Eugene Bucciarelli Santa Barbara

Conclusions 35

• CL1
  The presence of lingering noxious odors in the Coroner’s Bureau indicates that the existing ventilation system is not adequate.
• CL2
  A code compliant ventilation system is necessary to control and prevent the potential of infectious agents affecting the health of Bureau staff and the public.
• CL3
  That the holding cells in the basement of the Santa Barbara Court Holding Facility, Figueroa Street, do not have enough cells to house the detainees whose cases are before the courts that day.
• CL4
  That the detainees are handcuffed to railings in the corridors due to the lack of holding cell space.
• CL5
  That this overcrowding creates a dangerous environment for both deputies and detainees. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 43
• CL6
  That shackled detainees have to be escorted across Figueroa Street to courtrooms by deputies in full view of the passing public. Such a procession is a potential security and safety hazard.
• CL7
  The principal vehicle for taxing oil production in California, the property tax, was lowered substantially with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
• CL8
  The County of Santa Barbara is facing estimated budget gaps of $5 million in Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and $13.7 million in Fiscal Year 2014-2015.
• CL9
  Once the proposed North County Jail opens, its operating cost is projected to deplete the Santa Barbara County General Fund by $17.3 million annually.
• CL10
  An oil production tax could generate essential new and ongoing revenue for the County.
• CL11
  The current autopsy room air conditioner is not adequate to provide an efficient, comfortable working environment.
• CL12
  The Goleta Sanitary District failed to issue the correct Industrial Wastewater Permit under its Ordinance No. 77, to the Coroner Bureau.
• CL13
  There is no log to record the internal temperature of the autopsy room evidence refrigerator.
• CL14
  The Coroner’s Bureau does not have an eye wash station.
• CL15
  Inefficient and obsolete dictation equipment is currently used during autopsies.
• CL16
  The air conditioning unit in the portable building is not sufficient to provide a comfortable working environment on warm days.
• CL17
  The landscape area surrounding the Coroner’s Bureau is a weed patch overrun by rodents.
• CL18
  A Coroner’s Bureau is not required to be accredited.
• CL19
  Isla Vista Foot Patrol Station
• CL20
  Lompoc Court Holding Facility, Cypress Avenue
• CL21
  Santa Barbara Court Holding Facility, Figueroa Street
• CL22
  Santa Barbara Main Jail
• CL23
  Santa Maria Court Services Holding Facility, Cook Street
• CL24
  Santa Ynez Valley Station Santa Barbara County Probation Department:
• CL25
  La Posada Juvenile Hall, Santa Barbara
• CL26
  Los Prietos Boys Camp
• CL27
  Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center, Santa Maria Municipal Police Departments:
• CL28
  Lompoc Police Department
• CL29
  Santa Barbara Police Department
• CL30
  Santa Maria Police Department
• CL31
  The County of Santa Barbara, like many government entities, found its financial wellbeing severely compromised by the Great Recession of 2008. This exacerbated the County’s existing financial challenges. It is critical for elected officials to identify new sources of revenue. The Jury is fully aware of the debates concerning the environmental ramifications of drilling for oil. These include, but are not limited to, the effects on endangered species and the safety of technologies like hydraulic fracturing. The Jury is also aware, given the experience of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the history of environmentalism in the area, that some residents would prefer that no oil be extracted from land in the county or offshore waters. These are complicated issues with devoted advocates on both sides. The Jury takes no stand on these environmental issues in this report. However, as this nonrenewable energy resource continues to be extracted from the ground in the county, the 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors follow the recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer of the County of Santa Barbara and allow the voters to decide if an oil production tax will be implemented. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The principal vehicle for taxing oil production in California, the property tax, was lowered substantially with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. Finding 2 The County of Santa Barbara is facing estimated budget gaps of $5 million in Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and $13.7 million in Fiscal Year 2014-2015. Finding 3 Once the proposed North County Jail opens, its operating cost is projected to deplete the Santa Barbara County General Fund by $17.3 million annually. Finding 4 An oil production tax could generate essential new and ongoing revenue for the County. Recommendation 1 That the members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors follow the recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer of the County of Santa Barbara and allow the voters to decide if an oil production tax will be implemented by putting this issue on the next county-wide ballot. