Orange County Grand Jury • 2013-2014 • Agency Response
Response to: Annual Report on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities 6/27/14, 458KB

Annual Report On California Jails And Juvenile Detention Facilities*

Published: November 18, 2014 7 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 9 findings

F1 Page 2
All the jails have inadequate video equipment. The video equipment itself is not the hindrance. The cost to upgrade the infrastructure to accommodate new updated equipment is the limiting factor. Board of Supervisors' Response: Agrees with findings
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 3
Each of the five jails should be funded for upgraded video camera/recording equipment installed as soon as possible. (F.1.) Board of Supervisors' Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. A plan has been developed to upgrade the video camera/recording equipment over the next five fiscal years. The tentative dollars amounts per fiscal year are as follows: Fiscal Year Amount 15-16 $2,031,031 16-17 $2,812,250 17-18 $1,146,625 18-19 $2,320,500 19-20 $2,628,000
F2 Page 2
Budget constraints have marginalized upgrading efficient video equipment, thus reducing adequate monitoring of inmates. Board of Supervisors' Response: Partially agrees with findings Budget constraints have impacted the ability to upgrade video equipment, although the current video monitoring of inmates is adequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 3
The Board of Supervisors should add a line item to the budget to include the training required to ensure competent employees who can oversee and maintain new video equipment. (F.4.) Board of Supervisors' Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. No additional budget line item is necessary for training related to new video equipment. After discussions with the Sheriff's Department, it is understood that her staff will receive training necessary to support new equipment as part of the installation process. Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report "Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Orange County Solutions" Responses to Findings - & 26:
F3 Page 2
As the quickest fix to alleviate partial improvements, prioritize what jail facilities are most in need of upgraded surveillance and then fund each one accordingly until all five jails are completed. Board of Supervisors' Response: Agree with findings
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 5
The Probation Department should update antiquated video surveillance to a more advanced digital system at all four juvenile detention and treatment facilities. (F.3.) Probation's and Board of Supervisors' Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The scope of work for a video upgrade at Juvenile Hall and Youth Leadership Academy is underway, and funding is in place to proceed with the upgrade. The project should reach substantial completion in fiscal year 14/15.
F4 Page 2
The skill level of employees assigned to the five jails cannot currently support upgraded video systems. An upgraded system would require advanced training in audio/video equipment, software programming and security to monitor such an enterprise. Board of Supervisors' Response: Disagrees with findings The technical staff at the Sheriff's Department, who would support the audio/video equipment, possess the necessary expertise to support upgraded equipment. Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report "Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Orange County Solutions" Responses to Recommendations – :
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 5
The Probation Department should add a full-time school administrator at the Joplin Youth Center (F.4.) Probation's Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. While the Probation Department agrees with the benefits of a full time school Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report "Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Orange County Solutions" administrator, and has made this known to the OC Department of Education (OCDE), Probation does not have the ability to dictate OCDE's placement of resources.
F5 Page 4
Due to budget and position cuts experienced over the past five plus years, Joplin lost the only assigned Transitional Deputy Probation Officer two years ago. Probation's and Board of Supervisors' Response: Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 6
The Probation Department should establish a budget to reinstate the Transitional Deputy Probation Officer. (F.5.) Probation's and Board of Supervisors' Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Probation and the Board of Supervisors do not dispute the benefits of having a transitional DPO assigned to Joplin, however, current budget realities have called for a redeployment of assets to areas of greater need in community supervision. Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report "Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Orange County Solutions"
F6 Page 4
Joplin is in need of mental health and substance abuse services. One of the largest and most complex issues confronting justice in California is the need for mental health services for youth in custody and for post-custody. Probation's and Board of Supervisors' Response: Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Page 7
The Probation Department should establish a budget for the addition of mental health and substance abuse services. (F.6.) Probation's and Board of Supervisors' Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Probation Department has provided these services to incarcerated youth for decades, and has recently contracted with the OCDE for expansion of mental health and substance abuse services following the RFP process. The OCDE is providing 11 full time employees for these services to in-custody youth, beginning this fiscal year. Further, the Orange County Health Care Agency continues to provide mental health and substance abuse programming for our youth.
F7 Page 4
The four facilities would benefit from longer terms of residence beyond the typical 90 days in order for youth to have full advantage of the numerous programs offered. Probation's Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding. Longer terms may offer community protection from serious and violent offenders, but there is no evidence to suggest that longer terms result in better programming and rehabilitation. In fact, the research suggests that the opposite is true; longer sentences than necessary decrease an individual's chances for successful reintegration in society. Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report "Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Orange County Solutions"
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Page 7
The Probation Department should conduct a study to determine if program benefits would be enhanced by longer terms of residence beyond the typical 90 days. (F.7.) Probation's Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Although longer sentences would allow some minors to complete more programming, the negative effects would outweigh those benefits. Studies already exist which demonstrate this. Fortunately, the same type of programming exists outside of custody. The Probation Department can, and does, enforce attendance at the same programs out of custody for individuals on probation.
F8 Page 5
The Academy needs to continue exploring additional ways to connect youth with services while in custody that will transition them back into the community and assist the entire family. Probation's Response: Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Page 7
The Probation Department should determine if the Youth Leadership Academy has the need to explore additional ways to connect youth with services while in custody that will transition them back into the community and assist their family. (F.8.) Probation's Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Probation Department continually assesses the resources that exist in the community, and refers minors upon their release.
F9 Page 5
There is a need for additional post release programs with more probation officers to supervise these programs. Probation's Response: Disagrees partially with the finding. While Probation recognizes a need for additional resources in the community to foster reintegration, Deputy Probation Officers are not the appropriate individuals to supervise the programs. Mental health professionals and substance abuse counselors are better able to administer most post release programming. Responses to Recommendations - & 26:
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Page 7
The Probation Department should determine the possibility of additional post release programs with more probation officers to supervise these programs. (F.9.) Probation's Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Probation will continue to seek out additional programming resources to assist in offender rehabilitation. However, offenders are better served when programs are staffed with mental health and substance abuse professionals, rather than probation officers.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.