of Santa Clara County

Conclusions 21

• CL1 Page 24
  Explore the connection between mental health and criminal justice.
• CL2 Page 24
  Survey best practices and develop training to support staff that serve [the] inmate population with serious mental illness, including a review of options for services to address staff mental and emotional wellbeing.
• CL3 Page 24
  Consider ways to use current facilities more efficiently; for example, using empty juvenile hall pods for behavioral health services.
• CL4 Page 24
  Explore diversionary practices that provide structured, clinical interventions at every phase of justice involvement to address offender drug use and related criminal behavior.
• CL5 Page 24
  Strengthen partnerships with providers in workforce development as prevention against recidivism.
• CL6 Page 25
  Explore the crossroads between public health and public safety, particularly around gun violence prevention.
• CL7 Page 25
  Divert whenever possible women with young children (including the prevention of the removal of children from a mother’s custody.) Emphasize the reduction of cycles of trauma.
• CL8 Page 25
  Explore additional support services for women and their families after release from jail.25 Sudden and unanticipated public health efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19 have impacted the County’s entire criminal justice system, including court proceedings and detention facilities. 25 County of Santa Clara Public Safety and Justice Committee Regular Meeting, March 7, 2019, Agenda Item #8, accessed April 24, 2020, http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=11433&Format=Minutes. VIII. County Still Not Appraising Employees (2017-2018)26 Released June 21, 2018 Scope of Report A year after the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury's report on annual job reviews, To Have or Have Not: Performance Appraisals for Santa Clara County Employees,27 the 2017-18 Civil Grand Jury assessed the progress the County of Santa Clara (County) had made in implementing the
• CL9 Page 18
  The 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury report on VTA governance identified key issues with the leadership, composition, and effectiveness of the VTA Board. The VTA and most of the cities in Santa Clara County agree with these findings. The key issues identified with board governance have been validated by the independent study done by RSM. 18 Ibid.
• CL10 Page 19
  The study and recommendations leverage the work done by the 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury. The VTA should be commended for recognizing the governance issues and commissioning an independent study. VTA’s four standing committees are in the process of doing a detailed evaluation of the recommendations. The goal is to complete the evaluation and recommend changes for approval to the VTA Board before the end of 2020. VTA disagreed with the Civil Grand Jury’s finding regarding the light rail system and are proceeding with the Eastridge extension.
• CL11 Page 2
  VI. Show Me the Money! Where Your Property Taxes Go (2018- 2019)19 Released April 9, 2019 Scope The 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury examined the information provided on the County of Santa Clara property tax bills to determine if there is an adequate explanation for the distribution of the one- percent tax levy for each property. The Civil Grand Jury concluded that the Santa Clara County Department of Tax and Collections provided easily accessible information but offered a recommendation to make the links easier to find. Key Findings  Santa Clara County and the Department of Tax and Collections are commended for revising the format of the 2018-2019 tax bill. The tax bill contains links to a web site that provides details about how the tax levy is distributed. (No recommendation)  Although the tax bill now provides links to find the distribution of the one-percent tax, the page links are not obvious. Key Recommendations  Santa Clara County could clarify how to locate the one-percent tax distribution data by inserting an explanation with the tax bill. Response The Santa Clara County Department of Tax and Collections agreed with both Findings and the Recommendation for Finding 2. The Department redesigned the “Details of Taxes” section and included a legend in each property tax bill. 19 https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2019/Show%20Me%20The%20Money%20- %20Where%20Your%20Property%20Taxes%20Go.pdf.
• CL12 Page 21
  Follow-up No follow-up is needed because the Santa Clara County Department of Tax and Collections has implemented the recommendation.
• CL13 Page 22
  VII. Justice Still Delayed (2017-2018)20 Released June 21, 2018 Scope The 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury completed an analysis of aggregate data on resolution time of felony cases in the County of Santa Clara that showed uneven results and persistent disparities in benchmarking since the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury Report Justice Delayed. 21 Key Findings  The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office (DAO) and Santa Clara County Superior Court (Court) rely on data that is inconsistent with each other and with the Judicial Council of California.  Public evaluation of the performance of the DAO and the Santa Clara County Public Defender Office (PDO) is difficult due to a lack of transparency in the operations of their respective staff and a scarcity of relevant data.  The DAO and the PDO utilize a data management system that differs from the Court system.  Pleas not entered at the first arraignment hearing slow the time for felony-case resolution. Key Recommendations  The DAO should explain how its data may be reconciled with the Court’s statistics.  The DAO and PDO should publicly report on staff training and accountability.  The DAO and the PDO should track cases, publish data, and provide estimates based upon mutually agreed terms, parameters, and definitions.  Annual public reporting of the average time from filing of charges to the entry of pleas in felony cases should commence in 2019. 20 https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2018/Continuity%20Report%20FINAL.pdf. 21 https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2017/Why_Does_It_Take_So_Long.pdf.
