2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report on Inspections of Napa County Jail, Juvenile Hall,

The recent hiring of a new NCDC Director and the cooperative working relationships in the County’s Criminal Justice Community has resulted in an efficient administration of justice that is certainly a plus for Napa County.

The NCDC Director has demonstrated a high level of professionalism and leadership, while improving jail operations, and staff morale.

The Napa County Criminal Justice Committee has promoted evidence based programs to reduce recidivism and has implemented alternatives to jail sentences for lower level criminals.

There are frequent overcrowding issues in the current jail facility. NAPA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL INSPECTION BACKGROUND The facility was built in 2004 as a state of the art detention and rehabilitation center and was designed to house up to 50 juveniles, supervised by 27 permanent staff assisted by additional part time staff members. The Napa County Probation Department oversees the operation of NCJH. The Chief Probation Officer serves as its Director, responsible for the overall operation of NCJH. NCJH provides for juvenile detention and rehabilitation providing custody, counseling, medical care, and guidance of delinquent and custodial children in a variety of short- and medium-term evidence based programs and assessments. Juvenile probation oversight delivers various levels of supervision that are based on protection of the community, risk/needs assessments, out-of-home placements, and amenability to rehabilitation. The juvenile supervisors collaborate with the Napa County Health and Human Services Department in the supervision of selected cases wherein mental health issues are a major factor. The supervisors also collaborate with other community and government agencies such as Juvenile Drug Court, Wolfe Center and Aldea Inc. Detainees receive treatment including mental health evaluations and services provided by a mental health professional 40 hours per week. General nursing care is provided seven days per week. DISCUSSION The Grand Jury found that NCJH is a secure facility that provides safe custody, counseling, medical care, and guidance to delinquent youth. The Grand Jury found the NCJH to be well managed and maintained with programs designed to engage and rehabilitate youth, and instill the values of treating others with respect and courtesy. The facility provides residents the opportunity to continue school through on site teachers and classrooms. In cooperation with other County agencies and non-profits, the NCJH provides programs addressing alcohol and drug abuse, mental health, conflict resolution, religious services and art. The Grand Jury was satisfied with the facility operations, and the high level of professionalism and respectfulness of the administration and staff. FINDINGS The 2011-2012 Grand Jury finds that:

The NCJH is providing a safe and secure environment for delinquent Napa County youths.

The Juvenile Hall facility is well designed, maintained and has a dedicated management team.

Administration and staff demonstrate a high level of professionalism and respectfulness while carrying out their duties.

