San Diego County Detention Facility Inspection Report

Commendations 4

• CM1
  Single beds may assist in reducing suicide attempts at Kearny Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility.
• CM2
  Providing free passes for the I-125 toll road would halve lengthy commutes for the employees of East Mesa Juvenile Facility.
• CM3
  The adult detention facilities in San Diego County employ inmates as labor in the laundry, food service, sewing, and in a myriad of other production services, saving the County hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is no simple task to orchestrate and oversee these operations. Acknowledgement and distinctive praises are extended to all staff at the San Diego Sheriff’s Department including the medical staff. JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES SUMMARY Juvenile detention facilities have unique needs distinct from adult detention facilities. The RAND Corporation, a non-profit think tank which provides objective research and analysis, did a study known as the Eight Percent Study. This study confirms that childhood experiences predispose youth to become juvenile delinquents. There are many factors that mold socially unacceptable behavior. Many of the youth offenders have been exposed to many of the following adverse childhood experiences:  Violent neighborhoods  Chaotic home life  Gang affiliation  Problems in school  Criminal, substance abusing, or mentally ill parent(s) The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury toured the following juvenile detention facilities operated by the Probation Department of San Diego:  East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility: male only www.co.san-diego.ca.us/probation/juvenile/EMJDF  Kearny Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility: males and females www.co.san-diego.ca.us/probation/juvenile/KMJDF  Juvenile Ranch Facility (Campo): male only www.co.san-diego.ca.us/probation/juvenile/JRF  Girls Rehabilitation Facility: female only www.co.san-diego.ca.us/probation/juvenile/GRF 4 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009/2010 (filed May 18, 2010)  Camp Barrett: male only www.co.san-diego.ca.us/probation/juvenile/Camp_Barrett The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury also visited the following non-detention facility:  Polinsky Children’s Center: A temporary emergency shelter for children www.promises2kids.org/polinsky INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury gathered information from interviews with senior psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, counselors, principals, and staff at the juvenile detention facilities in the County of San Diego. Although juvenile delinquency doesn’t guarantee a lifelong penchant for crime, the detention facilities in San Diego County demonstrate that well planned placement of youth offenders into the appropriate facility will more likely than not have a positive impact on their futures. Furthermore, the blueprint for behavior modification used in San Diego’s juvenile detention facilities has demonstrated that the rate of recidivism can be reduced by approximately seventy- five percent. Overall, the Grand Jury was highly impressed with the operation of San Diego’s juvenile detention facilities. These facilities are well managed by a competent, devoted staff of professionals who see the youth offenders for “not where they are but who they are.” This carefully planned environment parlays discouraging futures into burgeoning redirection that will benefit the youth as well as society. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Since the last inspection on July 15, 2009, Kearny Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility has had nine suicide attempts by asphyxiation using bunk beds. Fact: The new South Bay Expressway (I-125) is the most convenient artery to East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility for employees. Because the expressway charges a substantial toll, the majority of the staff avoids this commute for economical reasons. Finding 04: Single beds may assist in reducing suicide attempts at Kearny Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility. Finding 05: Providing free passes for the I-125 toll road would halve lengthy commutes for the employees of East Mesa Juvenile Facility.
• CM4
  The education available for youth at juvenile detention facilities is not compromised due to special circumstances relating to their offender status. In fact, if a youth offender is placed in the appropriate facility specific to their needs, determined by highly qualified professionals, they will be enrolled in programs that will overcome educational hurdles in concert with improving self esteem. The principals, teachers, psychiatrists, psychologists, and their staff of counselors are especially gifted when it comes to diagnosing and facilitating youth offenders in the juvenile detention facilities of San Diego County. The 2009/2010 Grand Jury members who were not previously familiar 8 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009/2010 (filed May 18, 2010) with the juvenile detention system remain profoundly impressed and extend equal commendations to all staff who partake in the commitment and devotion to those youth. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors 9 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009/2010 (filed May 18, 2010) shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations Date San Diego County Sheriff’s 10-36, 10-37, 07/19/10 Department San Diego County Board of 10-36, 10-39, 10-41 08/18/10 Supervisors San Diego County Probation 10-38, 10-40, 10-42, 10-43 08/18/10 Department 10 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009/2010 (filed May 18, 2010)

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.