Detention Facilities Report Request for Response Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa

Recommendation 3 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – Informational Copy – No Response Required 28 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS The Eye of the Camera SUMMARY Across the nation, law enforcement body cameras are becoming a valuable tool in evaluating disputed actions on the part of both police officers and the public. Recorded footage is sometimes critical in ascertaining guilt or innocence. What the camera records can be played in courts and in the media. The public is now highly media conscious and often insists on seeing what has been caught on camera in the interest of fairness and transparency. This tool is becoming more available to law enforcement throughout California. The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) looked into a citizen’s question about the use of body cameras by County law enforcement agencies. Within Santa Barbara County (County), law enforcement agencies have discussed body cameras and reached different conclusions. No law enforcement agencies, with the exception of the Isla Vista Foot Patrol Sheriff’s Substation and Guadalupe Police Department, have taken the action of supplying cameras for all its officers or deputies. For those agencies that permit the individual use of body cameras, the cost of purchasing and maintaining the cameras may fall on the law officers themselves. It appears that in the future body cameras will become a standard part of the law officers’ equipment as much as dashboard cameras are now. While not failsafe, the data provided by cameras can offer protection for both the officers and the public. The cost of the cameras and supporting technology will be expensive and the implementation will be complex. The Jury proposes that each law enforcement agency that utilizes body cameras have a policy for the use of and storage of their recordings in addition to existing policies for dashboard cameras. This policy must be transparent. BACKGROUND Twenty-five years ago, law enforcement officers used only written reports to record contact with the public. Rapid advances in technology have introduced other means of documenting evidence. Recordings, either audio or visual, became welcome tools in disputed court proceedings. County law enforcement agencies began using dashboard cameras and by 2011, only the Santa Barbara and Guadalupe Police Departments had not installed them in patrol cars. This fact led to a report by the 2010-11 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury. Subsequent to that report, the Santa Barbara Police Department and the Guadalupe Police Department installed dashboard cameras. With the evolution of technology, body cameras are becoming the next tool for law enforcement. 2016-17 BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS METHODOLOGY The Jury spoke with a number of law enforcement officers in Santa Barbara County. While not all heads of the departments were available to the Jury, members spoke with a representative sample of officers in the field who would use the cameras. Additionally, the Jury researched a number of studies, reports and media sources about body camera use by law enforcement agencies in California and across the United States. OBSERVATIONS Body cameras are used by only two local agencies in Santa Barbara County. Guadalupe Police Department and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Substation in Isla Vista have supplied body cameras to their patrol personnel. No other department has offered to purchase cameras. In 2014, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department purchased body cameras, at a cost of $300 to $550 each, assigning them to the Isla Vista Foot Patrol. Their time is typically taken up with face-to- face encounters with the residents of Isla Vista, who often have their own cameras and are using them more and more to record their interactions with law enforcement. Some University of California Santa Barbara Police officers have also been using body cameras. In 2015, the Santa Barbara Police Department Chief purchased five cameras, at a cost of $600 to $900 each, to test. While the results of the test have not been made public, a financial report was prepared for the City of Santa Barbara with a proposal. To date, the Jury is unaware of any action being taken. The Santa Maria and Lompoc Police Departments have decided not to use body cameras at this time. As one officer stated to the Jury, “They are not a tried and true technology as of yet. Many agencies that have them discontinue use due to expense as well as technical problems. The storage space is very expensive…. I would prefer the technology evolve and the technology and storage issues be worked out by other police agencies before I adopt these cameras.” Elsewhere in the county, individual police officers and Sheriff’s deputies have purchased cameras at their own expense. The pros and cons of body cameras can be listed in three main areas of concern: financial, practical, and ethical. Financial Concerns If the department does not provide body cameras, individual officers may purchase their own if department policy allows. If officers choose to purchase their own camera, this is an out-of-pocket expense. The Jury learned that individual camera units could cost between $500 and $1000. Providing cameras to an entire department could be a major financial impact. The cost of securely storing data is, in fact, an inhibiting factor in deploying body cameras for each department. In 2014, the former Santa Barbara Police Chief estimated $70,000 for digital storage and access software. At this point, there is no one system that is universally used for storage. Another issue is the problem of obsolescence of the technology. As tech companies enter this field, some equipment comes with flaws or is found to be inadequate. In fact, the Sheriff’s Department had to return a large number of the first group of body cameras because of “issues” in 2014, according to the Sheriff’s 30 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS Department’s spokesperson1. Upgrades can be costly. Moreover, any camera purchased could easily become unsupported by newer back-up systems. Local departments would benefit if the uploading and storing of data could be managed by the existing systems already in place for dashboard cameras. Not only is the immense quantity of material a storage problem, but also time and security can be an issue. In some departments, officers can upload their data into their department’s storage facility. Some departments have data from their dashboard cameras automatically stored in a secure location but this is not available for body camera data that must be uploaded separately. There would be administrative costs, not the least of which would be hiring a full-time person to upload, store and track the recordings. Given the current restricted financial situation in Santa Barbara County and its cities, budgeting for body cameras would take a financial