Administration and staff are making use of evidence based drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and mental health rehabilitation programs. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT BACKGROUND As shown in the table below, California's prison population grew rapidly over the past two decades. From 1990 to 2011, the population in the state’s prisons grew from 97,000 to nearly 161,000. At the same time, the cost of incarceration rose from $20,562 per inmate to $49,190. 1990 2011 Change Prison Population 97,000 161,000 +166 % Cost of Incarceration $20,562 $49,190 +239 % With a greater than 70 percent state prison recidivism rate, most observers would rate the state’s prison system challenged. These were clearly unsustainable trends. Many factors influenced this increase in the state’s prison population. The two most significant contributors were mandatory sentencing laws and tougher drug enforcement policies. The ultimate recognition of the rising prison population, combined with the economic factors of prison expansion programs, and soaring labor costs, began to gather attention. Researchers, lawmakers, fiscal analysts and corrections officials recognized that the rehabilitation process was not working and that the system could not sustain this growth. Thus the Realignment legislation shifted the responsibility for monitoring, tracking and imprisoning low-level offenders, previously bound for state prison, to county jails. Unfortunately it did so without necessarily providing all of the equivalent funding to the county governments. Criminals arrested after October 1, 2011, who qualify under the so- called “triple non” qualification (non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders), will serve their sentences in county jail rather than the state prison. This puts offenders under the management of local officials who may have a greater stake in their rehabilitation than distant state prison employees. Napa County’s response to this legislation, in essence, began in 2004 when seeking a long-term solution for overcrowding conditions at the jail. A study illuminated trends at the jail and made recommendations for improvements. These recommendations evolved into a two phase Master Plan identifying correction system needs for the next 20 years. Subsequent reports presented to the BOS in 2007 and 2008 by the Criminal Justice Committee concluded the County was not implementing evidenced based programs that 8 could reduce recidivism, and recommended the County begin planning for a jail that would meet population projections. In December of 2010, the BOS was presented with a Major Facilities Preliminary Financing Plan and Feasibility Analysis that, among other items, recommended a two phase Jail Replacement Project. The CEO’s office conducted community meetings in early 2011 to solicit public comment on this new Downtown Campus Redevelopment Plan. By then it was obvious these earlier projections for jail population increases would be impacted by the legislature’s enactment of the Realignment Act. While the legislation neither transfers nor orders early release of any inmates, it does shift custody of newly convicted felons sentenced for non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenses to county control unless excluded by statute. In the near term, this bill will affect Napa County by impacting both the number of prisoners in the jail and the severity of their crimes. It will also impact the probation monitoring requirements. This necessitated a re-evaluation of previous projections. In June 2011, a presentation, Napa County Jail Expansion Design Concepts and Split Operations Analysis, was made to the BOS taking into consideration the projected Realignment impact over the next several years, detailing the cost estimates of three jail construction alternatives. In addition to the revised jail population projections and cost estimates, the analysis explored access to Courts, proximity to other County Departments and services, land use, compatibility for other jail sites, law enforcement access and parking. The report also explored construction complexities associated with each prospective site and capacity for expansion if necessary in the future. The staff recommendation to the BOS is for the jail to maintain its current position, that the downtown site is the preferred location for the jail. However, staff recommended delaying a final decision until further analysis can be conducted. The two primary issues driving the delay are related to the downtown location; limited future expansion capacity and complexities associated with new construction at the existing site. An updated report to the BOS is anticipated later this year. The State has allocated $1 billion to the 58 counties to administer the Realignment program, but this initial funding will end on June 30, 2012. The money comes after lawmakers converted part of the state sales tax to a local sales tax. Counties also will receive $453 million from the state's vehicle license fees that used to go to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The State allocates a relatively low dollar amount to Napa County versus other counties, based on the number of offenders the county has sent to state prison in the past. The Governor has pledged to put a constitutional amendment before voters in November 2012 to guarantee that local governments get this money regardless whether the state runs into more fiscal difficulties. Despite these promises, funding remains one of the many concerns for Napa County as well as the other counties. It is uncertain whether there will be enough money from the state to implement and manage the upcoming changes. If not, this burden could shift to the Napa County taxpayers. DISCUSSION JAIL EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES The Master Plan recommendations to the BOS, as well as the subsequent studies and analysis, have identified a need for an updated jail facility. Based on these

The various agencies involved within the County’s criminal justice system are working well together as a team to solve the many issues imposed by the new Realignment legislation and current jail overcrowding conditions.

These stakeholders are finding a common ground, implementing jail alternatives such as the Community Corrections Service Center and the use of home detention and electronic monitoring.

Napa's alternative programs to incarceration are up and running and have been recognized statewide.

Alternative programs have been shown to reduce recidivism and modify criminal behavior, potentially increasing the safety of our community and saving taxpayers’ funds.

Current overcrowding conditions could be exacerbated by the influx of new prisoners; expansion solutions remain several years away.

County projections forecast a 23% population reduction with evidence-based practices. If achieved, this could translate into a cost savings for the taxpayers of Napa County since the cost of the monitoring and treating out-of-custody offenders is less than the cost of incarceration.

The County’s Criminal Justice team is challenged on a daily basis to manage the prisoner population to stay within the bed-rated capacity.

Commitments of State financial support have been very limited, funding provisions included in the Assembly Bills expire in June 2012. A long-term solution is dependent on future legislation. 16