📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Shasta County Grand Jury • 2005-2006

Shasta County Main Jail Catch & Release Shasta County Main Jail

158 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 25 findings

F1 Page 195
The Grand Jury found the Main Jail to be a clean, orderly and well-run facility.
F2 Page 195
The State of California Board of Corrections, in its 2004/2006 Biennial inspection report, noted that fire and health inspections were conducted and that the facility was in compliance with the relevant standards. The Report also stated the sobering cells were often used as the intake area where inmates are received and held pending 195 housing or arranging for bail, and that this utilization does not comply with state regulations related to sobering cells. These cells should be used only for holding inmates who are a threat to their own safety or the safety of others due to their state of intoxication. That deficiency has been corrected.
F3 Page 196
The Shasta County Main Jail operates at near capacity on a daily basis. The number of inmates at the Main Jail must comply with the Shasta County Superior Court order. This order requires that a quarterly report be submitted to the Shasta County Court outlining both the number and types of inmates released pursuant to the order. Currently, the Main Jail houses the most dangerous inmates, who should not be released. Less dangerous inmates, both sentenced and awaiting sentence, are being released. This has become a common and accepted practice because of the lack of jail space. The fourth quarter court-ordered report for 2005 was: Bookings 2,931 Daily average 32.5 Daily Jail Population 374.5 Highest Daily Population 386 Jail Capacity Releases this Quarter 520 Jail Capacity Releases to date: 1,936 Males Released 378 Females Released 142 Sentenced Releases 76 Unsentenced Releases 444
F4 Page 199
and Recommendation 3 (a). 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 CONSOLIDATION/UNIFICATION OF SHASTA COUNTY SCHOOLS Is Bigger Always Better? Shasta County Office of Education 1644 Magnolia Street Redding, CA 96001 REASON FOR INQUIRY: 530.225.0200 Section 933.5 of the California Penal Code provides that the Grand Jury may investigate and report on the operations of any special-purpose assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly within the county. The Grand Jury received a request to investigate the feasibility of combining Shasta County school districts. BACKGROUND: School districts may exist independently or may be combined into either of two arrangements: consolidation or unification. Consolidation is the combining of two or more elementary or high school districts with adjoining borders to form a single district. Unification is the joining together of all, or part of, an elementary school district (grades K-8) with a high school district (grades 9-12) to form a new district encompassing grades K-12. Both consolidated and unified districts have single governing boards. . School districts in California operate with their own governing boards and appointed superintendents. Each district incurs costs for salaries, retirement contributions and insurance benefits for employees. Most districts pay trustees for board meeting attendance. Some also pay trustees’ retirement and insurance benefits, association memberships, and conference attendance costs. The Shasta County Office of Education (SCOE) is, in effect, a service organization that acts as an intermediary between local school districts and the California State Department of Education. With regard to local school districts, SCOE is more administrative 279 than educational in that it offers limited curricular support to the districts. SCOE also ensures that each district operates in a financially responsible manner and that all required State report deadlines are met. SCOE receives operating funds from the State for all of the public school districts in Shasta County. The amount SCOE receives is based on the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of each school district in the County. ADA is a state-adopted formula used to determine per student revenue. ADA funding provides most of the revenue for local school districts, and is disbursed by SCOE to each district at pre-set times throughout the year. For each public school student the 2005/2006 ADA formula provides $5,059 for elementary districts, $6,294 for high school districts, and $5,917 for unified districts. School enrollment is declining, both locally and statewide. Therefore, ADA financing for local school operations is also declining. METHOD OF INQUIRY: The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: • Shasta County Board of Education web-site, www.shastacoe.org. • California State Master Plan for Education, 2002 • Declining Enrollment in California, Fall 2003, California County Superintendents of Educational Services Association • Fingertip Facts on Education in Shasta County, 2005/06, Shasta County Office of Education • Shasta County School Districts’ 2005/2006 School Year Schedule, Shasta County Office of Education 280 • School Administration – Is the Cost Too High? Report by the 2004 Marin County Grand Jury The Grand Jury conducted the following interviews: • Sixteen private citizens • Shasta County Registrar of Voters • Two elementary school board members • A high school superintendent • An elementary school superintendent • A high school principal FINDINGS 1. In Shasta County there are 25 elementary, high school and unified public school districts: • Elementary districts 21 • High school districts 2 • Unified districts 2 2. These 25 districts are comprised of 69 schools: • Elementary schools 32 • Middle/Junior high schools 9 • High schools 8 • Charter schools 14 • Continuation high schools 5 • Regional occupational school 1 3. Total enrollment in Shasta County public schools in 2005/2006 is 27,274: • Kindergarten-Grade 3 5,907 281 • Grades 4-6 6,449 • Grades 7-8 4,656 • Grades 9-12 10,145 • Alternative schools 67 4. The enrollment figures for Shasta County schools show a loss of 3,021 students (10%) from 2001/2002 to 2002/2003. Between the years 2000/2001 and 2005/2006 private school enrollment also declined, from 2,812 to 2,447, or 365 students (13%). 