commitment and long-term planning. It has been suggested that the costs of cameras and storage would be offset by fewer financial losses due to lawsuits. Practical Concerns Dashboard cameras have been valuable in many cases. Their recordings are often useful in discerning what actually occurred. Body cameras could also have as much value, but there are some inconveniences. First, the cameras themselves are usually high definition, draining their battery quickly. But as a result of the high definition, the quality of the picture tends to be better than that of a dashboard camera. Unfortunately, night vision images are blurry, as reported by several officers. There are also contradictions regarding the range of vision of body cameras. Like the dashboard cameras, the vision of the body camera is limited to the direction faced by the officers; if something occurs to the left or right of the officer, the camera will not pick it up if they turn only their head. However, some cameras have wide-angle lenses, offering a broader view. In addition, the fact that the officer can turn his body offers an advantage that the static dashboard camera does not have. Further, in situations that become more intense, the officer himself could obstruct the view of the camera. One officer demonstrated how pulling out his weapon and pointing it at a suspect blocked the view from the lens. Lastly, in cases of physical confrontation, such as in a scuffle, the body camera could easily be dislodged. There are also some unfinished discussions as to where to place the camera on the body. Body cameras are not automatically turned on, as are dashboard cameras. Officers have to manually turn them on. In tense situations, having one more piece of equipment to manually adjust could impede the officers in carrying out their work in a fast and efficient manner. In many cases, the Jury was told, there is not enough time to immediately turn on the camera, thereby not recording all events in an incident. In the heat of the moment, the officer might not be able to turn on the camera, or doing so would put the officer at risk. Ethical concerns Ethically, body cameras have advantages and disadvantages. In discussions with the Jury, some officers preferred having a recording of every contact with the public just as a matter of policy, 1 Brugger, Kelsey. “Body-Cam Bill Stalls: Legislature Divided on Wearable Video Cameras for Law Enforcement.” Santa Barbara Independent. August 2015. Web. 2016-17 BODY CAMERAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS officers preferred having a recording of every contact with the public just as a matter of policy, while other officers believed that body cameras provide only a small slice of what they do. In either perspective, the body camera offers one more perspective, and this can be useful. Even with all the limitations and drawbacks to the cameras themselves, some officers feel that it is better to have the data from body cameras than have no data at all. Body cameras can offer decisive evidence in court cases. Suspects are more easily seen and identified by a camera closer than one mounted in a patrol car. Such evidence can deter many lawsuits against officers and departments, saving both time and money. Body cameras are reported to encourage good behavior on the part of officers, deputies and members of the public, knowing that they are being recorded. One deputy that the Jury spoke with suggested that officers are less susceptible to misconduct when they wear cameras. There have been several studies on body cameras including two in 2012, in Rialto, California and Mesa, Arizona, and more recently, a 2017 internal report on body cameras by the San Diego Police Department. All studies found that officers with body cameras used force less often; this reduced the number of complaints of police misconduct. Body cameras also have a dampening effect on suspects during the incident; many suspects will calm down when they know that they are being recorded. One local deputy said that his colleagues feel protected with their body cameras; cameras tell their side of the story. This is especially true when dealing with difficult subjects. It’s “like insurance,” as one officer told the Jury. CONCLUSION The use of body cameras by law enforcement officers has been shown to have a positive effect on the operations of the men and women involved in being the peacekeepers of our communities. Although some consider body camera technology to be in its infancy, most officers interviewed are of the opinion that a body camera is a good tool that helps them in their work and interactions with the public. The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury concludes that the use of body cameras has the potential of providing greater transparency for both the public and law enforcement. Is it time for Santa Barbara County law enforcement agencies to adopt policies and procedures to incorporate this new visual technology to enhance the evolving role of police officers and sheriff deputies in our changing, technological society? Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. 32 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL A School Community in Transition SUMMARY The 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) received several complaints about the educational practices and the work environment at Santa Maria High School (SMHS). The Jury focused its investigation on allegations of mismanagement of about $16 million from a Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) state grant; on communication conflicts between the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District (District), site administrators and teachers; on concerns regarding school safety and on the implementation of anti-bullying procedures required by Assembly Bill 9 (Seth’s Law). The Jury found most concerns to be the result of an educational program in transition. The QEIA grant recordkeeping followed state accounting procedures and the funds were used according to the grant requirements. Without a doubt, poor communication and conflicting educational practices existed between site administrators and teachers. The Jury found the conflicts to be associated with the new direction that the SMHS Principal, with the support of the District administration, had taken to address the unique needs of the student population. The introduction of the Common Core curriculum, schedule changes, and union contract-related issues exacerbated the conflicts. To enhance safety and security, the school is surrounded by security fences and has strategically placed cameras. Additionally, the District has adopted procedures required to address bullying issues. These policies are published on the District website, and the “bully button” link for reporting incidents is on the District and SMHS websites. The Jury found that relations between administrators and teachers are improving and encourages them to continue working together respectfully for the benefit of the students. BACKGROUND Santa Maria High School is one of three comprehensive public high schools in the city of Santa Maria and surrounding area. Located in the heart of the city, it is the oldest high school in the Santa Maria Valley and is part of the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District, the oldest high school district in California. In 2007, SMHS became a closed campus, meaning students are not allowed to leave school grounds for lunch. The only exception to this rule is for seniors with passing grades and no outstanding school debts. 