regarding the annexed area of west Santa Ynez. What was needed were more public informational meetings, better communication with the public and better coordination between the two agencies. Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. 46 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury APPENDIX A Santa Ynez Community Services District 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 47 WEST SANTA YNEZ ANNEXATION TO SANTA YNEZ COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT This Page Intentionally Left Blank 48 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA MAIN JAIL Outdated and Inefficient
• CL26
  SANTA BARBARA MAIN JAIL An Outdated and Inefficient Facility SUMMARY Although the construction of a new jail facility in the northern part of Santa Barbara County (County) near Santa Maria is underway, the 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) investigated the condition of the existing Main Jail. Because the new facility has an approved capacity of only 376 beds (including a dedicated wing of 80 for women and 32 for medical and mental health in a specialized housing unit)8, some or all of the existing jail component parts must continue to be utilized. The main impetus for the new facility was occasioned by various court orders that the County must reduce the Main Jail population, which has been hovering near 120 percent of its rated capacity. This problem was exacerbated by a Federal Court mandate for the states to lower prison populations, and California’s solution was to send State prisoners to county jails.9 There were years of political disagreement surrounding funding for a new jail. Ultimately, the County was awarded a grant from the State (AB900) to fund 80 percent of the costs for a new jail. As part of the grant, the State required the County to provide a bed capacity of 1,015 to include all inmate populations by the year 2025. In 2015, the Santa Barbara County General Services Department (GSD) hired a consulting engineering firm to determine the scope of work and estimate the funds required for the repair and replacement needs of the current Main Jail. The report detailed that over $15 million would be needed over the next 10 years to correct, repair, or replace failing components of the physical plant that comprise the jail complex. There is also a threatened lawsuit regarding compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that will give direction to the extent of work required. Increasing needs throughout the County, including capital improvements, operational costs and the unfunded liability of the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System, will impact the availability of funds to accomplish needed work at the Main Jail. It will be difficult to find the funds needed to accomplish all the projects required to meet the current Federal and State jail standards and regulations. 8 Santa Barbara County website: www.countyofsb.org/capitalprojects 9 AB109, Public Safety Realignment Act, 2011 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 49 SANTA BARBARA MAIN JAIL
• CL27
  While an entirely brand new Santa Barbara County Main Jail facility would have been optimal, the 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that funding was not available through Federal, State or County resources. The Santa Barbara County Northern Branch Jail will accommodate 376 inmates. This leaves the County with an outdated and inefficient Main Jail, still in urgent need of repair, replacement and repurposing to house its approved capacity. Many unanswered questions remain, including how to satisfy current State and Federal requirements. Meeting these will demand the ongoing input and cooperation of the Sheriff, the General Services Department and the Board of Supervisors to optimize the functioning of this aging facility with the funding available. 52 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA MAIN JAIL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for repair projects at the Main Jail. Recommendation 1a That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for repair projects at the Main Jail within the next six months. Recommendation 1b That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these repair projects. Finding 2 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for replacement projects at the Main Jail. Recommendation 2a That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for replacement projects at the Main Jail within the next six months. Recommendation 2b That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these replacement projects. Finding 3 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for repurposing projects at the Main Jail. Recommendation 3a That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for repurposing projects at the Main Jail within the next six months. Recommendation 3b That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these repurposing projects. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 53 SANTA BARBARA MAIN JAIL Finding 4 Funding availability for Main Jail repair, replacement and repurposing will be problematic based on current budget forecasts. Recommendation 4 That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors identify alternative funding resources for Main Jail repair, replacement and repurposing such as using a portion of the Strategic Reserve, new tax initiatives, General Obligation Bonds or creation of a specific reserve account or any combination of these. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Responses to Findings shall be either:  Agree  Disagree wholly  Disagree partially with an explanation Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:  Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken  Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule  Requires further analysis, with analysis completion date of no more than six months after the issuance of the report  Will not be implemented, with an explanation of why Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3 and 4 Recommendations 1b, 2b, 3b and 4 Santa Barbara County Sheriff – 60 days Findings 1, 2 and 3 Recommendations 1a, 2a and 3a 54 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE
• CL28
  SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE Rehabilitation vs Punishment INTRODUCTION The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) visited juvenile detention centers as part of its mandate to visit holding facilities and jails. Santa Barbara County (County) has two juvenile detention centers: the Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center in Santa Maria and the Los Prietos Boys Camp in the Los Padres National Forest. As part of the overall juvenile justice system, the Jury also observed the operation of the Teen Court program. A former center in Santa Barbara, La Posada, was closed in 2008 for budgetary reasons and now is used only as a temporary holding facility for juvenile court dates. Both the Gionfriddo Center and Los Prietos were built to hold double the population they now house, as juvenile crime has decreased over the past decade. Also, fewer youth are detained since low-level crimes no longer result in incarceration. Now the focus is on restorative justice where the emphasis is rehabilitation rather than punishment. Nonetheless, these two facilities are fully active with education and community programs for the current wards of the court. Staff at both facilities are proud to work there and eager to help the juveniles. La Posada Juvenile Hall La Posada, a former juvenile hall in Santa Barbara, is currently used only as a temporary holding facility for juvenile offenders who are going to appear in court in Santa Barbara. These juveniles are from the Santa Barbara area, but are incarcerated at the Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center in Santa Maria. Usually, only nine youths at a time are transported to Santa Barbara for court appearance. They are placed in holding cells while waiting for a call to court. The juveniles are then escorted across the property to the Juvenile Court. The La Posada facility is used Monday through Thursday for court appearances. When the juvenile offenders are there, security protocols are enforced. They are separated according to health, degree of crime risk, gang affiliation and even suicide watch, which determines how often they are checked inside the holding cells. They are at La Posada for only a few hours, but in the event of an emergency, the staff will call mental health or 9-1-1. Sometimes family visitations may be arranged on site. The County continues to maintain the building and its 60 cells in the event that Los Prietos Boys Camp needs to be evacuated. However, because of the location of the fires in the last two evacuations, the wards at Los Prietos Boys Camp were transported instead to the Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center in Santa Maria. The County is considering plans to repurpose the La Posada Juvenile Hall and move juvenile court 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 55 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE appearances to downtown Santa Barbara. The Santa Barbara County Juvenile Probation (Probation) Home Supervision Program currently uses some of the offices at the facility. There have been juvenile probation activities at La Posada Juvenile Hall; however, these activities have declined in recent years. The staff indicated that the Home Supervision Program is a success. It ranges from checking ankle bracelets or receiving call-ins several times a day, to full house arrest. Two home detention officers go out into the field to see how the juveniles are doing. They monitor their whereabouts, give breathalyzer tests, review electronic records and check the home status. Overall, the emphasis is on encouraging the juveniles to do well and congratulating them when they do. Los Prietos Boys Camp The Los Prietos Boys Camp (Camp) is a residential correctional/treatment facility for 13 to 18 year-old male wards of the court. It is located north of the City of Santa Barbara on 17 acres within the Los Padres National Forest. Established in 1944, the facility now serves 50-56 juvenile offenders. The Court assigns boys that meet certain criteria to 120 or 180 days at the Camp. There is 24-hour video surveillance. It is clean, well maintained and well-staffed. All the staff members have the best interests of the boys in mind. Both the staff and the boys stated that the care is all encompassing at the Camp. Jurors were told by wards at Los Prietos that they considered themselves fortunate to be at the Camp. Los Prietos provides a structured program and healthy environment where wards receive numerous services. They are involved in various activities from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. They can catch up on school credits in the County-run Los Robles High School at the Camp; the ratio of students to teachers is six to one. The boys also receive individual counseling. Each one has an individual case plan formed with the help of the Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness (Behavioral Wellness). Family counseling, drug and alcohol counseling, and grief counseling are also available. The boys learn to live without regard to gang affiliation or social rank and most of the boys seem to honor that while at Camp. Their personal security is the number one priority according to Camp staff. A variety of programs gives the boys training in vocational skills (e.g. culinary arts, business, forestry, reprographics, landscaping, and computer technology). Community groups offer assistance with scholarships and internships when they leave the Camp. Since so many community groups request the services of the well-trained and well-behaved wards, the staff have had to decline some opportunities. The boys perform community service with local community groups as well as work with the U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Physical fitness is also part of their program. There are incentives for good behavior for the wards who are often rewarded with trips and shows. The boys are given opportunities to make the right decisions on the inside with the hope that they can do the same on the outside. Los Prietos is an idyllic setting where the juveniles work on social, emotional and academic goals. They are encouraged to modify their behavior, develop self-esteem, and prepare themselves to re- enter society. A re-entry and a five-week after-care program facilitate the boys’ return to their community. The focus of this program is school, drug and alcohol counseling, and jobs. There is a need for more volunteers to mentor and support the boys once they are released. 56 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center The Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center (Center) opened in 2004, expanding the County’s capacity for housing juvenile offenders. It is a maximum-security facility for both males and females, ranging from 12 to 18 years of age. Juvenile Court places the wards here for varying lengths of time. There are six housing units with a total capacity of 140. Not all of the units are occupied and at the time of the Jury’s visit, there were 64 wards of the court. The number of girls is usually between six and seven. The unused cells have housed the boys from Los Prietos Boys Camp when evacuated due to fires or other natural disasters. The facility has an extensive video surveillance system that is monitored at all times. Medical services are available to the juveniles at the Center seven days a week. The health provider also offers sex education, diet and health advice. The Jury was informed that many of the juveniles at the Center receive mental health help. From October 2015 to September 2016, the caseload of wards with Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness ranged from 76- 93 percent.11 Each juvenile receives a treatment plan coordinated with the family, probation officer, mental health counselor and teachers. In the Center, the Santa Barbara County Education Office provides a complete high school program and focuses on recapturing credits. The school, Dos Puertas, is inside the housing units. Computers are available, but the internet is not. The Girls Circle day program was created by the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), in collaboration with Behavior Wellness and Probation. The program at the Center is offered twice a week and is now limited to eight girls, all with some form of trauma. The girls meet with a Probation officer specializing in trauma, as well as volunteers from UCSB and the community. An additional day is spent in therapy with the Seeking Safety program, to help the girls attain safety from trauma and/or substance abuse. In general, girls need more mental health therapy, notably for depression and anxiety. A former housing pod has been remodeled, softening the look and feel of the jail facility. During the hours of the program, rules have also been relaxed. The girls have responded well to the program, with positive results in anger management and self- image. The juvenile population at the Center has dropped considerably since it first opened and it has subsequently lost personnel. In particular, the Girls Circle day program has not been budgeted but the Center is determined to keep it. A Baby Elmo program, begun in 2011, promotes bonding between the incarcerated juveniles and their children. The Jury was told that this program is safe from budgetary cuts at this time, but other programs are needed to help with the rehabilitation of the youth. The success of all programs is dependent upon volunteers. Following a 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors (BOS) began to study more program options for girls along the lines of the girls 11 Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center Information Packet, 2016 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 57 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE program at the Center. The BOS has started looking into “de-institutionalizing their [girls’] environment,” and looking for “a local option where girls could receive intensive mental health treatment.” At this time, there are 24 girls in group homes outside the county. There are only two group homes for girls in Santa Barbara County, which is why the BOS directed Probation to look for alternative residential and high treatment housing inside the County. Teen Court Teen Court is a successful and unique program in Santa Barbara County operated by the non-profit Council of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (CADA). It is active in Santa Maria, Lompoc, Santa Ynez, Santa Barbara, and Carpinteria. This program provides a restorative justice opportunity for youth offenders to help them stay out of the juvenile justice system or school disciplinary system. Teens who do not reoffend during the program will not have an adjudication on their record. Youth may be referred to the Teen Court program through juvenile probation, law enforcement, schools, or directly by their parents. These youth, who are 12-18 years old, must take responsibility for their actions and show they want to change in order to participate in the program. Once accepted, the teens and their parents must attend a hearing, which is held at the courthouse and supervised by a volunteer adult judge. A jury of peers questions the teen about his or her offense. The teen jury then deliberates, with staff supervision and guidelines. Each sentence will include jury duty, community service, reflective projects, educational classes, counseling groups, drug and alcohol treatment as needed, and a parent program. This sentence will take the client up to three months to complete while providing the parents with skills to help their child’s healthy development. Currently the six-week parent program is only available in South County. Between July 2015 and June 2016, 345 youth were accepted into the Teen Court Program. There were 272, or nearly 80 percent of the youth, who completed their sentences successfully. The Jury learned that of the clients served, 60 percent were referred to the program for having committed drug or alcohol related offenses. Regardless of the offense, 63 percent of the clients admitted to alcohol use or abuse, and 71 percent to the use or abuse of marijuana or other drugs. During this time, over 40 percent of Teen Court clients were referred for treatment at the Daniel Bryant Youth and Family Services, which is a separate program run by CADA but working out of the same location as Teen Court. It is reported that this collaboration with treatment services is one of the keys to success for the Teen Court program. As found with many non-profits, Teen Court is supported by volunteers who believe in the success of the program.