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 (c), each agency and government body affected by or named in this report is requested to respond in writing to the findings 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 14 and recommendations in a timely manner. The following are the affected agencies for this report, with the mandated response period for each. Santa Barbara County Supervisor, 1st District, Salud Carbajal – 90 days Finding 1, 2, 3, 4 Recommendation 1 Santa Barbara County Supervisor, 2nd District, Janet Wolf – 90 days Finding 1, 2, 3, 4 Recommendation 1 Santa Barbara County Supervisor, 3rd District, Doreen Farr – 90 days Finding 1, 2, 3, 4 Recommendation 1 Santa Barbara County Supervisor, 4th District, Peter Adam – 90 days Finding 1, 2, 3, 4 Recommendation 1 Santa Barbara County Supervisor, 5th District, Steve Lavagnino – 90 days Finding 1, 2, 3, 4 Recommendation 1 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 15 Appendix A The Monterey Shale Formation Outlined Source: N Y Times February 3, 2013 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 16 Appendix B Source: gregcroft.com/santamaria.ivnu 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 17 Appendix C Calculated Oil Tax Revenue Using Rates from Other Locales Locale Rate** Law 2012 Santa Midway- Calculated Barbara County Sunset Revenue ** Production $/Barrel* Kentucky 4.5% Ky.Rev.Stat§ 143A.020 3,388,668 BBL $ 14,562,801 North Dakota 11.5% N.D. Code § 57-51.1-01 3,388,668 BBL $ 37,216,046 Oklahoma 7.0% Okla.Stats.§ 68-1001 3,388,668 BBL $ 22,653,246 5 Virginia Counties 0.5% (various) 3,388,668 BBL $ 1,618,089 Municipal Codes Beverly Hills, CA $ 0.36 BBL § 3-1-219 3,388,668 BBL n/a $ 1,219,920 Long Beach, CA $ 0.40 BBL § 3.80.221 3,388,668 BBL n/a $ 1,355,467 Seal Beach, CA $ 0.58 BBL § 5.55.015 3,388,668 BBL n/a $ 1,965,427 Signal Hill, CA $ 0.60 BBL § 5.12.010 3,388,668 BBL n/a $ 2,033,201 Torrance, CA $ 0.30 BBL § 228.2.1 3,388,668 BBL n/a $ 1,016,600 Calculated Oil Tax Revenue Using Sample Rates Santa Barbara @ $1.00/ BBL *** 3,388,668 BBL n/a $ 3,388,668 Santa Barbara @ $1.44 / BBL **** 3,388,668 BBL n/a $ 4,879,682 NOTE: * To simplify the presentation, the base is assumed to be market value, although some locales use a different base for calculating the tax. Midway-Sunset price is from the Presentation by County Assessor and County Counsel to the Board of Supervisors on August 12, 2012 ** Most locales have inflation-adjusted rates, exemptions, incentives and other modifications that, where applicable, will change the calculated revenue amount. *** Rate proposed by Santa Barbara County Staff in 2012 **** Rate proposed in Measure O for Los Angeles in 2011 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 18 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 19 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 20 LOCAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GRAFFITI Preserving Our Magnificent Garden The following Activity Report of the 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury), prepared in accordance with the California Penal Code, Sections 925 and 928, pertains to the problem of graffiti in Santa Barbara County (County). The Santa Barbara region has deservedly been given the title of the “American Riviera” for a simple reason: It is a magnificent garden in which imaginative architecture recalls its Spanish origins. Many of the buildings, particularly within the City of Santa Barbara itself, seem to make one feel as if they were truly in Barcelona. However, there is another commonality between Barcelona and Santa Barbara that is much less attractive—the unfortunate presence of graffiti. Much of the graffiti in Spain and other European countries consists of political and social statements, continuing a tradition that has existed for millennia. We who live in the County see very little political graffiti, but too often the kind we do see has a more sinister aspect—gang activity. Graffiti is the malicious defacement of real or personal property with “any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, mark, or design, that is written, marked, etched, scratched, drawn, or painted” on property (California Penal Code, Section 594). It can range from a simple word or phrase to artistic and elaborate depictions. One increasingly common type of graffiti, normally done in one color, is usually a sign of gang activity that is designed as a warning to members of other gangs that an area is “our territory,” not to be entered with