5. According to school officials, reasons for declining enrollment include: • Reduction in family size due to advancements in birth control. During the past ten years the average number of children per family declined from 2.5 to 1.5. • Lack of affordable housing for families with children. During the past five years the average cost of a home in Shasta County increased from $174,500 in the year 2000 to $315,049 in 2005. • Loss of employment opportunities in the forestry and agriculture industries, which has caused young families to leave the area and reduced the influx of young families into the county. 6. The decline in enrollment during the past three years resulted in a reduction in ADA revenue to Shasta County school districts in excess of $15 million. The effects of diminished ADA revenue include elimination or reduction of: • extracurricular activities including athletic, drama, art, and music programs • remedial programs • programs for high-functioning students • classroom aide positions 282 • school nurse and psychological service positions • staff development opportunities 7. School district calendars vary significantly. For example, there are six different school year opening dates, five different winter and spring breaks, and five different closing dates. This can adversely impact schedules for families with children enrolled in more than one district. Unification or consolidation could minimize this impact. 8. Costs of school board elections in Shasta County depend on the number of board vacancies. For example, in 2003 this cost was $149,670. A cost saving would be realized by reducing the total number of board members through consolidation/unification. 9. A local elementary school administrator reported that eight eastern Shasta County elementary school districts recently joined forces for state-mandated training. This example of cooperation, sometimes called a consortium, resulted in a combined savings of $56,000 to the districts. 10. Unification and consolidation have additional positives and negatives. A significant issue is the loss of component district independence and autonomy. School officials report some parents perceive that unification or consolidation diminishes the quality of education. Other factors cited include a less responsive school board; decreased parental involvement; and increased class size. However, coordination of the curriculum throughout a unified district could ensure that students receive the same educational opportunities no matter which school they attend. Unification would permit a seamless transfer of students between schools within the district. Increased 283 opportunities for extracurricular activities such as athletic programs, drama, arts and music might also be realized. 11. Supporters of unification/consolidation claim that costs would be reduced due to a reduction in the number of school administrators. Also, district support services can be combined to realize savings. However, a 2004 Marin County study concluded that unification in that county would result in an overall saving of only 3%, and that any administrative savings would be offset by other costs of unification such as making all salaries uniform at the highest rate. The study concludes that, “While the likelihood of significant savings from district reorganization is questionable and the hurdles to achievement are high, understanding how individual district funds are used seems to be the best way to ensure that education monies are used effectively.”
F5 Page 197
In December 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved the Sheriff’s proposal to replace 62 Shasta County deputy sheriffs in the Main Jail and Detention Annex with correctional officers, in order to reassign the deputies to the field. The replacement of deputy sheriffs by correctional officers results in annual savings due to reduced salaries (estimated up to $800,000 per year). However, the FY 2005/2006 personnel roster at the Main Jail indicates that only 27 of the 62 deputies have been replaced with correctional officers. Interviewees consistently related that the pay scale of correctional officers was inadequate for recruitment and retention. Indeed, one officer was noted to have separated to resume his job changing tires at a local tire shop where he could earn more money.
F6 Page 197
The Shasta County Jail is operating at minimum staffing level. Correctional officers and deputies must work overtime to meet required staffing levels. Personnel working at the Main Jail accumulated over 22,000 hours of overtime in 2005. Excessive overtime results in officer fatigue and inefficiency, safety concerns, and contributes to low morale. These factors, combined with a higher concentration of dangerous inmates, create a concern for the safety and security of both the Main Jail staff and inmates. Several interviewees indicated that one or more “disturbances” had occurred since January, 2006, requiring areas of the Jail to be under “lockdown.” Many of the correctional officers and deputies interviewed by the Grand Jury cited the need for the 197 County to hire additional correctional officers and/or deputies to relieve the understaffing and overtime problems.
F7 Page 198
The Main Jail release policy and the inability to hold work release inmates accountable by incarcerating them when they fail the program negatively affect the morale of many of the deputies.
F8 Page 283
Costs of school board elections in Shasta County depend on the number of board vacancies. For example, in 2003 this cost was $149,670. A cost saving would be realized by reducing the total number of board members through consolidation/unification.
F9 Page 283
A local elementary school administrator reported that eight eastern Shasta County elementary school districts recently joined forces for state-mandated training. This example of cooperation, sometimes called a consortium, resulted in a combined savings of $56,000 to the districts.