• CL29
  The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that the juvenile justice programs in Santa Barbara County accomplish good work with the help of staff and volunteers from the community. The programs provided give young people avenues for positive development and personal success. Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. 58 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury VOTER REGISTRATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
• CL30
  VOTER REGISTRATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY A Study of the Facts SUMMARY The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) was asked to consider the safeguards in place to ensure that only citizens are able to vote. There has been concern expressed by persons across the country that there may have been a number of non-citizens and other ineligible persons who have fraudulently registered and voted in the recent elections. The Jury has found that there is no proof that fraudulent voting occurred in Santa Barbara County, but that there is also no required process in place in California to verify a person’s United States citizenship status when registering to vote. If a non-citizen attempts to register, Registrars of Voters throughout California must accept that the person is a United States citizen and is eligible to register and vote, based on the information provided on the Registration Form. This is known as the “honor system.”
• CL31
  Neither the State of California nor Santa Barbara County requires any kind of proof of citizenship to register to vote. Despite the fact that perjury is punishable as a felony, it depends on the honesty of those who declare that they are eligible to vote in the United States. The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury considers this lack of verification to be a flaw in the voter registration process. Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 61 VOTER REGISTRATION IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
• CL32
  The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury looks forward to the City of Santa Maria implementing a strategic plan that will help lift the community’s youth out of a gang-dominated culture. The Mayor and City Council of Santa Maria have sought assistance by partnering with the California Cities Violence Prevention Network. By being methodical and adopting a structured program, the City hopes to lay a permanent foundation and maintain control of the program. However, this proposed level of control could possibly perpetuate the cultural and socio-economic divides that exist in the City. Now is the moment to bridge those divides. The Jury concludes that a successful Santa Maria Youth Task Force should reach out to surrounding area communities and their agencies. This model program would then actualize Santa Barbara County’s original intention of having a task force serving all the youth of the North County. The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury commends the 5th District Supervisor, the City of Santa Maria and its Mayor for accepting the challenge of addressing the need to prevent, intervene and suppress the existing gang culture. The Jury implores the City leaders to honor the rich diversity of their community by including the voices of all stakeholders, particularly parents and at-risk youth, during the planning process. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The City of Santa Maria has stated that its new Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety will be confined to youth-serving agencies within the city limits of Santa Maria. Recommendation 1 That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria expand the service area of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety to include youth-serving agencies in the entire Santa Maria Valley. Finding 2 The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria’s exclusive control of the strategic plan’s design and implementation may cause costly delays. Recommendation 2 That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria delegate certain discretionary authority for routine operational decisions in order to avoid costly delays to the implementation of the strategic plan. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 67 YOUTH SAFETY IN SANTA MARIA Finding 3 The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria initially refused to collaborate with the 5th District Santa Barbara County Supervisor in utilizing the $75,000 allocation from the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for the hiring of an executive level coordinator for the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety. Recommendation 3 That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria strengthen their collaboration with the 5th District Santa Barbara County Supervisor and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to expand their ongoing support for a regional program under executive-level leadership. Finding 4 The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria have not yet identified reliable, permanent sources of funding needed to maintain the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety programs and staff. Recommendation 4 That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria within the next six months identify reliable, permanent sources of funding for the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety programs and staff. Finding 5 The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has shown support for the development of an at-risk youth program in North County by allocating $75,000 in budget year 2016-17, of which approximately $50,000 remains. Recommendation 5 That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors commit to reserving the remaining approximately $50,000 allocation and continue with annual financial support for the at-risk youth program in North County. Finding 6 The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria have not included representatives at the policy-making level of parents and at-risk youth who would be directly affected by the services of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety. Recommendation 6 That the Mayor and City Council of Santa Maria include parents and at-risk youth representing the diversity of the community in the first tier of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force from the beginning of the planning and decision-making process. 68 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury YOUTH SAFETY IN SANTA MARIA REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Responses to Findings shall be either:  Agree  Disagree wholly  Disagree partially with an explanation Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:  Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken  Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule  Requires further analysis, with analysis completion date of no more than six months after the issuance of the report  Will not be implemented, with an explanation of why SANTA MARIA CITY COUNCIL– 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS – 90 days Findings 3 and 5 Recommendations 3 and 5 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 69 YOUTH SAFETY IN SANTA MARIA This Page Intentionally Left Blank 70 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Santa Barbara News Press 1958 MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES
• CL33
  MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES Are There Better Solutions? SUMMARY The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) conducted an investigation into the serious problem of drought within the County. Historically, Santa Barbara County has been a drought- prone area of California. Although there was considerably above average rainfall this winter, Lake Cachuma is still only 51 percent full, which can seduce many into thinking that the drought is over. The State Water Project was intended initially to provide a supplemental supply of water. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), part of the Department of the Interior, owns the dam and reservoir at Lake Cachuma (Lake), the heart of the system. The Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board (COMB), a joint powers agency, was formed to operate the surface water distribution system from the Lake to the coastal communities and the upper Santa Ynez Valley. While there are many sources of water available in the County, managed by a multiplicity of water purveyors, there is inadequate coordination among them.12 The Jury advocates the designation of the Santa Barbara County Water Agency as the lead agency in implementing water policy throughout the County. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Santa Barbara has a long history of droughts, building dams to protect against droughts and then growing past that water capacity. In the early 1800s, when the Spanish missionaries arrived, they needed water for their crops. The seasonal water in the creeks was inadequate so they had the Chumash laborers build a rock dam above the mission. Throughout the 1800s, further growth in the area led to development of shallow wells, documented as initially being ten feet deep. By the end of the century, those wells had failed and the water table had dropped to a level unable to be accessed by digging by hand. A prolonged drought in the County, which ended in 1864, caused herds of cattle numbering 200,000 to be reduced to 5,000. This decimation forced rancheros to subdivide and sell portions of their land to survive. Goleta was developed into farmland dependent upon individual wells and seasonal rains. 12 See Appendix A for Acronym Glossary. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 71 MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES In 1873, Mr. William Stow built a small reservoir damming San Pedro Creek. The dam allowed La Patera ranch to thrive through drought years. The early twentieth century brought the railroad to Santa Barbara, creating a tourist haven and a commensurate population boom. An article chronicled in The San Francisco Call, January 28, 1904 stated “Drouth (sic) Hurts The Cattlemen in Santa Barbara” and called it the “worst drouth in history.” To help stave off the dearth of water, Santa Barbara built a tunnel into the mountain on Cold Spring Canyon creating a “horizontal well.” That well dried up after several years. Additionally, the 3.7 mile-long Mission Tunnel construction was finished in 1911 allowing Santa Barbara to tap into the Santa Ynez River. This solved the water crisis, seasonally; therefore, the population grew again. In 1920, to solve the water needs of the growing population, Santa Barbara built Gibraltar Dam. The captured water could be released, as needed, into Mission Tunnel to supply the south coast residents. Throughout the “Roaring Twenties,” the population grew and again exceeded the water supply. The Juncal Dam was built in 1930. This dam captured Sana Ynez River water and formed Jameson Lake. The water was then delivered to Montecito via Doulton Tunnel. This additional source of water solved the crisis once again. Post World War II, another boom in population and building began. Unfortunately, the late 40s also came with another worst drought in history. This drought motivated Santa Barbara to raise the height of Gibraltar Dam by 13 feet to increase capacity. The drought also gave rise to divisive election issues regarding the building of the U.S. Government-run and funded Bradbury Dam/Cachuma Lake project. The measure to build the dam narrowly passed. Bradbury Dam was completed in 1953 and the seven mile-long Tecolote Tunnel was finished in 1956. Once again the growing population’s water crisis was solved. With new water storage capacity at Lake Cachuma, a large influx of industry, and the move of the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) to Goleta, led to yet another building boom. Thousands of new tract homes were built to support UCSB and the industrial work force. Droughts in the 1970s and 1980s led to a water meter moratorium which was eventually repealed in cases where people converted agricultural meters into smaller-use, domestic meters. The next worst drought ever started in the mid-1980s and ended in March of 1991. This generated the search for additional water, which led to the State Water Project, building moratoriums and water conservation measures. By 1996, after several very wet years, development resumed in Goleta and conservation measures faded. 72 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES The next worst drought ever began in 2011, which was the last time Lake Cachuma spilled. By 2015, the lake was at historic lows and Santa Barbara actually began receiving State Water. This time, unlike past worst droughts ever, Goleta and Santa Barbara began issuing thousands of new water meters allowing large building projects during the worst drought ever13.
• CL34
  Reliable radio reception for public safety agencies has been problematic in select areas of Santa Barbara County. The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury spoke with many law enforcement officers who recounted situations in which their work was hampered by poor reception, or no reception. Their safety and the public’s safety are at risk. Santa Barbara County is in the process of putting up towers to increase coverage and eliminate dead spots in radio reception. The Jury recommends this be completed as soon as possible. With its investment in the future of public safety technology, Santa Maria is reaching out to other areas on the Central Coast to join their 700 MHz system. Given the power and efficiency of this system, all Santa Barbara County public safety departments should adopt the 700 MHz system to advance public safety communications for the future. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 103 PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COVERAGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office has radio dead spots in the Casmalia and Tanglewood areas that threaten public safety. Recommendation 1 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office ensure that the radio tower scheduled to service the Casmalia and Tanglewood areas be installed as soon as possible. Finding 2 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office has radio dead spots in the Santa Maria Valley that threaten public safety. Recommendation 2 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office complete the radio tower, proposed for Mount Solomon, as soon as possible. Finding 3 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Deputies in the Cuyama area are operating in a rural area with extremely poor radio communications. Recommendation 3 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office join with the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County Fire Departments in the installation of a radio tower to be located in Kern County that will ensure that all agencies are able to communicate throughout the Cuyama area. Finding 4 Most public safety agencies in Santa Barbara County are not using the 700 MHz radio band. Recommendation 4 That Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors upgrade all Santa Barbara County public safety radios to the 700 MHz band as recommended by the Federal Communications Commission and the State of California. 104 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COVERAGE REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Responses to Findings shall be either:  Agree  Disagree wholly  Disagree partially with an explanation Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:  Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken  Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule  Requires further analysis, with analysis completion date of no more than six months after the issuance of the report  Will not be implemented, with an explanation of why Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors– 90 days Findings 3 and 4 Recommendations 3 and 4 Santa Barbara County Sheriff– 60 days Findings 1, 2, and 3 Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 105 PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COVERAGE This Page Intentionally Left Blank 106 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN THE MAIN JAIL
• CL35
  MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN THE MAIN JAIL Corrections Is Self-Correcting SUMMARY At the beginning of 2016, Disability Rights California (DRC) released a report finding fault with the Santa Barbara County Main Jail (Jail) concerning the treatment of inmates with mental illness and disabilities.22 The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) found the DRC report serious enough to warrant an investigation. Dissatisfaction with the current mental and physical health services provider at the Jail, Corizon Health (Corizon), also became public. Lapses in service by the medical and mental health provider were noted not only by the DRC, but also by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and community groups. During the summer of 2016, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff) sought a new health service provider and hoped to remedy any shortcomings by addressing the faults found in the DRC report and establishing accountability and guidelines for its new health provider. In December 2016, a new company, California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG), was chosen to provide medical and mental health services at the Santa Barbara County Jail and Juvenile Services. The new contract with CFMG confronts the deficiencies that had existed for years with the outgoing service provider. The new contract will need to be supported and maintained by jail staff as well as the new medical and mental health provider. The Sheriff’s custody deputies are equally responsible for its success. After several years of unsatisfactory care, the remedy should elicit a dedicated and vigorous team effort.