impunity. Graffiti is more than an aesthetic problem. It is a blight that affects the desirability of a community and, if left unchecked, it becomes a symbol of defiance. The factors giving rise to graffiti are multi-faceted and vary from place to place and time to time. Local communities take the issue seriously and are making strides to address it. It is important to be aware of these efforts and the Jury summarizes them in this Activity Report. This report also provides contact information for reporting graffiti in various jurisdictions around the County. As with any crime, the public is encouraged to call 911 to report an act of graffiti or other vandalism in progress.1 CITY OF BUELLTON When graffiti is reported to the Buellton Police Department, the City’s Public Works Department is notified and removes it. Expenses are paid out of the City’s General Fund. The public is encouraged to report graffiti concerns by calling the Buellton Police Department at (805) 686-8150. CITY OF CARPINTERIA At one time, Carpinteria had as many as 350 incidents of graffiti activity per month. Now, however, that number has been reduced to 20 to 25 per month. This decrease is 1Referenced phone numbers can be found in the table at the end of this report. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 21 attributed to a variety of economic and demographic factors as well as the prevention and eradication efforts of the City and its citizens. All vehicles are equipped with graffiti removal kits and workers have been trained in their use. Carpinteria has a rewards program for the arrest and conviction of perpetrators. The public is encouraged to report graffiti concerns by calling the City’s Graffiti Hotline at (805) 684-5405, Extension 511. CITY OF GOLETA Goleta has mobilized an informal group of volunteers who, for the last 15 years, have made it their responsibility to remove 2,000 instances of graffiti per year from private and commercial properties within the City. The paint used is donated by volunteers. The key to the success of the volunteer crew is that they quickly clean up graffiti on all surfaces, including under bridges. The public is encouraged to report graffiti by calling the Graffiti Hotline at (805) 968-6769. CITY OF GUADALUPE Guadalupe recognizes that it has a problem with graffiti, especially during summer months when school is not in session. Typically, five to ten acts of graffiti per week are reported and responsibility for removal is shared among City departments, depending upon where the graffiti is found. On private property, the owner is notified to remove graffiti. The Police Department photographs and keeps track of the graffiti and seeks restitution when the offender is apprehended. The public is encouraged to report graffiti concerns by calling the Guadalupe Public Works Department at (805) 343-1340, Extension 5. CITY OF LOMPOC An employee of Lompoc’s Police Department looks for and documents graffiti, which a Sanitation Department employee then removes. If graffiti is located on private property, the Sanitation Department removes it if the owner does not. Local religious and service organizations also remove graffiti at their own expense. The public is encouraged to report graffiti by calling (805) 736-2341, Extension 6143. More information on the City’s graffiti removal program is available at cityoflompoc.com2. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA The City of Santa Barbara receives approximately 30 to 40 calls each day reporting graffiti. The Public Works Department uses one full-time employee and one part-time employee to remove graffiti from City property. This team has a truck supplied with high-pressure water equipment for graffiti removal and with most city paint colors for repainting. For graffiti reported on private property, the property owner is notified of an obligation under an ordinance3 to remove it. Citizens can also assist in efforts to address graffiti by joining the Adopt-A-Block Program through an organization called “Looking Good Santa Barbara” which can be reached at lookinggoodsb.com4. 2http://www.cityoflompoc.com/SW/Graffiti.htm (last visited April 18, 2013) 3 Santa Barbara Municipal Code chapter 9.66 4 http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/Recycling-Trash/clean-community/index.html (last visited April 18, 2013) 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 22 The City has a memorandum of understanding with the Union Pacific Railroad for the clean-up of graffiti on the railroad’s right of way. The graffiti crew is responsible for removal in a timely manner and the City invoices the railroad for the cost of this work. The graffiti crew costs over $100,000 per year to operate and about one-third of this cost is recovered from Union Pacific. The public is encouraged to report graffiti by calling the City’s Graffiti Hotline at (805) 897-2513. CITY OF SANTA