Can an Electronic Monitoring Program for Pre-Trial Detainees Help to Reduce Jail Overcrowding?

The San Mateo County men’s jail has been overcrowded each year since 2001. Over the last ten years, incarcerated populations have ranged from 120% of bed- rated capacity in 2002, to 147% in 2007. Response: Agree.

From 2002 through 2007, 50 percent of the average daily population of the San Mateo County men’s jail facility consisted of pre-trial detainees; since 2007, the percentage of pre-trial detainees (PTD) of the average daily population has steadily increased to 76 percent in 2011. Response: Agree. We attribute the substantial shift in percentages to a number of factors, including our robust Alternative Sentencing Bureau, which reduces the number of inmates serving their sentence in our correctional facilities.

San Mateo County has zero (0) PTDs on an EMP and nine (9) pre- sentenced/sentenced detainees on an EMP. Response: Agree.

Significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day is available if selected PTDs are released into an EMP. Response: Respectfully disagree. We believe that it is difficult to accurately compare the EMP costs versus incarceration costs. Our calculations indicate the figure for San Mateo County would be a savings of approximately $7 per inmate (this figure includes the additional costs of monitoring, supervision, infrastructure, administrative expenses, etc.) dependent at least in part upon the number on the EMP at any given time.

Currently, there is a risk assessment tool in use to determine eligibility for the EMP with pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees. This risk assessment tool is not used with PTDs. Response: Agree.

The violent crime index in the county has remained relatively stable from 2001- 2009. Response: Agree. 2

The reasons for the increase in the PTD male jail population (compared to pre- sentenced/sentenced detainees) in recent years are due to two main factors:  The types of charges that detainees increasingly face (immigration holds, gang affiliation, violent crimes, sex crimes, DUIs, outstanding warrants) are offenses that eliminate eligibility for any form of release.  To comply with the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), in 2008 the Sheriff’s Office changed its classification system for parole holds and others with pending cases or warrants from sentenced to pre-trial. This increased the pre-trial detainee population by 10-15%. Response: We agree in part with this finding; another reason for the increase in the percentage of male PTDs is the aggressive use of alternatives to incarceration for the sentenced population and the use of early release through the imposition of modifiable sentences.

The statistics reported by the U.S. Department of Justice Statistics (see, Appendix B) from data provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office do not support the first factor listed in Finding #7. Response: Agree. We note that the data source for the U.S. Department of Justice Statistics is the FBI Unified Crime Reporting Program that lists the details of arrests made by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. The PTD male jail population of San Mateo County consists of arrests made by all agencies within San Mateo County, and on occasion, other entities, such as the California Highway Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The Sheriff’s Office and the Probation Department have not budgeted for studying or implementing an EMP for PTDs. Response: Agree.

Elsewhere, EMPs for PTDs have been implemented to varying degrees:  Santa Cruz and Santa Clara have purchased their own ankle bracelets and related equipment.  Santa Cruz and Sacramento have an active budget for EMP expansions and Pre-trial Services.  Santa Clara has one PTD on the EMP; Santa Cruz has 25 PTDs on the EMP; and Sacramento’s EMP for PTDs began May 2012. 3  Santa Cruz is a member of the California Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS) and uses the Virginia Assessment tool to determine eligibility of PTDs for the EMP.  San Mateo County spends $7-10 (not including monitoring, supervision costs) per day on the EMP for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees versus a $169 daily incarceration cost. Response: We agree with this finding, except for the last bullet point. The figure of $7-10 for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees does not represent the dollar amount costs for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees in San Mateo County. As previously mentioned, it is difficult to separate the precise relative EMP costs versus incarceration costs. Currently, San Mateo County does not employ the EMP for PTD’s.

Substantial literature exists for the study and guidance of non-incarceration options, eligibility guidelines, EMP applications, best-practices, etc. (See, Appendix D) Response: Agree; however, please note that Appendix D, that the Grand Jury refers to does not support this finding.