• CL36
  The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office has been struggling with treatment of physically handicapped and mentally ill inmates for many years. Treatment did not improve when Corizon Health took over the care of these inmates at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. New programs, new partnerships, and a new medical and mental health care provider, California Forensic Medical Group, offer possibilities for the change that the Sheriff’s Office has sought for many years. The Sheriff stated, “The alternative is to not do anything meaningful that will help the mentally ill. The result is people will get worse, not better.”30 The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury concludes that an effective working relationship between the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office and the California Forensic Medical Group is essential at the Main Jail. With the Sheriff’s Office maintaining a robust role and full responsibility for implementing the reforms, the promises of new mental health and handicapped treatment can be fulfilled. 29 Jail and Probation Health Care Services Contact: Update on Procurement Process. 23 August 2016. 30 Welsh, Nick. “Sheriff Grilled Over Jail Mental Health Programs.” Santa Barbara Independent. 7 October 2015. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 113 MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN THE MAIN JAIL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office did not conduct performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. Recommendation 1a That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office establish procedures to conduct performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. Recommendation 1b That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office conduct periodic performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. Finding 2 Medical accreditation at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail was allowed to lapse. Recommendation 2 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office establish procedures to regain and maintain medical accreditation at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Responses to Findings shall be either:  Agree  Disagree wholly  Disagree partially with an explanation Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:  Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken  Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule  Requires further analysis, with analysis completion date of no more than six months after the issuance of the report  Will not be implemented, with an explanation of why Santa Barbara County Sheriff – 60 days Findings: 1 and 2 Recommendations: 1a, 1b and 2 114 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury

Observations 13

• OB1
  Well and Aquifer Recharging When Bradbury Dam is spilling, water is available at no charge to participating water districts. Both Goleta and Carpinteria are heavily dependent upon wells. Goleta derives about 48 percent of its supply from wells, and Carpinteria 71 percent. The City of Santa Barbara has diverse supply sources, of which well water is about 24 percent 15. Increasing Cachuma drafting (drawing down) while it is spilling, and injecting the water into aquifers through the wells, would increase the volume stored there and reduce the probability of seawater intrusion in future dry years. There are, of course, issues associated with reinjection. The most important are:  Water being injected must be treated to drinkable standards before being reinjected.  The well must be returned to the extraction mode to flush out mineral deposits (typically once each week for 24 hours) during the reinjection process.  The reinjection technology is relatively new. Not all wells can accommodate reinjection.  Water extracted during flushing is non-potable and must be discharged to either the storm drain or the sanitary sewer system. These are the primary factors which show that potable reinjection is not an easy answer and has different ramifications for each purveyor. This technique is also costly. The Carpinteria Water District extracts water from five wells, two of which are currently on standby status. All five wells have recharge capability. Carpinteria’s potable reinjection permitting process is underway. The permit application and supporting information are completed, but will not be submitted until Bradbury Dam starts to spill. This is because the permit is only valid for 24 months, so it would be counter-productive to be permitted 15 Santa Barbara County Public Works Department, (2014, October 14), “Water Supply.” Retrieved from http://cosb.countyofsb.org/pwd/pwwater.aspx?id=3726 76 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES during a time when there is no water to reinject. Goleta Water District (GWD) owns 11 wells, 9 of which are currently operating. All of these wells have potable reinjection capability. The GWD intends to begin reinjection permitting discussions with the Regional Water Board as provided for under California Water Quality Order # 2012-0010. The City of Santa Barbara operates eight wells, of which four can accommodate reinjection. The other four were drilled about 20 years ago, when reinjection was not yet a proven technology. Only two wells are currently being operated; the other six were shut down on March 1, 2017 to allow the groundwater basin to recharge. The Jury was informed that the City of Santa Barbara has started the permitting process to allow reinjection when Bradbury Dam spills. Because Santa Barbara receives only about a quarter of its supply from groundwater, they are less enthusiastic than some of the other water agencies about exploiting this potential source. The Montecito Water District derives only 14 percent of its supply from groundwater and is heavily dependent on Lake Cachuma. If the Tecolote Tunnel were to fail, Montecito would be disproportionately affected in a negative manner. Montecito owns eight wells, four of which produce potable water. None of the Montecito wells are rechargeable.
• OB2
  Increase Lake Cachuma Useful Storage Capacity: Storage capacity of Lake Cachuma and all of the other reservoirs along the Santa Ynez River, Gibraltar Reservoir, and Jamison Reservoir, has been steadily diminishing over time due to siltation. The feasibility of removing the silt during periods when water levels are low has been investigated several times. The conclusion was the same each time. The number of trucks required was so large, and the time required would be so long, along with environmental concerns, that this approach is not feasible. This does not mean, however, that nothing can be done to increase the amount of stored water. Prudent management indicates that Cachuma should be drafted (drawn down) heavily during the year after the dam spills. This action would lower the lake level, thereby allowing it to accept more inflow, increasing capacity during wet years for future dry years. There is, of course, a potential downside as well; in the final years of a prolonged drought, such as the County just experienced, available supply from the lake could be reduced. Nevertheless, it appears that there are significant potential advantages in increasing drafting from Lake Cachuma while it is spilling and during the following year. The Jury learned that all of the water purveyors contacted are aware of this fact and are prepared to take the necessary steps to do so. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 77 MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES Resource Management Strategies The Santa Barbara County Integrated Regional Water Management Cooperating Partners (see Appendix D), comprises 35 city and County public works, water delivery and processing agencies, was established to satisfy the mandate of Proposition 50 for a more regionally oriented approach to water management issues. They issued a preliminary Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) in 2007, which was updated in 201316. Following are some examples that were designated as local Resource Management Strategies (RMS) in that plan: Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage Using and managing groundwater supplies to ensure sustainable groundwater yields while maintaining groundwater-dependent beneficial uses, including coordinating management of groundwater and surface water supplies (conjunctive use). System reoperation was selected as a RMS by the IRWM Region. The Region is reliant on groundwater as a major source of water supply. The Region selected several groundwater management strategies that collectively will increase the supply of groundwater. For example, the City of Santa Maria uses treated wastewater to help recharge groundwater supplies. Those strategies include: Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Management, Efficiency and Conservation Measures, Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation, Prevention of Contamination and Salt Water Intrusion, and Recharge Area Protection. Desalination Developing potable water supplies through desalination of seawater, including disposal of waste brine. Desalination was selected as a RMS by the IRWM Region. The City of Santa Barbara owns a desalination facility that was just brought into operation. The relatively high cost of desalination makes the desalination plant the last supply option to be used during drought periods. Recycled Municipal Water Recycled Municipal Water was selected as a RMS by the IRWM Region. The Region currently produces 4,177 AF per year17 of recycled water and plans on expanding production to 7,035 AF per year by 2035. Recycled water is distributed by Goleta Water District, the City of Santa Barbara, and Laguna County Sanitation District. The City of Lompoc also has a regional Reclamation Plant for treatment and disposal. The use of recycled water has the added benefit of reducing wastewater discharge into the ocean, which is a highly valued outcome in the Region. 16 Santa Barbara County Water Resources Division, (2013), “2013 Final IRWM Plan.” Retrieved from http://cosb.countyofsb.org/irwmp/irwmp.aspx?id=42010 6 Average use of water in a Santa Barbara household is 0.5 AF per year. 78 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES The Best Way to Manage a Regional Surface Water Supply System Day-to-day operation of the Cachuma Project is currently the responsibility of the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board (COMB). COMB is a Joint Powers Agency (JPA). It was formed with five members, identified as Cooperating Member Units (CMU) in Figure 4 found on page 12, consisting of Santa Ynez Improvement District 1 (ID1), Goleta Water District (GWD), Santa Barbara City (SBC) Montecito Water District (MWD) and Carpinteria Valley Water District (CVWD). GWD and SBC are larger than the other three districts. Therefore, GWD and SBC have two votes each and the remaining three districts have one vote for all matters before the COMB Board. Additionally, any project that will cost a million dollars or more requires a unanimous vote by the COMB Board, and ratification by the Boards of Directors of all the CMUs. ID1 unilaterally terminated their relationship with COMB last year after a dispute over finances and management of the Fish Management Plan. Whether the ID1 actually has the authority to do so has not been determined. COMB is charged with operating and maintaining the infrastructure of surface water delivery from the North Portal, located at Lake Cachuma (where water enters the Tecolote Tunnel); the Tecolote Tunnel, and the South Coast Conduit (SCC), which is a single 26 mile pipe line from the South Portal near Glen Annie in Goleta, to Carpinteria. The SCC supplies water to GWD, SBC, MWD, and CVWD. During good rain years Lake Cachuma provides 80 percent of the water to the four south coast water districts. COMB does not maintain the Bradbury Dam. That function is performed by the United States Bureau of Reclamation, which also owns the Dam. The COMB Board meets regularly once a month at 2:00 p.m. on the fourth Monday of each month. The meetings are noticed, agendas posted, and open to the public as required by the Brown Act. Unfortunately, because of the meeting time, members of the public that have regular jobs are often unable to attend. The meetings are audio taped and available to the public. However, the recording quality is poor, much detail is lost, and it is difficult to determine who is speaking. It would help the public to understand the unique facets of the COMB’s management challenges if the meetings were televised for live broadcast and posted on the COMB website. The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury wrote a report titled, Lake Cachuma, Protecting a Valuable Resource. Recommendation 8 for the member units of COMB was: “That the member units, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, create consistent policies and procedures that govern conservation efforts especially during times of a severe drought and that these are documented in the subcontracts between the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the member units.” All member units responded similarly to this recommendation. Basically, the responses all stated that each water district was unique. Their water sources, needs, conservation policies and interests are different. Therefore, they could not be governed by one set of guidelines that applied to all of the member units. This uniqueness of interests makes the governance of COMB challenging. Smaller projects, less than $1,000,000, require a simple majority. Larger projects require a unanimous vote. As an example, last year the issue of moving the barge in Lake Cachuma, which pumps water to the 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 79 MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES North Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel when the Lake water level drops, came to COMB Directors. One member, ID1, who was not benefited by the use of the barge, voted against the motion because ID1 was worried that the other CMUs would “steal” its water in the Lake. If not for some last minute legal maneuvers, the barge would not have moved. Without moving the barge, GWD, SBC, MWD, and CVWD would not have received any water during the past year from the State Water project. Water in Lake Cachuma is not just rainwater or fed by the river and upper dam systems. It includes State Water; the Semitropic Water Storage District Groundwater Banking Program, located in Kern County (the Montecito Water District is the only Partner in this Program in Santa Barbara County), or any purchased from California delta rice farmers; and water stored at San Luis Reservoir in Monterey County. All are delivered through the State Water Pipeline. These are water sources for the four south coast water districts which require passage into Lake Cachuma then through the Tecolote Tunnel and to the South Coast Conduit for transport to the respective districts. Additional water sources are the wells managed by the four south coast purveyors. The well systems used by three of the four CMUs are expected to last about five years before being exhausted if pumping continues at the current flow rate. Recharging wells will also be severely limited, should the Tunnel or the South Coast Conduit fail to function and no Lake water is delivered. A failure of the Tunnel or the South Coast Conduit would shut down the supply of water from Lake Cachuma. No redundant (parallel) pipeline exists to convey water supplied through the Tecolote Tunnel or the SCC. One should be considered. Any repair of the existing line would not be easily accomplished: “When a section of the pipeline needs to be isolated for emergencies or repair there is no easy fix. In addition, dewatering a section of the Conduit is a lengthy process, greatly reducing its operational flexibility and reliability. Due to the age and material from which it is constructed, the pipe is inherently difficult to repair or modify.”18 The need for system redundancy has been studied several times throughout the years. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has a suitable easement, running the length of the SCC, which could be utilized for an additional pipeline or expansion of the existing pipe. Eventually a segmented plan was proffered and a second pipeline was initiated when the Modified Upper Reach Reliability Project began: “The purpose of the project is to increase the operational flexibility, reliability, and capacity of the Conduit, between the South Portal of Tecolote Tunnel and Corona Del Mar Water Treatment Plant. The increase in operational flexibility, reliability, and capacity are intended to accommodate peak demand levels and to allow maintenance of the pipeline.”19 The project was funded by Proposition 50 (Water Quality Supply and Safe Drinking Water Projects Act), which required a portion of matching funds from the CMUs. This was to be the first leg of a redundant system. However, Carpinteria Valley Water District did not feel the project was to its benefit and refused to contribute any more funds. The project was defunded and truncated prior to completion. 18 United States Bureau of Reclamation, (2010, November) “South Coast Conduit Modified Upper Reach Reliability Project.” .” Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=footnote+website&rlz=1C1QJDB_enUS639US650&oq=foo&aqs=chrome.1. 69i57j69i59j35i39j0l3.5786j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=footnote+website+apa. 19 ibid 80 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES The pipe does connect to the aged SCC but only extends part way to the Corona del Mar Treatment plant and accomplishes little of the original desired outcome. A second pipeline is needed to ensure uninterrupted provision of water to all consumers on the south coast through their various water purveyors. Are there other management alternatives that should be investigated? The Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) was formed to design, construct and operate the facilities needed to bring SWP water to the agencies that contracted to receive that water as a supplemental source. Since the SWP is considered an interruptible supply, all CCWA participants have other sources of water. There are 12 CCWA project participants in Santa Barbara County. They are discussed in Appendix C. The Jury is not aware of any current plans to expand the charter of CCWA to include the management and/or distribution of recycled water or local groundwater. Since its establishment, the Santa Barbara County Cooperating Partners (Partners) has been very successful in attracting grants from Proposition 50 and Proposition 84 (the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006). Through calendar year 2013, more than $30 million was obtained. Proposition 84 stipulates that $52 million must be awarded to the Central Coast Region (which includes Santa Barbara County). The Central Coast Region is also included in Proposition 1-E (The Disaster Preparedness and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2006), which totaled $800 million statewide. Matching funds of 50 percent are required of project proponents in order to obtain Proposition 1-E funding. The Jury finds that the management structure of the Partners is not suitable to operate as the lead management agency. The Santa Barbara County Water Agency (SBCWA) has been functioning as the Lead Agency (Program Manager) of the Integrated Regional Water Management Program since its inception. The SBCWA has the technical expertise to set priorities and manage overall water resources, but not the mandate. The County usually acts as the grantee with the State for grant contracts, utilizing sub-grant agreements with Partners which is successful in receiving funding for its nominated projects. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has expressed the desire that the new contract in 2020 remain with the County and that the Integrated Water Management Plan designate the SBCWA as “single contracting entity” for this contract. Figure 4 shows the interrelationships between the various County water purveyors, regulatory agencies, and constituent groups associated with managing the south coast surface water supply. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 81 MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES Figure 4 – Surface Water Management and Operation Structure in Santa Barbara County During a December 2016 meeting sponsored by the Governor’s Drought Task Force, the California Office of Emergency Management (OEM) indicated that state funding could be made available for water distribution system improvements IF there is greater cooperation and coordination between the water purveyors within the County.20 It is unclear whether these would be Proposition 50 funds, Proposition 84 funds, or funding from some other source. This action appears to be a recognition by the State that the present water management system is problematic. The meeting purpose was to begin development of a prioritized list of water projects for State funding. The OEM established an “Action Working Group” and directed them to prepare a proposal that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors (BOS) could submit to the State to implement the highest priority items for funding. This proposal was presented to the BOS on February 11, 2017. 20 See Board of Supervisors Agenda Letter 4/11/2017 and attachments 82 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES The recommended project list included seven items, as follows: “Additional Water Supplies  Reacquisition of Suspended Table “A” Water[21]  Recommissioning and Expansion of Regional Desalination Facility  Water Reuse – Goleta  Water Reuse – Carpinteria Protection of Existing Resources  Treatment Facilities for Removal of Hexavalent Chromium from Groundwater  Temporary Emergency Pumping System at Lake Cachuma  Interagency Intertie Project Between Goleta and Santa Barbara” The Jury was told by every person interviewed that no budget or plan currently exists for major repairs to our 70-year-old surface water distribution system within the south coast and some segments are older, some are newer. Critical for the more effective operation of Lake Cachuma and its water distribution system is who will manage and operate it under the new contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Neither COMB, CCWA nor the SBCWA currently have authority over the independent water purveyors on the south coast. Chapter 2 of the IRWMP designates the SBCWA as the Lead Agency (Project Manager). It also designated the SBCWA as the “single eligible contracting entity” for the new contract with the USBR. However, the SBCWA does not appear to have any enforcement and/or prioritization authority. According to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed in 2006, the key IRWMP implementation organization is the Cooperating Partners Steering Committee. Decisions are made by majority vote of the Cooperating Partners participating in the meeting, with each signatory of the MOU having one vote. In summary, the Jury found there are several steps that can be taken to improve the efficiency of the water distribution system. The Resource Management Strategy listing in the IRWMP is a good first step. Regarding water supply governance and recognition of the need for a more regional emphasis, the IRWMP group led by the SBCWA appears to be the logical management entity, if the SBCWA acts more proactively than it has in the past. 21 An annual fixed percentage of State Water allocated to each member unit of COMB. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 83 MANAGING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES
• OB3
  The LCSD was created in 1958 by the Santa Barbara County Local Agency Formation Commission to take over the existing operations of a privately owned sewer and wastewater treatment facility that was then serving the unincorporated areas of Santa Maria not served by another district. LCSD began operation in 1959 and is a dependent special district of Santa Barbara County. It is the largest utility that the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department oversees. LCSD serves approximately 11,700 residential and business customers. It currently collects 2.4 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater through a system of 128 miles of pipes, manholes, a lift (pump) station and the wastewater treatment facility. The facility is rated to treat 3.2 mgd of effluent but its permitted capacity is limited to 2.4 mgd by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This limitation is due to the high salt content of the treated effluent, which is largely attributable to home regenerating water softeners. In 1997, the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department published the Orcutt Community Plan which addressed the assets and challenges faced by this unincorporated portion of the northwest part of the County. One of the challenges that confronted the then 40-year-old LCSD plant was the high salt content of the effluent, which limited the plant’s use of its full treatment capacity. The other was that “…theoretical full build out…creates a potential demand of 2.1 mgd above the 2.4 mgd currently treated, thus exceeding the plant’s capacity by 1.3 mgd.” This limits its ability to serve any additional customers. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 11 LAGUNA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT During the course of its first 50 years of operation, the LCSD made upgrades to its plant and collection system in 1974 and 1986 as well as a minor upgrade in 2001. Between 2001 and 2015, the District engaged three wastewater-consulting firms to help formulate a plan to address the repair or replacement of equipment that was nearing or had passed its useful life expectancy. In 2001, LCSD hired a consulting firm, Ch2MHILL (CH), which produced a report entitled “Wastewater/Reclamation Treatment Plan Conceptual Master Plan for Build Out to 7 mgd.” This report reevaluated the connection fee (developer capacity impact fee) based on the regulatory compliance upgrade and anticipated future improvements. This report cost $24,703. In 2006 and 2007, CH produced two reports for the Golden State Water Company Region 1 Headquarters (the purveyor of water to this area). CH later used these two reports as part of a study it did in 2010 for the District. In 2008, CH produced another report entitled “Feasibility Study of Treated Wastewater Discharge Options.” This report analyzed the costs of various effluent discharge mechanisms (recharging aquifer, discharge to creeks and/or ocean), environmental regulations, permitting and physical capability/limitation factors. The cost of this report was $98,000. In 2009, LCSD hired Penfield and Smith to produce another report entitled “Draft Sewer Collection System Master Plan.” This report assessed the existing and future sewer system capacity. The State Water Resources Control Board had established new requirements in 2006. It then became the responsibility of each wastewater agency to know the capacity of its sewer system and how it would be impacted by future development. The cost of this report was $92,440. In 2010, CH was hired again and, using the findings of the past studies, produced a report entitled “Wastewater/Reclamation Plant Facilities Financial Master Plan.” The purpose of the study was to “…provide a clear direction for the design and implementation of the next expansion and upgrade to the LCSD’s facility as well as to meet increased regulations.” This report, which cost $279,260, described a Phase I upgrade (replace existing substandard equipment) and a Phase II expansion of the entire system (future capacity increase). It became the basis for the LCSD’s request to the BOS for approval to move forward with Phase I at an estimated cost of $34 million. Between 2011 and 2015, user fees were increased by approximately 11 percent per year in order to better position the district for future borrowing needs. By increasing reserves, it enabled the LCSD to qualify for lower interest rates on future bond issues. After approval by the BOS in 2011, customers were notified of meetings where they would be informed of the plan to repair and upgrade the facility and how that work was to be funded through a yearly increase in their sewer fees over a five-year period. After this series of public meetings, LCSD management implemented the rate increases that began immediately. While LCSD was planning to upgrade its facilities, it also studied the feasibility of clean renewable energy. LCSD had methane reactors that were in constant need of expensive repairs and were inefficient and unreliable. Electricity costs were between $300,000 to $400,000 per year. In 2010-11, taking advantage of a Federal Clean Energy Program, LCSD installed a one megawatt solar voltaic system. With the solar panels fully functioning, the sale of excess electricity back to the power company has 12 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LAGUNA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT reduced the average annual cost of electricity to between $30,000 and $40,000, a 90 percent reduction. This cost savings is due to overproduction of power during the day and subsequent sale of that power back to the grid. In spite of these cost-cutting measures, the estimated costs of construction, labor and materials had increased substantially from initial estimates. In 2015, LCSD hired another wastewater consulting engineering firm, Carollo, at a cost of $354,828, to assist the District’s management to reconfigure the proposed upgrades. The $34 million budget and fee increases that the District had originally planned were now inadequate. The components in Phase I of the project that went over budget were rolled over into Phase II as the build out actually takes place. Carollo issued its report, entitled “Phase I Plant Upgrades Project and Project Development Report.” It recommended the most comprehensive and cost effective proposal for implementing Phase I. Implementation of the Phase I project will be presented to the BOS in the fall of 2017 for final approval. At that time, the LCSD will be in a good position to finance Phase I at a favorable interest rate.