MARIA Graffiti removal is the responsibility of the Parks Department and the costs are paid out of the General Fund. One employee works 32 hours per week exclusively in removing graffiti, including from private property with the owner’s permission. The City contracts with a comprehensive web-based system provider called “Graffiti Tracker” which records all graffiti. It costs $3,000 annually for this system, which is designed to help identify, track, prosecute and seek restitution from graffiti vandals. The public is encouraged to report graffiti problems by calling the City at (805) 925-0951, Extension 667. CITY OF SOLVANG The City’s Maintenance Department removes graffiti on public buildings. When a perpetrator is convicted, restitution is required. Private property owners are responsible for graffiti removal. The public is encouraged to report graffiti by calling the Sheriff’s Department Substation at (805) 686-5000. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA The County has a graffiti abatement ordinance, which is codified in Santa Barbara County Code chapter 47. The California Department of Transportation coordinates graffiti removal and schedules coordination with other projects along U.S. Highway 101. Citizens residing in the unincorporated areas of the County are encouraged to report graffiti by calling the County Public Works Department at (805) 568-3000.
• CL32
  Even minor occurrences of graffiti must be handled immediately or they will compound and become a larger problem that can have a significant negative effect on the quality of life in the area. Many communities struggle with this continuing problem, but we in Santa Barbara County need not. We need only support local programs to combat graffiti, and with the public’s assistance, we can diminish this societal problem. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 23 Graffiti Reporting Phone Numbers Location Contact Phone number Buellton Police Department 805-686-8150 Carpinteria Graffiti Hotline 805-684-5405 x511 Goleta Graffiti Hotline 805-968-6769 Guadalupe Public Works 805-343-1340 x5 Lompoc Graffiti Hotline 805-736-2341 x6143 Santa Barbara Graffiti Hotline 805-897-2513 Santa Maria Graffiti Hotline 805-925-0951 x667 Solvang Sheriff’s Department 805-686-5000 Unincorporated County County Public Works 805-568-3000 U nder California Penal Code S ection 933.05 this report d oes not require a respon se. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 24 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 25 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 26 SHERIFF-CORONER’S BUREAU The Manner of Death—A Final Diagnosis SUMMARY Frequently, when citizens learn of an accidental death or one of unknown or suspicious cause, the report often ends with the statement that the cause of death is “under investigation” by the coroner or medical examiner’s department. Immediately, people conjure up the Hollywood version of a sterile surgical morgue facility with the latest technology and forensic pathologists informing the detectives as to the cause and manner of death. Operating at the nexus of medicine and criminal justice, these death detectives manage to thoroughly investigate each suspicious fatality, complete with toxicology results, and do it within the hour. The reality of these investigations is much different, with dedicated personnel working in difficult conditions to accomplish an unglamorous but critical public service. The 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) undertook an investigation into the reality of the daily work done by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner’s Bureau (Bureau). While death under any circumstance is difficult, those citizens who must face the matter of death at the Bureau deserve to receive competent and professional service in a high-quality facility. Likewise, those county employees who perform this most difficult but necessary work must be provided the professional education needed to develop the required specialized skills while also acquiring a sensitivity for the cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds of the people they serve. These skilled employees also deserve high-quality resources necessary to successfully perform their jobs in a safe, healthy and efficient working environment. During this investigation, the Jury learned that there are some 2,300 coroner/medical examiners’ facilities in the United States with a wide range of standards and competence. In California’s 58 counties, the government adopts one of three general models: medical examiner, sheriff-coroner or lay coroner. All staff operate under the statutory authority of the California Government Code: Section 27491 and the California Health and Safety Code: Section 102850. In some of the larger counties, including Ventura County, the medical examiner model has been adopted. Since 1947, Santa Barbara County uses the model of sheriff-coroner, who is an elected officer. While the Jury finds the Bureau to be in compliance with the law, the Bureau’s physical facility is in immediate need of significant improvements and merits a long-range strategic plan by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for the development of an accredited medical examiner department in an industry-standard facility with the capability of being accredited by the National Association of Medical Examiners. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 27 It’s difficult for people to spend money on medical examiners systems. They see it often as wasting money on the dead, without realizing that everything that is done in a medical examiner office or a coroner office, is truly done for the living. We try to protect society. We look for deaths that are premature, or that should not have happened, so that we can go forth and correct those errors in society.1
• CL33
  The 2012-2013 Santa Barbara Grand Jury wishes to express its appreciation to the law enforcement officers and support personnel for their service within Santa Barbara County. The Jury finds that Santa Barbara county law enforcement and detention facilities are staffed with professional and dedicated personnel. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lompoc Court Holding Facility, Cypress Avenue Finding 1 That the existing bus port creates a potential safety hazard for court officials and employees, as well as the public, because in the process of loading and unloading, the detainees can visually observe the vehicles in the parking lot. Recommendation 1 That the existing bus port be modified so that detainees cannot visually observe the parking lot. Santa Barbara Court Holding Facility, Figueroa Street Finding 2a That the holding cells in the basement of the Santa Barbara Court Holding Facility, Figueroa Street, do not have enough cells to house the detainees whose cases are before the courts that day. Finding 2b That the detainees are handcuffed to railings in the corridors due to the lack of holding cell space. Finding 2c That this overcrowding creates a dangerous environment for both deputies and detainees. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 43 Finding 2d That shackled detainees have to be escorted across Figueroa Street to courtrooms by deputies in full view of the passing public. Such a procession is a potential security and safety hazard. Recommendation 2 That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff support all efforts to address these potential hazardous situations. Santa Maria Court Services Holding Facility, Cook Street Finding 3 That the holding cell level lacks cameras. Recommendation 3 That the Sheriff fund and install cameras to be placed on the cell level, for the safety of all detainees and deputies. Santa Maria Station Finding 4 That the facility is currently open only from 7 p.m. until 7 a.m. daily. Recommendation 4a That the Sheriff fund this location to be open and operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Recommendation 4b That the Sheriff hire and staff this location to allow it to stay open and be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.05, each agency and government body affected by or named in this report is requested to respond in writing to the findings and recommendations in a timely manner. The following are the affected agencies for this report, with the mandated response period for each: Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Findings: 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d Recommendation: 2 Santa Barbara County Sheriff - 60 Days Findings: 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3, 4 Recommendations: 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 44 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 45 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 46 SUSAN J. GIONFRIDDO JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTER The following constitutes an Activity Report issued by the 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) regarding a visit to the Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center. The Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center (Center) is a maximum security facility located in Santa Maria. In October 2012, the Jury made a scheduled visit to the Center as part of its charge under California Penal Code, Section 919(b), to “inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the county”. The Probation Department of Santa Barbara County operates the Center for youthful offenders, both male and female, between the ages of 12 and 18. Several expansions to the Center raised its capacity to 140. These youthful offenders are considered wards of the court and detained at the Center for varying periods of time. Youthful offenders are referred to as “wards” in this Activity Report.