F10 Page 283
Unification and consolidation have additional positives and negatives. A significant issue is the loss of component district independence and autonomy. School officials report some parents perceive that unification or consolidation diminishes the quality of education. Other factors cited include a less responsive school board; decreased parental involvement; and increased class size. However, coordination of the curriculum throughout a unified district could ensure that students receive the same educational opportunities no matter which school they attend. Unification would permit a seamless transfer of students between schools within the district. Increased 283 opportunities for extracurricular activities such as athletic programs, drama, arts and music might also be realized.
F11 Page 284
Supporters of unification/consolidation claim that costs would be reduced due to a reduction in the number of school administrators. Also, district support services can be combined to realize savings. However, a 2004 Marin County study concluded that unification in that county would result in an overall saving of only 3%, and that any administrative savings would be offset by other costs of unification such as making all salaries uniform at the highest rate. The study concludes that, “While the likelihood of significant savings from district reorganization is questionable and the hurdles to achievement are high, understanding how individual district funds are used seems to be the best way to ensure that education monies are used effectively.”
F12 Page 297
Management of employee grievances is specified in detail in the Policies and Procedures manual. Grievances or complaints are first presented to the employee’s supervisor and may be passed up the chain of command to achieve resolution. It is not so stated in the manual, but employees relate that they may contact a supervisor other than their own if appropriate.
F13 Page 297
Employee suggestions for improvement of SHASCOM are passed up the chain of command, beginning with the employee’s supervisor, but some employees feel this mechanism is ineffective. An existing anonymous “Employee Suggestion Box” provides a direct line to management, bypassing supervisors. However, SHASCOM management informed the Grand Jury that very few suggestions have been submitted in recent years.
F14 Page 297
Employees relate that there is a small “disgruntled group” within SHASCOM. Most 297 employees interviewed stated that such persons exist in virtually all organizations and that they did not adversely affect operations or morale in SHASCOM.
F15 Page 298
The ultimate training goal of SHASCOM dispatchers is to become competent in 9-1-1 call-taking and in management of all four radio pods: SCSD, RPD, RFD and EMS. Employees must also learn to liaison with the California Highway Patrol, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), and Anderson Police Department. Typically, about three months’ training is necessary to achieve adequate proficiency in the first employment task, that of call-taker. Considerably more training is required before the dispatcher is proficient enough to operate a radio pod. Competency across all sectors is typically achieved only after two to five years of employment and training. Most training is one-on-one and is primarily provided by other dispatchers and supervisors, which takes these trainers away from their regular duties. Thus, training is costly and places an added burden on all shift workers. Obviously, when a current employee terminates, his or her replacement must be trained for the job. Employee turnover is, therefore, costly to the agency.
F16 Page 298
The most common reason for employees to terminate employment at SHASCOM is to spend more time starting families and raising children. Retaining these trained employees, even on a part time basis, might be advantageous for SHASCOM. Many of these persons might wish to continue working on a reduced-time schedule. Part-time status is currently available, but it offers no retirement or health care benefits. There is no provision for an arrangement such as job-sharing, in which two or more persons share one full-time position and divide wages and benefits between them. Other reasons given for employee turnover include incompatibility with the shift schedule, which requires working at night; and discovering that the employee really does 298 not like the job for one reason or another. Multitasking is an integral part of every dispatcher’s job and some persons do this better than others. The dispatchers who were interviewed also reported intermittent episodes of severe stress. Not everyone is able to adapt to these conditions.
F17 Page 299
Employees report some “squabbling” and micromanagement in the work environment, but not serious enough to cause problems. In fact, micromanagement during episodes of crisis and high volume was welcomed by some of those interviewed. They also noted that supervisors are (sometimes) more harsh than necessary and have been known to deliver reprimands in the presence of other employees, causing embarrassment, which is undesirable and usually unnecessary.
F18 Page 299
There is close cooperation between the Anderson Police Department (APD) dispatch center and SHASCOM. Equipment, software and procedures are standardized; operators may be exchanged in times of need; and SHASCOM may even provide dispatch services to APD during a major incident. An example occurred recently when an APD officer was assaulted on duty. SHASCOM notified appropriate agencies and assumed routine APD calls while APD dispatch managed the incident.
F19 Page 299
Several law enforcement agency personnel indicated that, at times, SHASCOM was “the tail wagging the dog,” directing the conduct of the agencies. SHASCOM personnel relate that this may well appear to be the case since they are often better informed of available resources than are units in the field. Public safety personnel stated that SHASCOM seemed, at times, to ignore suggestions about SHASCOM communication procedures and take the attitude that “SHASCOM knows best.”