• CL14 Page 23
  Summary of Required Responses The PDO faulted the 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury for relying on incomplete, inaccurate, and insufficient data on which to base many of its findings in this report, similar to errors made in the preceding Justice Delayed report. Justice Still Delayed failed to properly weigh defense counsel’s “ethical obligations to provide effective assistance of counsel pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, case law, and the [American Bar Association] guidelines and that adherence to those ethical obligations is paramount.”22 Zealous and constitutionally sound representation “means that the best negotiated disposition that can be attained must be sought, and/or a jury trial prepared and presented.”23 Being aware that its vigorous representation should be carried out efficiently and effectively, the PDO implemented a new case management system that will help produce case-tracking data. The PDO agreed to work with the DAO to standardize benchmarks in published statistics. The PDO asserted that not entering pleas at first arraignments does not contribute to delay and instead provides time for legal procedures such as discovery, investigation, records retrieval, and conferencing with clients. The County agreed with most findings and recommendations, and recommended referrals to the County Public Safety and Justice Committee for further discussion. It disagreed with the finding that pleas made after the first arraignment slowed felony case disposition. The DAO stated that the preceding Justice Delayed report led to paying greater attention to felony in-custody cases that have aged significantly, and “spurred greater cooperation between the Court, Defense Bar, [DAO] and County Executive in alleviating this backlog.”24 Follow-up The DAO provided the 2019-2020 Civil Grand Jury with an update concerning its efforts in felony case resolution since the 2017 report. Data collection and internal use of that data seems to be a high priority. Resources have been committed to the County’s pre-trial arraignment services to 22 “Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (re: Justice Still Delayed)”, p.2, accessed April 24, 2020, https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2018/Responses/Santa%20Clara%20County%20Board%20of%2 0Supervisors%20Justice%20Still%20Delayed.pdf. 23 Ibid. 24 Response from the Office of the District Attorney, p. 2, accessed April 24, 2020, https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2018/Responses/District%20Attorney's%20Office%2008.15.18.p df.
• CL15 Page 24
  quickly evaluate every in-custody detention. The intervention process includes utilizing a risk analysis tool that must be locally validated based on the County’s population characteristics. The DAO update further revealed that improving pre-trial arraignment operations may have the effect of delaying defense pleas. Defendants who are not in-custody have less incentive to accept plea bargains and more opportunity to make all pre-trial defense motions legally available to them. The Independent Defense Counsel Office (IDO) manages a panel of criminal defense attorneys that can be provided to indigent defendants in complex cases involving multiple defendants who are already represented by the PDO and the Alternate Defender’s Office. The DAO presented data showing that IDO has decreased its share of aging cases (defined as more than three years). The aging IDO cases were predominately at the pre-trial phase in 2016 (75%) but are now less than half (47%). Factors that contribute to delay of these cases during the pre-trial phase include appellate court review, attorney availability, late referrals to IDO, and new charges. Pending cases at the sentencing phase age due to many factors, including defendants who cooperate in other proceedings.
• CL16 Page 37
  The acceptance by law enforcement agencies and the County of the original recommendations in the 2017–2018 Civil Grand Jury Report, the spirit in which they addressed their responses to these recommendations, along with the 2019–2020 Civil Grand Jury’s request for progress reports is commendable. In particular, the progress over the past 18 months demonstrates that the law enforcement agencies and the County are committed to the professional development of police officers’ perishable skills and their desire to meet the current and future mental health concerns of the community.