• CL34
  The Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center, Santa Maria Juvenile Hall, is a modern, well- designed and maintained facility, with professional staff that is trained to be sensitive to the age of their wards. The 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Jury commends the staff and administration for their outstanding efforts. Under California Penal Code Section 933.05 this report does not require a response. 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 49 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 50 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 51 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 52 TRUANCY PREVENTION—A CLASS ACT Off to a Good Start In 2011, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) issued a report asking, “Where is the Truancy Program in Santa Barbara County”? From 2008, when a successful truancy prevention program was cancelled as the funding expired, the truancy rate in the County increased by 47%. The Jury recommended the Santa Barbara County Office of Education (SBCOE), in partnership with the District Attorney’s office and all school districts, immediately reinstate a countywide program to reduce truancy and include funding for such a program. The overall response to the recommendation was categorized as “unreasonable”. The responses explained that school budgets had been cut to the bone and no additional money was available. The District Attorney requested the Board of Supervisors (BOS) fund one full-time position dedicated to truancy enforcement. The request was denied. However, the BOS organized an ad hoc committee made up of two supervisors and representatives from the District Attorney’s office, the SBCOE, Probation, the Sheriff’s Department and several school districts to develop a program to reduce truancy countywide. This committee worked diligently throughout the year and finalized a flexible program that could be implemented in each district using in-place systems and personnel. The District Attorney committed to funding for one attorney and a half-time legal assistant to support the program. A Memorandum of Understanding was developed and signed by all school districts as well as the offices above and Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services, the Public Health Department, the Department of Social Services and the Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. The 2011-2012 Jury monitored these meetings throughout the year and was gratified when the Board of Supervisors, in June, 2012, approved funding for the requested positions to oversee the implementation of the new program. The new truancy program became known as Community Leadership in Achieving Student Success (CLASS). Appendix A outlines the five main components of CLASS which conforms to the California Education Code requirements.1 Everyone involved with CLASS is enthusiastic about its focus: to identify and help address the problems of the children who do not come to school. This is the heart of CLASS. The 2012-2013 Jury has continued to monitor the implementation of the CLASS program in its start-up year. It conferred with the new program personnel in the District Attorney’s office, with district representatives, and with school attendance personnel. Although the Jury found it has taken the better part of the year to put all the components in place, the District Attorney’s office reports that all five School Attendance Review Boards (SARB) are operational and meeting as needed. However, the Santa Ynez Valley SARB has yet to receive a referral. During interviews with the Jury, all school personnel stated the program appears to be working as designed. Some schools are experiencing difficulties, but these are unique to specific schools and not a systemic problem. Individual administrators are well aware of these problems and are actively finding ways to address them. The only negative common factor identified by the Jury is the 1 Education Codes §§ 48260-48273. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 53 time-consuming paperwork which is required by law if the District Attorney is to prosecute any chronic truants and/or their parents.2 To address the recordkeeping challenge, the Lompoc Unified School District entered into a two- year contract with School Innovations and Achievement (SIA) to implement a letter-generating program called Attention to Attendance (A2A). After the letters are reviewed by the schools, SIA sends them to the families of truant children as required by law. SIA maintains the data base and is in close communication with the schools. This leaves the attendance personnel free to work directly with students and their families. After one year, using the A2A, the program has contributed to 9,957 increased learning days over the previous year, or the equivalent of 55 more students in class every day. Because state funding for Lompoc is based on attendance, the original $45,000 investment resulted in a funding increase to this District from the State of California of $242,374. Countywide truancy figures for the 2012-2013 school year are not yet complete. With nine of 21 districts in the County reporting, an estimated 665 letters were sent informing parents of their child’s three days of truancy, only 167 students and their parents have been referred to SARBs. Of these, 25 were referred to Probation for review and 14 parents were cited for truancy law infractions. The Board of Supervisors, the District Attorney’s Office, the school districts and the various support agencies are to be commended for their dedication in developing and implementing the CLASS program and for their ongoing efforts to support the educational success of all students. This is a status report and no response is required. 2 Ibid. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 54 Appendix A 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 55 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 56 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 57 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 58 FINANCING LOW-INCOME HOUSING SUMMARY In its report, “A Failure of Oversight”1, the 2011-2012 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury criticized the Lompoc Housing Community Development Corporation (LHCDC), the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Lompoc for failing to protect the citizens of Santa Barbara County against mismanagement of affordable housing facilities and financial loss. The reputations of other low-income housing providers may have suffered by association. After reviewing several complaints, the 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) finds no basis for the allegations. The Jury is impressed by the dedication and good work by many of these organizations. These complaints appear to be based on the difficulty in understanding the complex structure of these organizations. This results from the cumbersome statutory environment that has evolved over 75 years of congressional experimentation with funding of low- income housing. This activity report attempts to bring some historical perspective and a better understanding of the financing of low-income housing.