• OB4
  Any veteran can register to attend the Stand Down. Their families and even pets were invited. Both breakfast and a barbecue lunch were served to attendees and volunteers. In addition, 660 volunteers participated in the Stand Down. All food and services were donated. This year 13 Santa Barbara County Department sponsors and 175 community business partners gave their time and financial support to this event. A $7,000 federal grant from the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program was obtained by Supervisor Lavagnino to supply shoes, clothing, and supplies for homeless veterans who attended the event. 16 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury VETERANS STAND DOWN A total of 579 veterans attended, including 139 homeless men. Sixty-three female veterans attended, including 15 homeless. SERVICES OFFERED The services and support provided to attendees included:  New Clothing and Towels  Legal Services  Hygiene Products  Food  Haircuts  Employment Counseling  Flu Shots  Pet Zone including medical, grooming, and care packages  Chaplain Services  Entertainment  Medical, Dental Vision and  Kids Zone for Veteran Families Hearing Services  Social Services  Transportation  Mental/PTSD Counseling . For a complete list of services provided, see www.sbcountystanddown.com 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 17 VETERANS STAND DOWN
• OB5
  Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office Custody Facilities Santa Barbara County Main Jail The Main Jail, originally built in 1971, has been described as old, antiquated and overcrowded. It is rated for 659 inmates, and the Medium Security Facility is rated for an additional 160 inmates. The average population at the jail tends to be over 1,100. At the time of the Jury’s inspection, there were 803 inmates in the Main Jail and 234 in the Medium Security Facility. The Jury learned from a custody officer that “…the current population has been distilled to just high risk inmates.…” The cost to house an inmate for one year was approximately $42,107.82 as of March 14, 2017. Currently, the complex is 45 Main Jail custody officers short of the 913 considered adequate for the current inmate population (24/7, 365 day operations). Ten new deputies have been hired and there are 15 currently at the Academy. The Jury was told that there is difficulty in recruiting custody deputies. Although the facility continues to be overcrowded, it was found to be clean. In the South Dorm, where the disabled inmates and those with chronic medical issues are housed, there were beds on the floor. Custody officers told Jurors that some of the inmates want their beds on the floor. There are four safety cells, and two step-down cells, for temporary confinement of inmates that are suicidal or violent. There is video monitoring of the entire facility, though the older section built in 1971 only has cameras in the hallways. The safety cells have video monitoring as well as physical monitoring four times an hour. During the course of inspection, the Jury learned that not all custody deputies have been trained in the use of various restraint systems used by different agencies throughout the County. All custody personnel need to be trained in safe use of all types of restraints. 20 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Substations: Santa Maria This facility has five cells, one safety cell, and two isolation cells for a capacity of 35 beds. It is closed on weekends, so an arresting officer must transport the arrestee to the Main Jail in Santa Barbara. The facility appeared to be well maintained, but is old and worn. Due to a shortage of staff there was mandated overtime at the time of inspection for all custody deputies. During the inspection of the facility, it was reported to the Jury that the patrol deputies who work out of this substation have dead spots in their radio coverage, which Santa Maria Substation is a concern to the Jury because of deputy and public safety. Carpinteria This substation is located adjacent to the City Hall, which was the previous Carpinteria City Police Department. There are two holding cells with solid core wood doors. The cells were clean. Arrestees are held there only while paperwork is completed and then taken to the Main Jail. The deputies act as the city police and patrol the surrounding areas. There are three to five deputies and one supervisor assigned, depending on vacancies. Sheriff’s Deputies interviewed explained to the Jury that department radios have many reception dead spots in their patrol area. This is a concern to Carpinteria Substation the Jury because of deputy and public safety. Isla Vista Foot Patrol This facility, built in 2008, has 16 deputies and two office staff. The University of California at Santa Barbara supplies seven officers. There are two holding cells. Arrestees are only held there 15-20 minutes before being transported to the Main Jail. The cells and hallways have cameras. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 21 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT New Cuyama In New Cuyama, there is a single jail cell which was clean and adequate for the minimal holds they have. For access to water in the cell, a pump must be turned on for the sink and toilet to function. Even then, there is not enough pressure to the faucet to produce more than a dribble. Since this area is so remote, radio reception is almost nonexistent. It frequently takes an hour for backup to arrive when needed. Two deputies are assigned to the facility. Sheriff’s Deputies interviewed confirmed to the Jury that department radios have many reception dead spots in their patrol area. This is a concern New Cuyama Substation to the Jury because of deputy and public safety. Solvang This holding facility has one cell which is used until an arrestee can be transported to the Main Jail. A second interview room is available which can be used as a cell if necessary. There is no camera within the cell; however, the interior is visible from the office. The cell appeared well maintained. The deputies act as the city police and patrol the surrounding areas. It was reported to the Jury that frequently the deputies’ radios do not work in certain portions of the valley, which hampers service and safety. In 2014, the Chumash tribe initially funded five deputies, their salaries and benefits, and supplied one patrol car, at a cost of $849,000 annually. The deputies patrol the reservation but are available to respond to calls from the Santa Ynez Valley. In 2016, a new contract with the Chumash provided an additional two deputies, one patrol deputy and one community resource deputy, and provided two more patrol cars. This agreement will cost the tribe an additional $357,000 annually. This partnership augments the Solvang Substation’s capabilities and saves the County much needed money. Lompoc Valley This is the newest substation in the County. There are two interview/holding rooms that are secure, clean and in good condition. Both rooms have cameras. The Sheriff maintains an office in this facility. There are no staff shortages. There are two deputies assigned per shift. Lompoc Valley Substation 22 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT Court Holding Facilities Lompoc This facility, built in 1999, is located adjacent to the Lompoc Courthouse. There are five cells with solid steel doors for male/female separation and co-defendants on the same cases. The cells were clean and used for a minimal hold time for court use only. There are three deputies, two full-time and one part-time. Santa Barbara This facility, which was built in 1988, has eight holding cells, four isolation cells and four single person cages used for arrestees awaiting for their court appearances and transportation back to the Main Jail. The area was clean, but the space is inadequate for the over 85 arrestees and staff present at the time of inspection. It was noted that there were cameras in all areas. There are five custody deputies assigned to this facility. Santa Maria In this facility, which was built in 1989, there are 12 holding cells, four temporary cells and three private conversation booths. Fifty to sixty arrestees can be held here while waiting for their court appearances and transportation back to the Main Jail. The facility is authorized for 20 deputies, but is currently understaffed by two. The facility was well maintained and in good condition. Santa Barbara County Probation Department: La Posada Juvenile Hall Monday through Friday, juveniles are brought to this facility from the Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center for court appearances in Santa Barbara. They are then transported back to the Susan Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center. Although the building needs updating, it was found to be clean and well maintained. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 23 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center This facility opened in 2005, expanding the county’s capacity for juvenile offenders. It is a maximum- security facility for both males and females, ranging from 12 to 18 years of age. Juvenile Court places the wards of the court here for varying lengths of time. There are six housing units rated for 120 boys and girls. This facility is a well-run and well- maintained. It was sufficiently staffed for the population of 64 at the time of the Jury’s visit. The Santa Barbara County Education Office ensures continuing education is provided for the wards Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice through the Camino Segundo School, which is held Center on-site. Los Prietos Boys Camp The Los Prietos Boys Camp is a residential correctional /treatment facility for 13 to 18-year-old male wards of the Juvenile Court. Los Robles High School, run by the Santa Barbara County Education Office, ensures the wards of the court receive continuing education. There were 52 wards there at the time of the Jury’s visit. The facility is located on 17 acres in the Los Padres National Forest. It is clean, well maintained, and adequately staffed. Los Prietos Boys Camp Municipal Jails/Holding Facilities City of Lompoc Police Department There are seven cells with solid steel doors at this facility, which opened in 1959. The cells were clean. There is a maximum arrestee hold time of 96 hours. Three full-time staff are on shift for the daytime and one full-time at night. The capacity is 19 arrestees. When a female is arrested, a female dispatcher must be pulled from her duties to search the arrestee. The building is older, but clean, well maintained, and has a video system in place. Lompoc Police Department 24 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT City of Santa Barbara Police Department The facility was built in 1958. There are two holding cells which appeared clean and well maintained at the time of inspection. The cells are only used during the booking process before the arrestee is transported to the Main Jail. Santa Barbara Police Department City of Santa Maria Police Department This facility can house up to 28 inmates. Last year’s Jury noted that there were no operational surveillance cameras inside the facility. It was observed by this year’s Jury that there is still no permanent camera surveillance. The holding area has four interview rooms and one restroom. There is a four-hour maximum hold before the arrestee is transported to the County substation or Main Jail. Everything was clean and well maintained. Santa Maria has a state-of-the-art 700 MHz radio system, which has the capacity to include multiple county agencies and the ability to communicate with all emergency agencies in Santa Maria Police Department the State of California. City of Guadalupe Police Department At this facility they only book and transport arrestees. There is one interview room with a bench where arrestees are secured while being processed. There are security cameras throughout the department. During the visit the Jury learned that its radios also have many reception dead spots in the patrol area. This is a concern to the Jury because of officer and public safety. The Guadalupe Police Department currently purchases its radio bandwidth from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department. Guadalupe City Hall and Police Department 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 25 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT Coroner’s Bureau This facility was built in 1984 and has had evidence stored there since 1976. A new ventilation system and remodel of the autopsy suite is scheduled to begin construction in April 2017. The facility is clean and fully staffed. Coroner’s Office Santa Barbara Sobering Center The City of Santa Barbara funds a Sobering Center through its police department. The Santa Barbara Police are the only ones authorized to bring people to the Center, although inebriated clients may walk in to “sleep it off.” Thresholds to Recovery, a nonprofit organization, has run the Center for 23 years. There is one staff member per shift, with a total of seven staff working eight hour shifts, all earning minimum wage. All staff are trained in CPR, and many are drug and alcohol counselors. There is capacity for five to six to sleep on pads on the floor of a small room. The usual stay time at the Sobering Center is approximately four to six hours. By staying at the Sobering Center clients avoid arrest and the City of Santa Barbara avoids booking expenses.
• OB6
  Body cameras are used by only two local agencies in Santa Barbara County. Guadalupe Police Department and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Substation in Isla Vista have supplied body cameras to their patrol personnel. No other department has offered to purchase cameras. In 2014, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department purchased body cameras, at a cost of $300 to $550 each, assigning them to the Isla Vista Foot Patrol. Their time is typically taken up with face-to- face encounters with the residents of Isla Vista, who often have their own cameras and are using them more and more to record their interactions with law enforcement. Some University of California Santa Barbara Police officers have also been using body cameras. In 2015, the Santa Barbara Police Department Chief purchased five cameras, at a cost of $600 to $900 each, to test. While the results of the test have not been made public, a financial report was prepared for the City of Santa Barbara with a proposal. To date, the Jury is unaware of any action being taken. The Santa Maria and Lompoc Police Departments have decided not to use body cameras at this time. As one officer stated to the Jury, “They are not a tried and true technology as of yet. Many agencies that have them discontinue use due to expense as well as technical problems. The storage space is very expensive…. I would prefer the technology evolve and the technology and storage issues be worked out by other police agencies before I adopt these cameras.” Elsewhere in the county, individual police officers and Sheriff’s deputies have purchased cameras at their own expense. The pros and cons of body cameras can be listed in three main areas of concern: financial, practical, and ethical. Financial Concerns If the department does not provide body cameras, individual officers may purchase their own if department policy allows. If officers choose to purchase their own camera, this is an out-of-pocket expense. The Jury learned that individual camera units could cost between $500 and $1000. Providing cameras to an entire department could be a major financial impact. The cost of securely storing data is, in fact, an inhibiting factor in deploying body cameras for each department. In 2014, the former Santa Barbara Police Chief estimated $70,000 for digital storage and access software. At this point, there is no one system that is universally used for storage. Another issue is the problem of obsolescence of the technology. As tech companies enter this field, some equipment comes with flaws or is found to be inadequate. In fact, the Sheriff’s Department had to return a large number of the first group of body cameras because of “issues” in 2014, according to the Sheriff’s 30 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS Department’s spokesperson1. Upgrades can be costly. Moreover, any camera purchased could easily become unsupported by newer back-up systems. Local departments would benefit if the uploading and storing of data could be managed by the existing systems already in place for dashboard cameras. Not only is the immense quantity of material a storage problem, but also time and security can be an issue. In some departments, officers can upload their data into their department’s storage facility. Some departments have data from their dashboard cameras automatically stored in a secure location but this is not available for body camera data that must be uploaded separately. There would be administrative costs, not the least of which would be hiring a full-time person to upload, store and track the recordings. Given the current restricted financial situation in Santa Barbara County and its cities, budgeting for body cameras would take a financial commitment and long-term planning. It has been suggested that the costs of cameras and storage would be offset by fewer financial losses due to lawsuits. Practical Concerns Dashboard cameras have been valuable in many cases. Their recordings are often useful in discerning what actually occurred. Body cameras could also have as much value, but there are some inconveniences. First, the cameras themselves are usually high definition, draining their battery quickly. But as a result of the high definition, the quality of the picture tends to be better than that of a dashboard camera. Unfortunately, night vision images are blurry, as reported by several officers. There are also contradictions regarding the range of vision of body cameras. Like the dashboard cameras, the vision of the body camera is limited to the direction faced by the officers; if something occurs to the left or right of the officer, the camera will not pick it up if they turn only their head. However, some cameras have wide-angle lenses, offering a broader view. In addition, the fact that the officer can turn his body offers an advantage that the static dashboard camera does not have. Further, in situations that become more intense, the officer himself could obstruct the view of the camera. One officer demonstrated how pulling out his weapon and pointing it at a suspect blocked the view from the lens. Lastly, in cases of physical confrontation, such as in a scuffle, the body camera could easily be dislodged. There are also some unfinished discussions as to where to place the camera on the body. Body cameras are not automatically turned on, as are dashboard cameras. Officers have to manually turn them on. In tense situations, having one more piece of equipment to manually adjust could impede the officers in carrying out their work in a fast and efficient manner. In many cases, the Jury was told, there is not enough time to immediately turn on the camera, thereby not recording all events in an incident. In the heat of the moment, the officer might not be able to turn on the camera, or doing so would put the officer at risk. Ethical concerns Ethically, body cameras have advantages and disadvantages. In discussions with the Jury, some officers preferred having a recording of every contact with the public just as a matter of policy, 1 Brugger, Kelsey. “Body-Cam Bill Stalls: Legislature Divided on Wearable Video Cameras for Law Enforcement.” Santa Barbara Independent. 31 August 2015. Web. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 31 BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS officers preferred having a recording of every contact with the public just as a matter of policy, while other officers believed that body cameras provide only a small slice of what they do. In either perspective, the body camera offers one more perspective, and this can be useful. Even with all the limitations and drawbacks to the cameras themselves, some officers feel that it is better to have the data from body cameras than have no data at all. Body cameras can offer decisive evidence in court cases. Suspects are more easily seen and identified by a camera closer than one mounted in a patrol car. Such evidence can deter many lawsuits against officers and departments, saving both time and money. Body cameras are reported to encourage good behavior on the part of officers, deputies and members of the public, knowing that they are being recorded. One deputy that the Jury spoke with suggested that officers are less susceptible to misconduct when they wear cameras. There have been several studies on body cameras including two in 2012, in Rialto, California and Mesa, Arizona, and more recently, a 2017 internal report on body cameras by the San Diego Police Department. All studies found that officers with body cameras used force less often; this reduced the number of complaints of police misconduct. Body cameras also have a dampening effect on suspects during the incident; many suspects will calm down when they know that they are being recorded. One local deputy said that his colleagues feel protected with their body cameras; cameras tell their side of the story. This is especially true when dealing with difficult subjects. It’s “like insurance,” as one officer told the Jury.