• CL17 Page 2
  XII. Report on Detention Facilities in the Era of Reform (2017- 2018)46 Released May 21, 2018 Scope The 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury investigated the status of reforms to the Santa Clara County jail system following the 2015 beating death of a mentally ill inmate. Key Findings Morale of the correctional deputies is low due to chronic understaffing, mandatory overtime shifts, and a new grievance system that deputies believe is open to abuse. There was a widespread perception among correctional deputies that they have diminished control over inmates. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) has taken new steps in the past year to boost hiring in order to reduce the shortage of deputies. Key Recommendations The Sheriff of Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and the Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association (SCCCPOA) should publish a formal plan to improve jail staff morale by June 30, 2019. Additionally, a plan should be developed to improve communications between staff and management, consider flexible work shifts, and examine the deputies’ perception of diminished control over inmates. Response The Sheriff’s Office disagreed with the finding regarding low morale, stating that “the Sheriff’s Office does not rely on anecdotal information.”47 Although disagreeing with the finding, the Sheriff’s Office agreed with the recommendation. It was planning to hire an independent consultant to analyze staffing levels in early 2019. It was also planning to conduct employee surveys, and partner with SCCCPOA to develop a plan to address morale and staff issues. The Sheriff’s Office also disagreed with the finding that deputies felt unsafe due to diminished control over inmates. Still, the Sheriff’s Office agreed that deputies need more tools to maintain a 46 https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2018/Detention_Facilities05212018.pdf. 47 Response from the Office of the Sheriff, p. 2, accessed August 12, 2020, https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2018/Responses/SCC%20Office%20of%20the%20Sheriff%2010 .09.18.pdf.
• CL18 Page 39
  safe custody environment for staff and inmates and was requesting tasers and improving training for high-risk transport of violent offenders. Follow-up In January 2020, the Civil Grand Jury requested the Sheriff’s Office to provide follow-up information regarding the staffing analysis from an independent consultant. The Sheriff’s Office did not provide a response. In late February 2020, the Civil Grand Jury requested information about the results of employee surveys, the plans for obtaining tasers for correctional deputies, and whether the Sheriff’s Office had partnered with SCCCPOA. The Sheriff’s Office did not provide a response. Interviews with staff revealed that the Sheriff’s Office administration has ongoing communication to receive feedback from deputies, and that the SCCCPOA has worked with the administration in an attempt to solve the staffing problems. Tasers are still not available to deputies.
• CL19 Page 2
  APPENDIX: Summary of Responses to the 2018-2019 Reports FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS 2018 -2019 CIVIL GRAND JURY RESPONDING Agree Disagree Implementation Status REPORT FOLLOW-UPS: AGENCY Has Been Will Be Requires Will Not Be Implemented Implemented Analysis Implemented San José – Unfunded Pension City of San José 3, 4, 6 5 3, 5 4a 6 Liabilities (partial) Police and Fire 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 4b Board of Administration Federated Board 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 4b of Administration Santa Clara Fairgrounds: A County of Santa 1a, 1b, 2a 2, 3b, 4a 1, 3a Diamond in the Rough Clara 2a (partial), (partial), 2b 2b (partial), (partial), 3 2c, 3 (partial), (partial), 4 4 (partial) (partial) Fairgrounds 1b, 2c, 4 2b, 3, 5, 5a, 5b, 6b 4b, 6a, 6c, 7 Management (partial), 7 Corporation 6 Improving San José Police City of San José 1, 3 2 2a, 2b 2c, 3 1 2d, 4 Department’s 9-1-1/3-1-1 Call (partial), Answering Time 4 City of Santa Clara: Public Records City of Santa 1, 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3b, 4 3a Access Clara
• CL20 Page 40
  FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS 2018 -2019 CIVIL GRAND JURY RESPONDING Agree Disagree Implementation Status REPORT FOLLOW-UPS: AGENCY Has Been Will Be Requires Will Not Be Implemented Implemented Analysis Implemented Inquiry into Governance of the Santa Clara 2 1 1a, 5a 1f, 5b 1g, 2, 3a, 3b Valley Transportation Authority Valley (partial), (partial), Transportation 4 3, 5 Authority County of Santa 1 1b, 1d, 1e Clara (partial) City of 1 1c, 1d, 1e Campbell (partial) City of 1 1c, 1d, 1e Cupertino City of Gilroy 1 1c 1d, 1e City of Los 1 1c 1e 1d Altos City of Milpitas 1 1c, 1d, 1e City of Monte 1 1c, 1d, 1e Sereno (partial) City of Morgan 1 1c 1d, 1e Hill City of 1 1d, 1e 1c Mountain View City of Palo 1c, 1d, 1e Alto City of Santa 1 1c, 1d, 1e Clara City of San José 1 1c, 1d, 1e City of 1 1c, 1d, 1e Saratoga
• CL21 Page 43
  This report was ADOPTED by the 2019-2020 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 10th day of December, 2020. _____________________________ Ms. Karla Fukushima Foreperson

No Responses Found 2

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