• CL35
  After interviewing numerous low-income housing and service providers, reviewing hundreds of pages of documents as well as readily-available financial statements, the Jury finds that LHCDC was an outlier and that the dedicated employees of other low-income housing organizations in the county competently perform their functions, and do so largely outside the public limelight. The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury believes that public funding of these organizations is well invested and commends these organizations for the ongoing service they provide. 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 61

Observations 4

• OB1
  County Budget Gaps According to the Executive Summary of the Recommended 2012-2013 County Budget (Executive Summary)8, “Santa Barbara County continues to face significant internal challenges such as increases in employee retirement and healthcare costs, reliance on one- time funding solutions, deferred maintenance of critical infrastructure, funding of a new North County Jail, increasing cost of Fire Department operations, and lack of new revenues”. The current estimate for operating the proposed North County Jail is $17.3 million per year. To solve the budget gap, the Executive Summary reported the Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO) office had “explored strategies for revenue enhancement including an oil production tax, economic development, fee adjustments and increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)”. On February 14, 2012, the CEO recommended to the BOS that they allow the voters of the County to decide if they agreed with an oil production tax by having staff draft “a ballot measure that identifies the tax methodology and the nature of the tax, general or special, with a plan to proceed with placing it on the November 2012 ballot”. However, the BOS chose not to implement the recommendation at that time and no ballot proposal on an oil production tax was presented. During the past four years, significant staffing and service level reductions have been required to balance the budget. In addition to furloughs initiated in FY 2008-2009, the County lost over 450 full-time-equivalent employees. Up to 32.5 additional positions may be lost in the FY 2013-2014 budget cycle. As a result of available revenues and the expected increases to expenditures, it will be necessary to reduce service levels by $8.3 million in FY 2013-2014. Service reductions include, among other things, many losses in 7 Rates as of this writing; many locales have inflation-adjusted rates, exemptions, incentives and other modifications that, where applicable, will change the per barrel rates found in municipal and other codes 8 Presentation by County CEO to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on May 15, 2012 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 10 the Public Health Department and the elimination of the targeted gang intervention program in the Probation Department and the Juvenile Justice Program in the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services Department. Also included in the effort to balance the budget are the loss of three firefighter positions and seven Sheriff Deputy positions. The projected service reductions will help fund expected increases in several areas including employee salaries and pay increases (estimated at $3.6 million), the annual “set aside” for the proposed North County Jail ($3.3 million), and an increase in the contribution to the Santa Barbara County Employee Retirement System (SBCERS) of $8.1 million over FY 2012-2013. It should be noted that the County’s Deferred Maintenance Backlog, which is unfunded, is estimated at $292 million and it continues to grow. According to the Santa Barbara County Recommended Operational Plan, Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-2015:9 However, it is critical to note that the ongoing cycle of service reductions is not sustainable and therefore the County must consider revenue enhancement strategies resulting from increased economic activity and resident supported tax increases. County Oil Production Onshore oil production in the County is experiencing a resurgence. From an all-time high in 1964 of 8,950,404 barrels, oil production fell to a low of 1,913,093 barrels in 2005. This number has risen steadily to 3,388,668 barrels extracted in 2012, as reported by DOGGR. The Jury learned that this resurgence is influenced by three major factors. First, the production of oil is currently economically feasible. Unlike the 1980s, when the price of a barrel of oil dropped to single digits, the price of oil has hovered between $90 and $100 for some time. Using the Midway-Sunset Price per barrel of $95.5010, the 3,388,668 barrels extracted last year in the County were worth $334,250,000. With the world’s energy needs increasing, the price is expected to stay in this range in the near future. Secondly, a part of the Monterey Shale Formation is in the County. (See map in Appendix A.) Although oil companies have drilled in the formation for over 100 years, it is only fairly recently that the reserves residing there have been estimated to contain 15.4 billion barrels of oil.11 Lastly, today’s oil companies are using technology not available years ago such as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”. Fracking utilizes steam and chemicals under extreme pressure to crack the rock and allow natural gas and oil to flow to the surface. Based on the current economics of oil production, the vast availability of the resource, and the use of ever newer