• OB7
  The Jury narrowed its investigation to three areas of concern. The first related to the management of funds that came from a State of California QEIA grant. As outlined in the Principal’s Message in the Student/Parent Handbook of 2013-14, the focus of this seven-year, multi-million dollar grant, that started in 2009, was “to improve student achievement, reduce class sizes in Math, English, Science and Social Sciences, to increase attendance, to provide a 300:1 ratio of students to counselors and to increase graduation rates.” To achieve these goals, additional teachers and counselors were hired and portable classrooms added. As a result, the majority of the funds were expended on teacher and counselor salaries and lease fees for the additional portable classrooms. All funds were spent by June 30, 2016. The Jury determined that the funds had been spent in accordance with the provisions of the state grant and generally accepted accounting practices. The second area of investigation concerned poor communication and conflict between administrators and teaching staff. In 2015 a district-wide climate survey was conducted by the Faculty Association. Out of the 136 members at SMHS, only 70 responded. Of these, 78.79 percent did not feel that they had a meaningful role in decision-making at the school, 66.66 percent did not feel supported by the school’s administration and 56.06 percent did not feel valued by administration. Also, 55.38 percent of respondents thought that morale at the school had deteriorated in the previous year. As indicated in the WASC Report of February 22-23, 2016, the change in the schedule from a block schedule to a traditional seven-period day, like the other two high schools, created conflict. The decision came from the district office to operate all three comprehensive high schools on the same schedule. Disagreement over the process of making the decision to change the schedule heightened tensions between the SMHS faculty, the school and district administrations. Since arriving at the school in 2010, the principal has been working to change the culture of the school from being “teacher-centric” to being “student-centric” and currently is becoming a 34 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL “community-centric” school. As stated in an article on transformative leadership, “SMHS is in the early stages of moving to an organizational culture that embraces transformative leadership through our understanding of, and work toward, cultural proficiency.”2 This refocus has required teachers and staff to attend training sessions to become more culturally proficient. As evidenced through interviews, this has been met by resistance or failure to recognize the need for change. Finally, the Jury reviewed the school’s safety and anti-bullying procedures. The school is surrounded by a tall security fence and there are cameras strategically placed around the campus. Most students must stay on campus during the school day. Moreover, the District has adopted anti- bullying policies to be implemented in each high school in the district. Both the SMHS and District websites have “bully buttons” on their home pages linking to forms for reporting incidents of bullying. The District and High School administrators have procedures in place to follow up on each report. In addition, the District’s 2016-17 Parent-Student Handbook, in English and Spanish, includes bullying under its section on Discipline Policy outlining reasons for suspension or expulsion. Additionally, the California National Guard (CNG) has been presenting a program, called “We All Rise Guardians – Declaring W.A.R. on Bullying One Student at a Time,” at SMHS for several years. The W.A.R. Guardians program is specially designed to deal with all aspects of bullying and targets the specifics of the four major types: verbal, physical, social and cyber. The CNG brochure states that, “by using their awareness program and rehabilitation program, the school can specifically target the four types of bullying by turning the offender into a defender.” The CNG provides this program during a school assembly each year, as well as a six-week program especially for students identified by the school as needing additional training. The Jury concluded that SMHS has adopted adequate procedures and practices in accordance with Assembly Bill 9, Seth’s Law.
• OB8
  In 2016, the Santa Barbara City Council and City of Santa Barbara Police Department set programs in motion to appeal to new applicants. The two main components of these programs were bonuses and advertising. Each has helped to attract more recruits. The first of the program innovations, bonuses, was announced at the Santa Barbara City Council meeting on November 10, 2015. A bonus became available to City employees who referred a potential dispatch officer, with $1000 paid on the candidate’s first payday and another $1000 at the end of the probationary period. The police officer trainees receive a $3000 bonus upon completing field training, another $3000 at the end of their probationary period, and an additional $6000 at the end of three years. While the number of referrals has been disappointing, trainee bonuses seem to be an incentive to joining the force. The second innovation was an advertising program. The City Council authorized a one-time allocation of $50,000 to the SBPD for recruitment advertising. Posters have gone up at local universities and colleges. A recruitment video was produced and has been seen on television and in movie theaters, promoting “being part of the team” and helping one’s home community. Other means of looking for new recruits have been internet job search engines, job fairs, government and military websites and radio stations, including Spanish radio. Members of the SBPD also recruited at the local police academies, Allan Hancock College and the Ventura County Criminal Justice Training Center. The City of Santa Barbara is an expensive place to live; however, this has not prevented positions from being filled. More than half of the officers in the SBPD live outside the City and some must commute over 100 miles a day. At one time, the SBPD offered help with home loans, but that program did not entice many officers to reside in the City. In spite of the high cost of living, in 2016, ten lateral hires (officers from other law enforcement agencies) decided to work in Santa Barbara. Retirement has accounted for several departures. Officers can retire at age 50 or 55, an age when they are still highly “marketable.” For example, they could go to the University of California, Santa Barbara, where they would receive a 30 percent pay cut, but their retirement pay would make up for that loss in salary. In addition, there have been a few medical retirements. In 2015, it was acknowledged that this, as well as transfers to the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, 38 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA POLICE HIRING was a common practice.5 The hiring of new officers begins long before they are needed on the job. Many applicants drop out during the process. Of the applications received, only a small percentage of individuals come in for the initial written exam. Date Applications Show Up for Exam September 2014 1107 207 March 2015 1139 85 August 2015 50 12 September 2015 877 182 January 2016 692 166 March 2016 330 106 Information supplied by the City of Santa Barbara Human Resources Department As noted in the chart above, a high number of applicants are lost before the written test. Then a high number of applicants do not pass the written test. An equal number is lost during the background check, which includes a polygraph test and interviews with friends and acquaintances of the applicant. The background checks average a cost of $2,500 per applicant to SBPD.6 There is no drug testing without cause. Nationally, more than 75 percent of applicants for military service are ineligible due to lack of education, obesity or other health concerns, or criminal record. It is just as difficult for our local police department to find qualified applicants. The SBPD sends recruits to the Ventura County Criminal Justice Training Center (Academy) for six months of basic law enforcement training that meets Peace Officer Standards and Training requirements. The Jury learned that sending a recruit to the Academy is an investment for the SBPD. The costs include $1,500 in ammunition, $6,000 in equipment, $600 for educational expenses, and $2,500 for housing during the stay. The recruits are also paid a salary while there. There is no payment to the Academy itself because the SBPD provides officers to augment the training staff. Eighty percent of the recruits sent to the Academy successfully complete the training. After Academy graduation, the recruits are sworn in as police officers in the SBPD. It is expected that all will complete field training. All new officers are on probation for one year. In the final result, they expect that over 80 percent of new officers will make the three-year mark. 5 Potthoff, Gina. “Santa Barbara Police Still Struggling to Hire Officers for 19 Vacant Positions: Retirements, Lateral Moves to Sheriff and UCSB Police Departments Plague Department and City Council Questions Recruitment Efforts.” Noozhawk. 14 October 2015. Web. 6 ibid. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 39 SANTA BARBARA POLICE HIRING
• OB9
  The non-profit organization, Heal the Ocean, focuses on wastewater infrastructure, sewers and septic systems, as well as ocean dumping practices that have contributed to ocean pollution. Because of its participation in developing the County’s LAMP, on February 10, 2015, Heal the Ocean sent out an informational letter to Santa Ynez homeowners. The letter informed them of future changes to septic system regulations adopted in the LAMP and indicated that the homeowner “will not be required to hook up to the sewer line until your septic system fails per SYCSD, County and State Regulations.” Because Santa Ynez is not on the ocean, the Jury learned that some homeowners discarded the letter without opening it, thinking it either did not pertain to them or was a fundraising solicitation. 7 Septic System Sanitary Survey for Santa Barbara County, prepared for Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services by Questa Engineering Corp., Project #210029, March 2003, pp 2-12 and 2-13. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 43 WEST SANTA YNEZ ANNEXATION TO SANTA YNEZ COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Santa Barbara County adopted its LAMP in January 2016. On January 20, 2016, as required by law, the SYCSD filed an application with LAFCO for annexation. On May 5, 2016, LAFCO adopted a resolution approving the annexation, under which 483 existing homes could potentially be connected to SYCSD’s sanitation system. On May 27, 2016, in accordance with its statutory timelines, LAFCO mailed a notice to landowners and registered voters in west Santa Ynez informing them of the annexation and about a protest hearing to be held on June 30, 2016, at the SYCSD offices. The notice indicated that protest forms would be included, but it was not clearly stated that the form was, in fact, printed on the back of the notice. Neither the protest notice nor the protest form explained how the value of the written protests filed (and not withdrawn) would be determined. Also as required, LAFCO posted a notice in the newspaper regarding the hearing. However, it was only posted in the Santa Maria Times and not in other local publications. The Jury learned that a LAFCO protest hearing is not actually a discussion meeting on an issue but, merely, the last opportunity to hand in a protest form. The protest hearing was held on a Thursday, June 30, at 11:00 a.m., and the deadline for handing in the protest form was 11:40 a.m., although eligible persons could have mailed in their protest form prior to the hearing. In accordance with its procedures and timelines following an annexation approval, LAFCO sent out its protest hearing notices with a protest form on the reverse side. However, the SYCSD had not held a public meeting to inform those affected of costs and options regarding septic tanks and sewer hook-ups. Therefore, on June 9, 2016, SYCSD quickly sent out a letter to landowners and registered voters inviting them to the Board of Directors’ meeting on June 15th, emphasizing that they were not being forced to connect to the sewer system. At the June 15th board meeting, the SYCSD provided a handout explaining the reason for the annexation and the LAMP policy. They outlined two options if septic tanks fail: to install an advanced treatment system requiring routine, ongoing maintenance and periodic, official inspections or to connect to the sewer system. According to SYCSD, an advanced treatment system would cost approximately $40,000 plus repairs, maintenance and inspections. In contrast, the District estimates a hook-up to the sewer system will cost $25,000, which could either be paid upfront or spread over 20 years at Prime plus 1 percent, and billed with property tax. The costs could be less if the SYCSD secured grants for some of the work, including laying new sewer lines where none previously existed. There would also be an annual user fee of approximately $800 added to the property tax bill. Additionally, the homeowner would be responsible for the line from their house to the main sewer and for decommissioning and crushing the old septic tank. The results of written protests by landowners and registered voters, filed and not withdrawn against the annexation, were tabulated pursuant to Government Code §57075. Because the area of annexation was “inhabited territory,” the protest proceeding was conducted for both landowners and registered voters. Protests filed by registered voters were referred to and examined by the Santa Barbara County Elections Office. Protests filed by landowners within the affected area were referred to and examined by the Santa Barbara County Assessor’s Office. The County Elections Office determined there were 712 registered voters residing in the affected area as of Wednesday, July 29, 2016, and 153 submitted a valid protest against the annexation, 44 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury WEST SANTA YNEZ ANNEXATION TO SANTA YNEZ COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT which is 21.49 percent. The County Assessor’s Office determined there were 531 landowners in the affected area as of close of business on Wednesday, July 29, 2016, and 131 filed valid protests against the annexation, which is 24.67 percent. The total assessed value of the land within the affected area was $98,354,004 and the total assessed value of the land owned by landowners who filed valid protests was $21,828,905, which is 22.19 percent. If either the landowner or the registered voter protests had been more than 25 percent but less than 50 percent, the annexation issue would have gone to an election. If 50 percent or more submitted valid protests, then the annexation would have been terminated. In this case, because both sets of protests were less than 25 percent, the annexation was forwarded to the State for final approval. Timeline Leading to Annexation Date/Year Activity In 2000 Santa Barbara County conducts an analysis to locate, characterize and track septic systems in unincorporated areas. West Santa Ynez determined to be one of 24 Focus Areas of concern. June 2012 State Water Resources Control Board adopts “Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design, Operation & Maintenance of Onsite Water Treatment Systems.” May 2013 State Water Quality Control Policy becomes effective. Between 2014-15 County-led stakeholder process takes place to develop County’s Local Agency Management Program (LAMP). February 10, 2015 Heal the Ocean informational letter sent to homeowners in west Santa Ynez re LAMP. January 2016 Santa Barbara County adopts its LAMP. January 20, 2016 SYCSD files application to Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation. May 5, 2016 LAFCO adopts resolution approving annexation subject to protest proceedings. May 27,2016 LAFCO mails notice regarding protest hearing, including protest form, to landowners and registered voters. June 9, 2016 SYCSD sends letter to property owners inviting them to their board meeting on June 15, 2016. June 15, 2016 SYCSD holds board meeting; provides handout explaining reason for annexation, LAMP and cost estimates. June 30, 2016 LAFCO holds a protest hearing (deadline to submit written protests). September 1, 2016 LAFCO Memorandum to Commission members gives the results of protest hearing. Because protests were less than 25 percent, the annexation is considered complete and forwarded to the State for ratification. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 45 WEST SANTA YNEZ ANNEXATION TO SANTA YNEZ COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
• OB10
