Santa Cruz County Grand Jury • 2016-2017 • Agency Response
Response to: Public Program Successes

The 2015-2016 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires that the Santa Cruz County Sheriff-Coroner

Published: August 15, 2016 18 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 8 findings

F1 Page 3
The Facility Risk Report, which is generated from the Crisis Intervention Team meeting, lacks specific recommendations. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):
No recommendations for this finding
F2 Page 4
The Crisis Intervention Team only meets on weekdays, creating potential communication problems by not meeting on weekends and holidays. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Beginning June 26, 2016, the Sheriff’s Office changed our CIT meeting schedule to seven days per week.
No recommendations for this finding
F3 Page 5
The Observation Unit does not meet the standard definition of an infirmary. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):
No recommendations for this finding
F4 Page 6
There are two holding cells in the Medical Unit which can be put to better use for inmate medical needs. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The two holding cells in the Medical Unit are designed and appropriately used to temporarily secure inmates awaiting treatment by medical staff.
No recommendations for this finding
F5 Page 7
The Medical Unit (which houses the nurse’s station) is several doors away from the Observation Unit contributing to less-than-optimal medical care. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Observation Unit is not an infirmary. Medical staff treats inmates both in the medical unit and respond directly to the patients location throughout the facility. Inmates requiring higher-level medical care and monitoring are transferred to the local hospital.
No recommendations for this finding
F6 Page 8
Current policy allows 72 hours before an at-risk inmate is seen by a doctor, which we feel is too long for at-risk inmates. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): At-risk inmates are seen immediately upon intake by Jail Medical staff. Inmates requiring urgent assessment by a doctor are transferred to the local hospital. The 72 hour allowance for a Jail Doctor appointment is appropriate for at-risk inmates under the care of onsite medical staff.
No recommendations for this finding
F7 Page 9
The window for cell 13 in the Observation Unit is too small for adequate observation. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): California Code of Regulations Title 24 regulates the size and shape of jail Safety Cell windows for adequate observation. Cell 13 is a Safety Cell and is compliant with the regulation.
No recommendations for this finding
F8 Page 10
The Main Jail’s unsecured kitchen back door is a security risk. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Fire Code regulations require the Main Jail Kitchen back door remain unlocked. Only screened low-risk inmates are allowed to work in the kitchen and do not pose a significant security risk.
No recommendations for this finding

Observations 2