Score: +7 (12/7/5)
Orange County Grand Jury • 2008-2009

Condition of Orange County Jails Summary Captain who was selected because ful review the Grand Jury came to of

Published: November 18, 2008 16 pages
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F4, F7, F8, F15, F16, F18

Findings and Recommendations 13 findings

F2
Holding cells could is to review it with the employee independent civilian review of the eventually present unsafe unions. OCSD. The stated purpose is to working conditions for Sheriff The Crout & Sida (C&S) report monitor, assist, oversee, and advise personnel because needed noted previously performed a the OCSD in the investigation of upgrades and maintenance comprehensive staffing assessment the following: are being delayed. of the jails and concluded each had 1. Review selected internal and “staffing shortages that significantly citizen complaints alleging that
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
For purposes of subdivision will be implemented in the future, ing body of the public agency (b) of Section 933, as to each grand with a timeframe for implementa- when applicable. This timeframe jury recommendation, the respond- tion. shall not exceed six months from ing person or entity shall report one (3) The recommendation the date of publication of the of the following actions: requires further analysis, with an grand jury report. (1) The recommendation has explanation and the scope and pa- (4)The recommendation will been implemented, with a sum- rameters of an analysis or study, not be implemented because it is mary regarding the implemented and a timeframe for the matter to not warranted or is not reason- action. be prepared for discussion by the able, with an explanation there- officer or head of the agency or fore. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
F3
The jail system is oper- impact the ability of the OCSD peace and custodial officers ating within its capabilities to safely operate and manage the committed certain actions, or and therefore overcrowding county jail system.” This conclu- inactions, in the performance of is not currently an issue. sion validated the principal cause their duties. of the overtime identified in the 2. Review selected incidents of F.4: Recently completed jail performance audit noted above, that death or serious injury occur- needs assessment reports is, staff vacancies. C&S recom- ring to persons while in cus- predict a significant popula- mended that an additional 455 tody. tion increase in minimum custody personnel were needed to The mission of the OIR is to and medium-security in- insure the safety and security of strengthen the response of the mates. the County jail system. Since the OCSD to critical incidents and
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Without a Musick majority of the additional positions allegations of officer misconduct, medium-security capacity recommended by C&S pertain to as well as to increase the public’s expansion, early release of CJX (253 new positions) the Grand confidence in those responses, by inmates may be the only op- Jury reviewed the specific points providing full-time civilian over- tion available to avoid OCSD (some that have been implemented sight. jail overcrowding. and others that are subject to further It is too early to measure the ef- study) for achieving efficiencies at fectiveness of the OIR. The Execu-
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The OCSD and the security and medical rea- Sheriff-Coroner Board of Supervisors should sons. (F.6) Responses to Recommenda- pursue discussions with the
F6
Early release of in- that facility by the redeployment tive Director indicates that he has mates through the use of of staff to unfilled positions, thus received full cooperation from the alternates-to-incarceration reducing overtime. The OCSD has Sheriff and her staff. After nine programs (e.g. Community already begun the process of de- months the OIR recently issued its Work Program (CWP) have veloping the specifications for the first report, and as of the time of avoided gross overcrowding selection and training of SSO’s to this writing the Grand Jury has not within OCSD jails. fill vacant positions within the jails. had the opportunity to review it. Based on this review the Grand F.7: Today’s inmate profile Findings Jury believes CJX will make a is made up of more serious significant contribution towards In accordance with Califor- and mentally ill offenders achieving the $3 million in over- nia Penal Code Sections 933 and who require greater segre- time savings identified in the audit. 933.05, each finding will be re- gation thus reducing bed sponded to by the government space. I. Office of Independent entity to which it is addressed. The Review F.8: Re-entry and post-re- responses are to be submitted to lease programs have re- The Office of Independent Re- the Presiding Judge of the Supe- duced inmate recidivism but view (OIR) was created to address rior Court. The 2008-2009 Orange there exists little quantitative alleged problems of law enforce- County Grand Jury has arrived at information and analysis to ment misconduct. After a thor- the following findings: support such a conclusion. ough examination of the identified F.1: Both the OCSD and problems within the Department, CEO Risk Management per- the Board of Supervisors authorized form risk management activi- 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
In order to achieve cost Required Responses (F.17) savings, CCTV should be The California Penal Code placed in all city jails where R.12a: Statistics and data specifies the required permis- feasible to be utilized for all should be quantified and sible responses to the findings and court appearances where analyzed to measure the recommendations contained in the inmates do not have to be success of the CWP. (F.14, report. The specific sections are personally present. (F.9) F.15) quoted below:
F9