  The BOS has developed and implemented a plan to fund the North Jail operations. However, the Jury could find no concrete plan to fund the multimillion dollars needed for repairs and upgrades to the Main Jail. According to the GSD, the Main Jail is in failure mode, including but not limited to:  roof systems  plumbing and sewer systems that are over 60 years old  compliance with current seismic standards  compliance with ADA regulations  the Medium Security Facility (aka Honor Farm), the oldest and most dilapidated building in the complex The Sheriff’s goal is to offer the same services at both Jails. This may mean closing some Main Jail beds, reconfiguring some areas, and repurposing others. For instance, Main Jail medical facilities could be consolidated, which would make for greater efficiency and better quality of care. The Sheriff envisions new classroom space in the Main Jail so that inmates are better prepared to rejoin society. This will take intense planning beforehand and the Sheriff stated his intention to begin this process in the near future with internal brainstorming. The Sheriff will determine the priority of repairs and the implementation of reconfiguration and repurposing plans. This will be the greatest challenge for the Sheriff as construction cannot begin until the North Jail opens and Main Jail inmates can be moved. According to the Sheriff, available funds will dictate what can be accomplished. The Marx-Okuba report estimated jail and Medium Security Facility projects that need immediate attention amount to $2.6 million (in 2015 dollars). Within the next five years, $7.7 million will be needed, and a total of $15 million over 10 years will be required to make the necessary repairs and replacements. The Jury found that estimated budget shortfalls are expected to grow over the next several years, making capital improvement projects a significant challenge for the BOS. There are alternative funding sources for capital improvements such as Certificates of Participation (COP), General Obligation Bonds (GOB), tax initiatives and use of the Strategic Reserve. The debt of a COP is secured solely by a stream of revenues generated by a narrowly defined project, and in this case the Jury sees none. COPs are burdened with a higher interest rate. There is also the possibility of passing new tax initiatives, but those have been repeatedly voted down in the past. A GOB requires 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 51 SANTA BARBARA MAIN JAIL a super majority (two-thirds voter approval); past history has indicated this is a very high bar to overcome. Another possibility is pulling funds from the Strategic Reserve. However, the Strategic Reserve is currently funded at $30.9 million, and the County Budget Director recommended that disbursements be limited to $5 million per year for all County operations that serve essential public health, safety and welfare. In addition, the Jury points to the fact that the BOS established a reserve fund in anticipation of increased operating costs with the new North Jail and funded it over the past couple of years. The BOS could similarly establish another reserve fund in anticipation of costs for the Main Jail repairs, replacement and repurposing projects.
• OB11
  The Mayor has organized a task force of local decision-makers, called The Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety (Task Force), to work with the Network to develop a Santa Maria-specific strategic plan. This Task Force held its first meeting on April 24, 2017. The Director of the Network from Santa Rosa and the Innovation Team Director from the City of Long Beach came to Santa Maria to begin facilitation and training. These cities already have active youth safety task forces. At the meeting there were calls from participants to bring in more local stakeholders, especially from neighboring areas. The completion of this comprehensive strategic plan is scheduled for September 2017. Membership in the California Cities Violence Prevention Network has many advantages for the City. It provides a ready-made structure for the City Council and agencies to follow. The structure proactively brings many elements of the community together, which in turn should provide community building for a city that has known cultural and socio-economic divisions. Moreover, it offers contact with other cities and state agencies and the opportunity to benefit from their experience and resources. No less important, the Network will guide efforts and actions using appropriate language that will lend itself to accountability and to meet standards for grants and other support. Critical to the sustainability of Santa Maria’s at-risk youth programs is the early identification of reliable funding sources. The Task Force will identify goals and develop a strategic plan for the City. It consists of representatives of federal, state and local government, law enforcement, the faith-based community, non-profit organizations, the business community, County departments and schools. This group is the top tier of a two-tier plan. This influential group will be instrumental in raising funds to maintain on a permanent basis any programs created by the Task Force. Other cities involved in the Network have raised funds through increased taxes. When and if taxation becomes part of the strategic plan, the City will need the support of these community leaders. Alternatively, the South Coast Youth Task Force assesses a per capita fee from the cities of Santa Barbara, Carpinteria and Goleta and the County. The Jury hopes that the Task Force will not rely on grants as an ongoing funding source. Too often, when the grant runs out, so does the program. At this point, it is not known who will oversee the expenditure of any future funding from city taxes, state grants or other sources. The second tier of the plan, the Technical Resource Committee, is to consist of those who will work 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 65 YOUTH SAFETY IN SANTA MARIA directly with youth. Members of this committee, known as “technicals,” will serve as “boots on the ground” implementing the vision and the goals of the Mayor’s Task Force. The leaders of the Mayor’s Task Force will appoint the members of this technical committee in an effort to avoid duplication of services. At this point, community members and those involved with One Community Action Coalition may be invited to participate as “technicals” in executing the strategic plan generated by the leadership committee. The Outreach Coordinator hired by the City will act as liaison between the two tiers of the plan. He is a long-time Santa Maria resident with experience in working with at-risk youth. The leaders of Santa Maria wanted someone to work directly with them rather than partner with the County. Although this coordinator is an employee of the Recreation and Parks Department, he will have a direct working relationship with the Santa Maria Police Department and the City Manager. The Jury was told that the Police Department requested that the coordinator position be under another jurisdiction to avoid the perception that the emphasis is on law enforcement, which could alienate and intimidate youth. The focus will be on positive community action. The City of Santa Maria has been slow to respond to its gang and at-risk youth problem. The County allocated funding for a North County Gang Task Force in June 2016 but Santa Maria’s contract with the Network only materialized eight months later, in February 2017, and the first meeting of the Task Force was held on April 24. Completion of the plan is not expected until September 2017 at the earliest. It is the Mayor’s hope that youth-serving agencies will be on board with the plan a few months after that. She desires to establish a good foundation and do it right. However, initial delays allowed an important submission deadline for valuable California Gang Reduction, Intervention, Prevention Program (CalGRIP) grants to lapse. Moreover, being under the aegis of the Mayor and City Council, any action or adaptations to the plan will likely have to be approved by them, possibly incurring further delays. With the recent history of violent gang activity in Santa Maria, vigilance will be required and suppression will always need to be fast and decisive. However, the Police Chief has acknowledged that the Department “cannot arrest its way out of the gang problem.” Its response for more intervention involves more patrol beat coordinators in neighborhoods. More prominent use of a Citizens’ Academy for Spanish-speaking members of the community, recently formed by the Police Department, could also prove to be effective. These participants have agreed to volunteer to attend City Council meetings and public meetings of the Task Force. The Police Department is encouraging the Spanish-speaking population to contribute their voice and participate in the efforts for youth safety. Santa Maria was characterized by several interviewees as a city divided by occupations, social classes and ethnicities. The Jury finds that The Mayor’s Task Force perpetuates that divide – those in the top tier will set the goals for those at the bottom. The at-risk youth and their families that the Task Force aims to help have little role in developing the envisioned changes and services that concern them. Inclusion of all citizens in this diverse community is essential for success. The ability to gather all elements of the community into a functioning alliance will be the crucial test of Santa Maria’s collaboration with the Network. The real test of the strategic plan will be realized in successful programs focusing on suppression, prevention, intervention and successful reentry into the community. 66 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury YOUTH SAFETY IN SANTA MARIA
• OB12
  Areas of Poor Reception There are three areas with poor radio reception within Santa Barbara County. The problematic areas affect both the northern and southern areas of the County:  Southern Santa Barbara County  Northern Santa Barbara County  CuyamaValley Southern Santa Barbara County Radio communication can be unreliable in the canyon areas of southern Santa Barbara County. Deputies in Carpinteria told the Jury that in certain areas their radios had a weak signal. In coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, a new tower is under construction on Santa Cruz Island. When this is complete, the new site on the island will eliminate problems of radio communication in canyons south of the Gaviota Pass that slope toward the ocean by enabling the signal to penetrate the canyons on the mainland. This will assist all public safety agencies in the south County. 100 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COVERAGE Northern Santa Barbara County Law enforcement officers and Sheriff’s Deputies in the Santa Maria Valley have told the Jury that radio communication is also unreliable in outlying areas. Dead spots have prevented a call for backup and have endangered deputies. There are plans to install a new radio repeater on a site southwest of Santa Maria. This site was formerly operated by the television station KSBY. This new site is expected to receive County funding by the end of this year, and it will provide communication in the Casmalia and Tanglewood areas. There is also a plan to place a repeater on Mount Solomon, located just south of Santa Maria, which will improve coverage in the Santa Maria Valley. CuyamaValley Deputies in the Cuyama Valley are operating in a rural area with extremely poor communications (dead spots). The Jury learned that, in one instance, a deputy was unable to call for assistance due to the lack of radio coverage. Another also stated that sometimes he had to use the fire department radio in order to communicate with his office. For the safety of all, it is essential that they are able to be in contact with their communication center at all times. The nearest backup for the Cuyama deputies is located at the Sheriff’s Substation in Orcutt. These backup deputies may have to travel for over an hour to assist the Cuyama deputies. If available, they may also receive backup from Kern County, and/or the California Highway Patrol. The Santa Barbara County Fire Department, in conjunction with the Ventura County Fire Department, is constructing a new communications tower on a mountain peak in Kern County. This will alleviate fire department coverage problems in the Cuyama area. However, this is a fire department endeavor and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff is not on board with it at this time. Countywide Centers The Santa Barbara County Public Safety Dispatch Center The Santa Barbara County Public Safety Dispatch Center (Center) is located behind the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. This is the only 24-hour County communication facility with countywide responsibility. It is equipped with a total of 10 consoles for dispatching the Sheriff’s units, the County Fire Department units, and medical units, including ambulances. The cities of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, and Lompoc maintain their own radio communication for police, fire, and medical. The Center’s work is divided approximately as follows: law enforcement 70 percent, fire 8 percent, and medical 22 percent. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office uses the 450 MHz band. The County fire departments use the 150 MHz band. Santa Maria Police and Fire use the 700 MHz band. Emergency Medical Service radio band use will depend upon their location. In addition, the County fire departments use six different frequencies, and the Sheriff’s Department uses two frequencies. The Center manager was aware of the problems with radio coverage. However, the Center has the capability of patching the Fire and Sheriff’s radio traffic in emergency situations. This would allow communication between the two agencies. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 101 PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COVERAGE Emergency Communication Centers There are four Emergency Communications Centers in Santa Barbara County:  Santa Barbara County Public Safety Dispatch Center  Santa Barbara City Combined Communications Center  Lompoc Police Dispatch Center  City of Santa Maria Communications Center These communication centers are charged with handling all 9-1-1 calls as well as dispatching police, fire, and ambulance to any emergencies. Updating Technology The public safety radio system in Santa Barbara County is an analog system as opposed to a digital system. According to the Santa Barbara County Communications Manager, the County has not switched to digital, because of the following disadvantages:  Digital radios, like all new digital technology, can be somewhat more expensive.  Due to additional features and enhanced functionality, a learning curve exists for first-time users.  Digital signals are intolerant to radio frequency (RF) noises, and in the presence of too much RF noise, the signal can result in error. On the other hand, there are a number of advantages to digital systems:  The voice quality is better .  It has more resilience and reliability.  It supports special features such as GPS, text messaging, emergency button, encryption, remote monitoring and caller ID.  Dedicated talk groups can be created on the same system. The City of Santa Maria is the first to utilize the 700 MHz band on the central coast. During the Jury’s visit, the Santa Maria Police Department was in the process of moving the dispatch center from Cook Street to its new facility on Betteravia Road. The dispatch center receives about 600 calls daily, and when completed, will have nine dispatch consoles. Once the center is fully operational, they expect to have 21 dispatchers to handle the 24/7 operations. The center will be capable of handling neighboring communities. At the time of the Jury’s visit, there was one tower at the Santa Maria Police Department to handle any traffic in the Santa Maria and adjacent areas. An additional tower has been constructed in the Los Flores Ranch Park area. This will cover the Northwest area of Santa Barbara County which includes the City of Guadalupe and the county areas of Tanglewood and Casmalia. Moreover, during the interview with the Chief of Police of Santa Maria, he stated that they would cover the Allan Hancock campuses in Santa Maria and Lompoc. The City of Santa Maria is now utilizing the 700 MHz radio system for all public safety communication. Radios used by personnel are capable of receiving the 700 MHz band as well as the 400 MHz band, which is utilized by the Sheriff’s Office. The Jury was told that the key word is interoperability where agencies can be patched indefinitely and talk to one another in real time. 102 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COVERAGE The City of Santa Maria is hoping to provide service to neighboring cities and eventually the County with its new radio system. In order to join this system, North County partners would have to buy the radios and access to the towers, but they wouldn’t have to pay for the infrastructure as Santa Maria has already provided this. South County partners would have to purchase and install 700 MHz repeaters and radios. The repeaters could be installed in existing towers, including cell towers. The prior installation of technology and towers in the North allows smaller departments to have the equipment that Santa Maria already has in place, so there would not be high upfront costs. This would eliminate the current situation where emergency responders have to borrow each other’s radios to communicate. Further negotiations would include a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs), joint planning, equipment loans and channel sharing. The Santa Maria Police Department is also willing to train other departments and offer radio and technical support personnel.
