⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
A Review of the detention statistical data since 2004 indicates that the Sonoma County detention facilities have not reached capacity. The future of the aging NCDF will need to be reviewed in terms of ongoing obligations. The increase in the number of beds (1400) over what was stated in the Grand Jury Report 2003-2004 (1286) is due solely to the reorganization of the facilities by the correctional staff. Physical limitations of both facilities will require serious consideration in the near future.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Although the carrying capacity of the Sonoma County detention system is not yet full, the type of beds needed to meet future demands is wanting and the needs of mental health inmates is clearly increasing at a rapid rate (Figure 1). Provisions for these inmates under the current space allocation will soon reach a crisis point unless budget allocations are seriously considered. In a recent Grand jury report, it was indicated that an increasing mentally ill inmate population would need to be served. The non-incarceration options are limited, which has forced the detention system to house and treat inmates with mental health issues that would be better off in less restrictive environments. Jail is not a good substitute for a mental health facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Inmates with mental health issues are the most rapidly increasing population in the Sonoma County detention facilities and many would be better served by expanded county mental health facilities and services. The issue of mental health inmates was addressed at length in the 2003-2004 Grand Jury report and little has been done to correct the problem. In the absence of state or federal programs, long term support should be extended to programs that would allow the transference and treatment of mentally ill inmates to alternative facilities. Required Response to Findings: Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4 Required Response to Recommendations: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors R-1 Investigative Interviews and Procedures: • Sonoma County Sheriff’s presentation to the Grand Jury • One Sonoma County Sheriff’s Lieutenant, two Correctional Sergeants and four Correctional Deputies. • The Grand Jury reviewed the statistical data on the detention facilities for the past six years. • The current Grand Jury also visited broad jail issues raised in the 2003-2004 Grand Jury report. This report provided statistical data through 2003. • A tour of both the MADF and the NCDF was conducted for the Grand Jury and the booking procedures were observed by members of the Law and Justice Committee. Reference Documents: • Sonoma County Grand Jury Report with responses 2003-2004 (July 2004) • Statistical data on the Sonoma County Detention Facilities provided by the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department 2004-2009 • Jail Inspection Handbook from the California Grand Jury Association, Corrections Standards Authority. • Title 15 and Title 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR) • Sections 919(a) and 919(b) California Penal Code • California Standards Authority report to the Sonoma County Sheriff-January 2010.
F3
Females comprise an average of 14% of the jail population and males average 86% over the past six years. The racial characteristics of the inmates are Caucasian (56.1%), Hispanic (30.8%), African - American (8.9%), and Native American (2.6%) over the six year sampling period. The other ethnic breakdowns comprise less than 2% of the total population. Most of the criminal behavior (53.2%) occurs between ages 26-45.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The overall facility, in terms of both management and care of the inmates, was deemed highly professional and humane. The conduct of the correctional staff was professional, compassionate and secure. The environment of both facilities was clean, well lit, sanitary, well organized, and a concern for the safety of both the correctional staff and the inmates was evident. The correctional staff was keenly aware of the possibility of improving the organization and operation of both facilities and were amenable to changes in the future that would benefit both the County and the facilities. No indication was found during this investigation of the mistreatment of inmates. RECOMMENDATIONS
No recommendations for this finding
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
Sonoma County Sheriff
Elected County Office