Kern County Grand Jury • 2025-2026

California Department of Justice & The Kern County Sheriff's Office - Five Year Stipulation

Published: May 27, 2026 18 pages
View Original PDF

Findings 25 findings

F1
The Monitoring Team has failed to meet obligations as set forth in the Stipulated Judgment resulting in significant delays in the KCSO meeting full and effective compliance.
F2
The Monitoring Team did not create Compliance Metrics for the KCSO to follow in determining the question of “compliance” or “non-compliance” with the Stipulated Judgment. This left the KCSO with no clear way to determine what needs to be done to reach compliance.
F3
There was no provision to establish measurable guidelines or goalposts (compliance metrics), making it impossible for either the KCSO or the general public to assess compliance with the Stipulated Judgment.
F4
The Monitoring Team should have issued a Monitoring Plan for each year. There was no Monitoring Plan for 2023/24 and 2024/25, resulting in the KCSO being without a key framework for working with the Monitoring Team.
F5
The Monitoring Team could have sped up compliance by acting as expert advisors and should not have acted to block compliance without issuing compliance metrics.
F6
SJ 171 gives the Monitor final approval of a Monitoring Plan when unresolved differences arise, so there should have been no reason for Monitoring Plans not being created.
F7
Monitoring team staffing issues have affected Stipulated Judgment compliance and led to multiple delays in the KCSO’s compliance.
F8
There were multiple situations that slowed the KCSO’s ability to reach compliance, such as failure by the Monitoring Team to meet their obligations, Monitoring Team staffing issues, response delays by the Monitoring Team, and jurisdictional issues. These were issues out of the control of the KCSO, resulting in significant compliance delays.
F9
The KCSO is not using the ineffectiveness of the Monitoring Team as an excuse for their inability to reach compliance. This is in recognition of the fact that issues with the Monitoring Team have had considerable effect on the KCSO’s compliance.
F10
Delays in posting updated and approved policies online have resulted in the public not being well informed about the KCSO policies, e.g., Use of Force and K-9.
F11
K-9 policies have been updated and will be incorporated into the Use of Force policies under Section F Department Policies. The K-9 policies have not been posted online as of this report. The community will be better informed once these policies are posted.
F12
Department Policies posted online at www.kernsheriff.org do not have identifying information about what each section contains, making it difficult to find specific policies.
F13
The KCSO Annual Report for 2025 has not been posted online as of the issuing of this report, which has resulted in less transparency for the community about the KCSO activities.
F14
The pay incentive to pursue becoming a Certified Bilingual Translator is insufficient to encourage certification.
F15
The cost of bilingual certification is not paid for by the County of Kern resulting in fewer staff seeking certification.
F16
With the creation of the Compliance Bureau, the KCSO has shown their commitment to achieving compliance with the Stipulated Judgment and the high priority given to that end.
F17
The KCSO Compliance Bureau has worked diligently toward Stipulated Judgment compliance, which has resulted in many positive changes for Kern County citizens.
F18
The KCSO’s expansion of the Body Worn Camera Unit has resulted in increased public accountability.
F19
The Court appointed monitors serve on multiple Judgments and with other agencies. This is in opposition to guidelines in the 2021 Memorandum from the U.S. Attorney General, which states “…monitors in future consent decrees will no longer be able to serve on more than one monitoring team at a time.”
F20
Had the guidelines in the 2021 Memorandum from the U.S. Attorney General been followed, the Stipulated Judgment requirements could have been met in a more timely and cost-effective manner.
F21
Although the California Department of Justice has ultimate authority to determine compliance or non-compliance, it relies on input/advice from the Monitoring Team. This gives the monitoring team a monetary incentive to continue the Stipulated Judgment.
F22
There is a substantial financial burden on the taxpayers of Kern County as a result of the Stipulated Judgment, over and above monitoring costs.
F23
Monitoring Team invoices are paid prior to review by the KCSO, resulting in their inability to conduct a timely review of the fees charged. Only the courts can settle financial disputes between the Parties of the Stipulated Judgment.
F24
The County has paid for work done by the Monitoring Team to assist the California Department of Justice in their arguments for an extension of the Stipulated Judgment, which the County has petitioned against. This is a conflict of interest for the Monitoring Team.
F25
The two-year extension sought by the California Department of Justice was granted, resulting in increased costs to the taxpayers of Kern County, and leaving other community priorities with less emphasis.

Recommendations 12