F20 Page 299
Redding firefighters interviewed by the Grand Jury consistently indicated that dispatch through SHASCOM, while adequate, could be improved. They noted that, during some 299 major emergencies within the city (e.g., during the December, 2005, Jewell Lane flood), a battalion chief stationed himself in the fire pod at SHASCOM to guide dispatch, and that this noticeably improved the efficiency of operations. CDF has jurisdiction over fires in the County and State. Its dispatch center is operated by a fire captain, who has fire management expertise. The CDF dispatcher is given authority to prioritize calls and to manage some situations on his or her own. A simple example is the proverbial “cat in the tree.” RFD would not deny service and would have a unit respond to this call. A CDF dispatcher, on the other hand, has the option of suggesting the caller place a bowl of cat food at the base of the tree and call back if the cat doesn’t come down. This could save the cost of sending a unit. In any major wildfire incident, RFD units immediately sign over to CDF for dispatch. The Redding firefighters interviewed by the Grand Jury stated they believe it would be less expensive and they would receive better service if all of their dispatching were switched to CDF. Whether the net effect would be a cost savings has not actually been determined. Redding currently spends $1.8 million annually for SHASCOM services. It allocates $900,000 of that expenditure through RPD and $900,000 through RFD. However, the current allocation is simply a matter of budgetary convenience and makes no allowance for user volume. In 2005, RPD used nearly seven times as much SHASCOM service as does RFD. If allocated by dispatch volume, RFD’s share would be $230,000, which would more accurately reflect the percentage of General Fund money allocated to both departments. It would be clearer to managers as well as concerned citizens if Redding were to allocate SHASCOM police and fire payments proportionately.
F21 Page 300
At SHASCOM’s inception, meetings called “Law Ops” and “Fire Ops” were initiated to 300 resolve operational problems and disputes among member agencies. These meetings were originally held monthly but the number of issues declined and they are now scheduled in alternate months. Several interviewees reported that some of the agencies have not sent representatives to recent meetings. SHASCOM management indicated that, although they always attend the meetings, they prefer to resolve complaints and suggestions promptly by telephone. Issue resolution is not addressed in the Policies and Procedures manual.
F22 Page 301
In response to a 2003/2004 Shasta County Grand Jury Recommendation, SHASCOM now posts announcements and agendas of its Board of Directors’ meetings in publicly accessible locations, namely on a bulletin board located outside the SHASCOM security fence, and on the SHASCOM Internet web site. The latter location is readily available to the public. A regular meeting of the SHASCOM Board was scheduled for Monday May 8, 2006, and the agenda was duly posted to the web site. However, the Grand Jury found that, as of Friday, May 5th, it was known to SHASCOM that the meeting had been rescheduled to May 22nd. The website did not reflect this change until May 10th, when the agenda for a special meeting, to be held on May 22nd, was posted.
F23 Page 301
Staffing has consistently been near authorized levels. SHASCOM’s personnel consist of 52 authorized paid positions and two volunteers, as shown in the table below. SHASCOM Staffing, April 2006 Position Authorized Funded Frozen Filled Vacant Female General Manager 1 1 0 0 1 NA Public Safety Manager - Ops 1 1 0 1 0 1 Public Safety Manager - Training 1 1 0 1 0 1 Public Safety Manager - Systems 1 1 0 1 0 1 Supervisor 5 5 0 4 1 1 Public Safety Dispatcher I & II 34 34 2 31 1 27 Administrative Assistant 1 1 0 1 0 1 301 Accountant (no benefits) 1 1 0 1 0 1 Secretary (no benefits) 1 1 0 1 0 1 Extra Help Dispatchers (no benefits) 5 5 0 5 0 5 Mapper/Background/Maintenance (no benefits) 1 1 0 1 0 0 Volunteer NA NA NA 2 NA 1
F24 Page 302
Since its inception in 1990, SHASCOM has had three General Managers. All have been male. Two came from the ranks of sworn law enforcement officers (one police, one sheriff). The most recent retired in October 2005. The agency is now headed by an Interim General Manager (female) who is also the Public Safety Manager ~ Operations. Her experience and training are in public safety dispatching. This interim General Manager has strong support from her staff.
F25 Page 302
In spite of widespread recruitment efforts, the position of permanent General Manager has been vacant for approximately 18 months. The Grand Jury finds that recruiting and appointing a competent and dedicated General Manager is the most pressing of SHASCOM’s current needs. A lack of response by qualified applicants for this position is attributed by SHASCOM personnel to an inadequate pay and benefits package and the fact that few persons are qualified to manage centralized dispatch centers. Because the demand for qualified candidates exceeds the supply, the compensation package for this position must be reviewed. Combining the Training and Systems Manager positions is one option suggested by a SHASCOM Board member for freeing up funds to increase salary and benefits of the General Manager. Training and systems management are both crucial to maintaining the competence of dispatchers and the high quality and volume of SHASCOM operations. The feasibility of this option depends on the amount of time and effort these positions 302 require, and warrants further review.

Recommendations 11