2016-17 SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL The high school has a student body of 2,515, including 290 special education students. There are six administrators, 136 certificated teachers and counselors, and 87 support staff. The student population is 97 percent Hispanic, of which 38 percent are classified as English language learners. The current principal, a Santa Maria native, joined the school in 2010. METHODOLOGY The Jury visited the school, and interviewed teachers, Faculty Association (union) staff, and administrators from both SMHS and the District. The Jury also reviewed the QEIA financial audit, results from a union-sponsored teacher climate survey, and documents provided by various complainants. The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation reports from March 3-6, 2013 and February 22-23, 2016, the school’s Parent Handbook and the District’s Seth’s Law anti-bullying procedures and report form all provided valuable information. OBSERVATIONS The Jury narrowed its investigation to three areas of concern. The first related to the management of funds that came from a State of California QEIA grant. As outlined in the Principal’s Message in the Student/Parent Handbook of 2013-14, the focus of this seven-year, multi-million dollar grant, that started in 2009, was “to improve student achievement, reduce class sizes in Math, English, Science and Social Sciences, to increase attendance, to provide a 300:1 ratio of students to counselors and to increase graduation rates.” To achieve these goals, additional teachers and counselors were hired and portable classrooms added. As a result, the majority of the funds were expended on teacher and counselor salaries and lease fees for the additional portable classrooms. All funds were spent by June 30, 2016. The Jury determined that the funds had been spent in accordance with the provisions of the state grant and generally accepted accounting practices. The second area of investigation concerned poor communication and conflict between administrators and teaching staff. In 2015 a district-wide climate survey was conducted by the Faculty Association. Out of the 136 members at SMHS, only 70 responded. Of these, 78.79 percent did not feel that they had a meaningful role in decision-making at the school, 66.66 percent did not feel supported by the school’s administration and 56.06 percent did not feel valued by administration. Also, 55.38 percent of respondents thought that morale at the school had deteriorated in the previous year. As indicated in the WASC Report of February 22-23, 2016, the change in the schedule from a block schedule to a traditional seven-period day, like the other two high schools, created conflict. The decision came from the district office to operate all three comprehensive high schools on the same schedule. Disagreement over the process of making the decision to change the schedule heightened tensions between the SMHS faculty, the school and district administrations. Since arriving at the school in 2010, the principal has been working to change the culture of the school from being “teacher-centric” to being “student-centric” and currently is becoming a 34 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL “community-centric” school. As stated in an article on transformative leadership, “SMHS is in the early stages of moving to an organizational culture that embraces transformative leadership through our understanding of, and work toward, cultural proficiency.”2 This refocus has required teachers and staff to attend training sessions to become more culturally proficient. As evidenced through interviews, this has been met by resistance or failure to recognize the need for change. Finally, the Jury reviewed the school’s safety and anti-bullying procedures. The school is surrounded by a tall security fence and there are cameras strategically placed around the campus. Most students must stay on campus during the school day. Moreover, the District has adopted anti- bullying policies to be implemented in each high school in the district. Both the SMHS and District websites have “bully buttons” on their home pages linking to forms for reporting incidents of bullying. The District and High School administrators have procedures in place to follow up on each report. In addition, the District’s 2016-17 Parent-Student Handbook, in English and Spanish, includes bullying under its section on Discipline Policy outlining reasons for suspension or expulsion. Additionally, the California National Guard (CNG) has been presenting a program, called “We All Rise Guardians – Declaring W.A.R. on Bullying One Student at a Time,” at SMHS for several years. The W.A.R. Guardians program is specially designed to deal with all aspects of bullying and targets the specifics of the four major types: verbal, physical, social and cyber. The CNG brochure states that, “by using their awareness program and rehabilitation program, the school can specifically target the four types of bullying by turning the offender into a defender.” The CNG provides this program during a school assembly each year, as well as a six-week program especially for students identified by the school as needing additional training. The Jury concluded that SMHS has adopted adequate procedures and practices in accordance with Assembly Bill 9, Seth’s Law. CONCLUSION The 2016-2017 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury observed strained relations between the teachers and school leadership emanating from changes to the union contract, introduction of the Common Core curriculum and procedural and schedule changes made by the District and the school’s principal, but posits that poor communication was a two-way problem. However, the new school schedule and curriculum are now in place. A new union contract was negotiated in 2016 and there was also a change in Faculty Association leadership that year. Consequently, it appeared to the Jury that relations between school administrators and teachers are improving and encourages them to continue working together respectfully for the benefit of all students and the community. Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, this activity report does not require a response. Flores, Peter and Domingues, Joseph. “Leading from the Strawberry Fields: Transformative Leadership in Santa Maria.” Association of California School Administrators Leadership, January/February 2017, pp 18-19. 2016-17 SANTA MARIA HIGH SCHOOL This Page Intentionally Left Blank 36 2016-17 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA POLICE HIRING