• OB13
  As stated by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff, our jail has become the “de facto mental institution for the county.” A 2013 study undertaken by Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) estimated that it cost $44,500 per year to incarcerate an inmate in the County Jail and it costs the County an additional $4,000 to house each inmate with mental health issues. In 2017, the Sheriff estimated a $46,000 cost per inmate per year and an additional “marginal” cost of $5,000 per year for the care of mentally ill inmates. The new contract with California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG) pinpoints areas of improvement for better medical and mental health care, and steps to redress prior inadequate treatment. The BOS voted an additional $1 million in the new contract over the previous contract with Corizon. Most of the increased expenditures go to salaries, with the idea of guaranteeing continuity of care by attracting and retaining qualified staff. Another $35,000 was accorded for initiating electronic medical records, which the Jail had not had before.27 The Board’s decision to devote more money to medical and mental health care in the Jail at this time of budget shortfalls is a welcome first step to remediate past inadequate care at the Jail. Furthermore, the Jail staff began making administrative changes to correct issues before the April 2017 takeover of services by CFMG. However, as stated in an update to the procurement process to the BOS, “Where there is a health care vendor, strong contract management is essential. The County can delegate health care but still carries accountability.” 27 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes, 28 February 2017. 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 109 MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN THE MAIN JAIL Disability Rights Act Report The DRC Report finds that the Sheriff is directly responsible for the following issues:  Excessive Solitary Confinement  Inadequate Mental Health Care  Denial of Rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act Excessive Solitary Confinement The DRC Report first found fault with the excessive use of isolation and solitary confinement. Inmates administratively classified with a mental illness, according to the DRC report, appeared to be “routinely placed in prolonged isolation.” The DRC inspection team found that prisoners were locked in small cells for 22-24 hours a day, with little or no time out of the cell. The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) also noted in its report that the Jail was out of compliance in placing inmates in safety cells because of medical or mental health concerns.28 Moreover, the DRC reported that inmates were held in safety cells for many days at a time on a repeated basis. A safety cell is often called a “rubber room,” and it has only a pit in the center for a toilet. In standard practice, a safety cell is meant as a temporary stay for violent or suicidal inmates. The DRC found that medical records indicated that inmates in the Main Jail were kept there even after the dangerous behavior subsided. Corizon would then stipulate that the inmate be released at “custody discretion,” as noted in the DRC report. With matters left in the hands of the Jail’s custody staff, they became the responsible party for the care of mentally ill inmates. The DRC report pointed out that this process was further hampered by the Corizon staff being on site only during normal business hours. This led to lengthy stays in the safety cells. However, the Jury learned that with the addition of two more “step down” cells in 2016, fewer inmates have had to be placed in safety cells. Step down cells have minimal amenities such as a bed, a sink and a toilet. The DRC team observed custody staff going through the motions for observation of the inmates in safety cells, without really looking at or assessing their condition. Such actions did not represent true monitoring of inmates who were at risk to themselves. The Sheriff’s response to the DRC report noted that the Jail was in compliance with state laws in matters of the safety cells. The BSCC also noted that the Main Jail was in compliance with performing timely checks of the safety cells. Custody staff informed the Jury that they now perform sight observations. In anticipation of a new medical and mental health care provider, and in response to the DRC and public complaints, the custody staff began to remedy these problems in 2016. In a meeting with the custody staff, the Jury learned about the changes in procedure. They reduced the time for inmates to be in a safety cell. Before inmates are put in one of these cells, they are seen by a mental health practitioner as a form of intervention. If the inmate is not out of the safety cell in 12 hours, a Crisis and Recovery Emergency Services (CARES) team is called in to do an assessment. Additionally, the increase in the psychiatrist’s hours from 24 to 40 hours a week allows more treatment before possible confinement in a safety cell. The Jury learned from custody staff that treating the inmates in a more humane fashion has dramatically reduced the number of inmates being placed in safety cells. 28 State of California, Board of State and Community Corrections, 2014-2016 Biennial Inspection, Santa Barbara County’s Type II and Court Holding Facilities. 110 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN THE MAIN JAIL Inadequate Mental Health Care Overall, the mental health care rendered by Corizon was deemed inadequate by the DRC team. The report pointed out that in the area designated for mentally ill inmates, each cell holds inmates individually, even though they were designed to hold two. The DRC report found this “as isolating as maximum security housing.” The design of this section of the Main Jail, described as linear, does not allow for many programs to be offered in an open area near the cells. The Jury was told that all programs that the Sheriff would like to offer for the rehabilitation of inmates require space and, under the current design, extra deputies to escort them to the available space. Recreation and restorative programming are currently not within reach for most inmates, and this situation can only be corrected when the Northern Branch Jail is finished in 2019. According to the DRC report and several interviewees, inmates complained of not seeing a mental health practitioner and not receiving medications for weeks or even months. The DRC report cited Corizon’s method of treatment as “cell front,” that is, only speaking through a slot in the door. Essentially, there was inadequate treatment for the mentally ill. Custody staff revealed to the Jury that with the new mental health provider there are plans to initiate face-to-face consultation and group sessions. Moreover, each inmate is now case-managed. California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG) also plans to assure that patient-specific medications are available, especially at intake. The DRC report attributed some of the problems with medication to poor initial screening. The 2015- 16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury also criticized the inmate intake process, recommending that a nurse always be present. As a result, the Main Jail reassigned a full-time RN to be present at intake 24/7. This may have improved the designation of who had serious mental illness upon arrival – by proper identification in the Intake Medical Questionnaire – but the problem of medications remained unresolved. The Jury heard that bridge (interim) medications were sometimes not given, according to inmates, family members and the Public Defender’s office. Now, with the improved intake screening, starting protocol medications are more quickly available, as are withdrawal therapies. Moreover, one LVN was added to deliver the more than 600 medications daily in a more timely fashion. The Jury learned from several sources that inmates had often complained about lack of care. But the complaint system with Corizon broke down. As the DRC wrote, “we are concerned that Corizon’s reporting system may not be capturing all the sick call slips and psych line requests submitted by prisoners, especially because these requests are apparently not logged in the medical records.” It was disclosed to the Jury that these slips, or “kites,” and grievances seemed to disappear. Boxes of unanswered grievances came to light before and after Corizon left. To remedy this lack of accountability, the Jail custody staff created a new grievance system, which included a new form. The inmate now gets a copy of his complaint. Rather than grievances not being recorded, they are date-stamped and responded to within 12 hours. To better follow up on medical grievances, a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) release form is part of the grievance. In 2016, a retired deputy was called back to service to be the grievance coordinator, and he has formed a committee of County representatives and advocacy groups who oversee the implementation of the grievance process. The 2015-16 Grand Jury reported that the Jail staff conducted no oversight of contract compliance in evaluating Corizon’s treatment of inmates. Whereas the Sheriff exercised no performance 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 111 MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN THE MAIN JAIL reviews with Corizon, oversight is one of the top priorities in the contract with the new provider, with “timely, accurate and actionable data to monitor vendor.” The Jury learned that audits and compliance reviews are being performed by the Public Health Department to monitor appropriate medical care and by the Department of Behavioral Wellness for mental health. This County collaboration should revitalize care in the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. After a decade of frustrated efforts to solve the problem of the mentally ill in the Jail, the Sheriff’s Office has begun to partner with community and national projects such as the Stepping Up Initiative, a program designed to divert nonviolent mentally ill from Jail to treatment programs. The Initiative hopes that individual treatment plans for each inmate and even alternative housing will reduce recidivism. As declared in the Stepping Up resolution: “Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors actively support the work of Stepping Up…to make more effective use of strained budgets and safely reduce the number of adults with mental illness in jails by connecting them to community-based treatment and services when possible.” Jail staff has also piloted its own program, Project BRACE (Breaking Recidivism and Creating Empowerment). Putting low-level offenders in treatment rather than in jail would incur lower costs and offer long-term savings for the County. With budget limitations again at the forefront of all funding, the opportunity for community and countywide involvement is most timely. These counseling programs, along with residential treatment housing, are necessary to unburden the Jail from the weight of its mental health services and to create a better path to wellness. In the fall of 2016, the BOS formed an interdepartmental working group (the Sheriff’s Office, the Probation Department and the Department of Behavioral Wellness) to form an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team. Its purpose was to provide housing as “an alternative to incarceration at County Jail.” Denial of Rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act The DRC report found fault with the physical facilities, including bathrooms and proper housing for inmates with disabilities. Many deficiencies exist in the Jail, which was built before disability accommodations were required. However, the DRC report notes that the Department of Justice, in line with the ADA, “makes clear that it concerns the program access obligations of a correctional facility, which do not depend on… the date of construction or modification.” In the dormitory where inmates with mobility impairments are housed, “the toilet and shower areas do not meet architectural standards for wheelchair use, and lack properly placed grab bars, shower heads, etc.” The Jury was told that there have been some modifications and repairs but obstacles prevent remodeling. The Sheriff needs to wait for legal and architectural advice as well as the opening of the Northern Branch Jail before proceeding with reconstruction. (See the 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report “Santa Barbara Main Jail: An Outdated and Inefficient Facility.”) Floor sleeping has long been noted in the Main Jail. It has too many inmates for the number of beds. This situation becomes more of a problem for inmates with disabilities, who should be assigned lower bunks. According to the DRC report, “The Jail apparently has no policy or practice to ensure that lower bunk orders are issued, honored and enforced.” In addition, the DRC report stated that in 2015 there was no ADA coordinator on-site nor was there an ADA complaint system. According to the report, the “staff were unaware of such a position 112 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN THE MAIN JAIL and could not identify any individual responsible….” The report also referred to untrained staff involving the handling of an inmate in a wheelchair facing accessibility barriers. There is now an ADA coordinator at the Jail. Accreditation Lack of oversight over Corizon’s practices at the Main Jail led to failure to ensure National Commission on Correctional Health Care accreditation of the medical services. The Sheriff’s Office did not oversee the accreditation process, and Corizon’s inefficiency led to its lapse. Corizon provided no justification for this, nor did the Sheriff. The paperwork just was not completed. Upon realization of this, the Sheriff’s Office tried to delay the application, knowing that it would take time for the medical and mental services to reach compliance with state or national standards. As a result, “compliance with health care accreditation standards” within nine months is one of the first priorities of the management team that selected the California Forensic Medical Group. 29

No Responses Found 2

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