The Board of Supervi- F.16: When inmates are Responses to Findings F.1 sors has not authorized the interviewed at the IRC medi- through F.18 and F.20 are re- Musick expansion project cal screening area there is quired from the Orange County and there is no alterna- no privacy provided and this Sheriff-Coroner tive proposal. Video visita- could result in reluctance Response to Finding F.1 is tions and arraignment were to reveal relevant personal requested from the County Execu- features of the expansion information. tive Officer project. Responses to Findings F.9,
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Volunteers are critical to R.14: The OIR should sub- lier for the preparation of the the success of the Inmate mit a written progress report Musick expansion design/ Services Division/Inmate on a quarterly basis as con- construction documents. Re-Entry Unit and the OCSD tractually required. (F.19) The estimated cost is $9.2 should continue supporting million. These documents
F10
Even with an immedi- fied by wristband or module the Board of Supervisors ate Musick expansion go- card. Other than color, the Responses to Finding F.16 and ahead in 2009, new beds to only information on the card
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
While being booked ing loop at Theo Lacy. (F.20) debate, litigation and project at the IRC medical screen- delay. (F.3, F.4, F.5, F.7, F.9, Responses to Recommendations ing area, privacy should be
F11
OCSD provides many nia Penal Code Sections 933 and correctional programs to jail F.18: An audit report issued 933.05, each recommendation will inmates aimed at easing in October, 2008, concluded be responded to by the government re-entry into the community. that the previous administra- entity to which it is addressed. The The re-entry programs utilize tion mismanaged the use of responses are to be submitted to volunteers and have proven overtime in the OCSD, and the Presiding Judge of the Superior to be successful in assisting lacked clear policy guide- Court. Based on the findings, the inmates and their families. lines and protocols for man- 2008-2009 Orange County Grand aging it. OCSD has taken Jury makes the following recom-
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Bar codes on wrist- tions R.3, R.4, R.6 and R.15 are State and local communities bands should include book- required from the Orange County regarding the Musick expan- ing number, photo, medical Board of Supervisors sion to resolve any outstand- needs and special issues, Response to Recommendation ing issues and objections. which would allow greater R.14 is requested from the Office (F.3, F.4, F.7, F.9, F.10, F.13) control, accountability and of Independent Review
F12
Programs to address steps to remedy the situa- mendations: and solve the projected tion and this has resulted R.1: The OCSD should inmate population growth for in reduced costs, however, provide CEO Risk Manage- the period between now and as of the time of this report, ment with Captains’ logs on when expansion of Musick a new policy has yet to be a daily basis. (F.1) is completed have not been approved. defined. R.2: A detailed study should
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The only location for Board of Supervisors. It was whether risk management jail expansion in Orange created to provide indepen- activities for OCSD claims County is the Musick facility. dent oversight regarding and lawsuits would be better incidents and allegations and more efficiently per-
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
The OCSD should (2)The respondent disagrees alternatives to incarceration finalize the draft overtime wholly or partially with the find- should be developed, fund- policy, resolve any outstand- ing, in which case the response ed and implemented and ing issues with the employee shall specify the portion of the existing programs expanded unions, and approve the finding that is disputed and shall 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury include an explanation of the (2) The recommendation has department being investigated or reasons therefore. not yet been implemented, but reviewed, including the govern- 2. For purposes of subdivision will be implemented in the future, ing body of the public agency (b) of Section 933, as to each grand with a timeframe for implementa- when applicable. This timeframe jury recommendation, the respond- tion. shall not exceed six months from ing person or entity shall report one (3) The recommendation the date of publication of the of the following actions: requires further analysis, with an grand jury report. (1) The recommendation has explanation and the scope and pa- (4)The recommendation will been implemented, with a sum- rameters of an analysis or study, not be implemented because it is mary regarding the implemented and a timeframe for the matter to not warranted or is not reason- action. be prepared for discussion by the able, with an explanation there- officer or head of the agency or fore. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
F14
The CWP is effective of law enforcement mis- formed in OCSD. (F.1) for inmates who are not a conduct. The overall effec- threat to society and can be- R.3: The OCSD and the tiveness of this additional come productive members Board of Supervisors should oversight organization has of the community. pursue with the AOC needed yet to be determined. facility upgrades and mainte-
No recommendations for this finding
F17
An inmate is identi-
No recommendations for this finding
F19
The OIR reports to the be conducted to determine
No recommendations for this finding
F20
The booking/receiving nance to avoid future safety have not been analyzed in loop at Theo Lacy is out- issues at courthouse holding order to quantify the success dated, inadequate and inef- facilities. (F.2) and savings achieved by the ficient for the handling of the CWP. increased inmate population. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
No recommendations for this finding

Additional Recommendations 4

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

Agency Responses 1

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