and more efficient technologies, oil exploration and production in Santa Barbara County are here to stay. Currently, the onshore oil in the County comes from approximately 13 active oil fields with over 4,050 active wells, operated by approximately 20 companies. (See Appendix B.) 9 Executive Summary, Page B-20, May 2013 10 Presentation by County Assessor and County Counsel to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on August 14, 2012 11 eia.gov Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays, U.S. Energy Information Administration, July 8, 2011 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 11 According to the presentation to the BOS referenced above, there were over 40 proposed projects in the prior three years. Each proposed project is subject to a lengthy and extensive permitting process. Primary permitting jurisdictions include the County’s Planning and Development Department for land use, building, grading, and petroleum permits; the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District for air permits; and DOGGR for well permitting. The BOS also passed new regulations for companies working in the County that require them to obtain an oil drilling and production plan permit for fracking in new or existing wells. In addition, the State’s Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water and Environmental Quality is studying legislation meant to regulate and control the practice of fracking. An important part of the permitting process for many projects is the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These are voluminous, extensive documents that can cost the oil company upwards of $1,000,000. The review process for the reports attempts to cover every aspect of the potential impacts of a project and allows for public comment at each stage. One element of many EIRs is addressing potential adverse impacts to federally-listed and/or state-listed endangered or threatened species, such as the California Tiger Salamander and the California Red Legged Frog. Projects will commence only after all potential environmental impacts have been addressed and permits have been obtained. Relying on the aforementioned regulatory agencies to thoroughly evaluate all projects for safety and environmental issues before issuing permits, the Jury takes no position on future onshore oil production. Two concerns raised about an oil production tax are job losses in the County and a possible rise in the price of gasoline at the pump. In its Oil Production Tax Proposal, County staff concluded that neither of these would be meaningful.12 Current Santa Barbara County Tax Assessments on Oil Producing Properties The primary tax imposed on oil producers, pursuant to California state law, is the property tax. The process of assessing property used for oil production is complicated. Counties assess property taxes on oil producers pursuant to the State’s Revenue and Taxation Code.13 Subject to various limits including those enacted as part of Proposition 13, the property tax is calculated annually, starting with the “base year value of the property” and continuing according to the “discounted cash flow” estimated from future production of proven reserves.14 If a production tax applies in a city or county, an oil company can deduct the tax, as it can also deduct permit fees.15 12 Presentation by County CEO to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on February 14, 2012; Oil Production Tax Proposal, pages 5-6 13 http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/ah566.pdf As specialized appraisal techniques are required according to Property Tax Rule 468(c), county assessors may also consult the “Assessment of Petroleum Properties” portion of the State Board Equalization’s(SBE) handbook. It was developed in 1966 with input by industry representatives, county assessors, and petroleum experts. 14 More information can be obtained from Title 18, Sec 468 (SBE Rule 468) at ca.gov and from the Assessors’ Handbook, Section 566, titled “Assessment of Petroleum Properties”, ibid 15 Assessors’ Handbook, Section 566, page 5-10, ibid 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 12 Oil producers are currently assessed approximately $12,250,000 in property taxes by the County both on proven oil or gas reserves and other taxable property. Often, these assessments are appealed. Resolution of a dispute can take years before the money is released to the County’s General Fund. If an oil production tax, similar to those in at least five California cities, were to be enacted in the County, staff stated any reduction to property taxes on oil producing properties likely would be minimal. The cost and complexity of assessing oil producing properties has not deterred those interested in the production of minerals. The Jury learned that over 200 documents were recorded in the County in 2011 transferring leasehold mineral rights interests in over 20,000 acres. New Revenue Source Keeping in mind the County’s ongoing budget gap, the Jury urges elected officials to identify new sources of revenue. The majority of oil producing states engaged in oil extraction has a production or severance tax. The chart below, the information in the “Background” section of this report and the chart in Appendix C include examples from the Jury’s research of these taxes. Calculated Oil Tax Revenue Using Sample Rates Rate/Barrel 2012 Santa Barbara Calculated Production/Barrels Revenue $1.00 Proposed by County Staff 3,388,668 $3,388,668 $1.44 Measure O Ballot in Los Angeles 3,388,668 $4,879,682 It is evident that a new source of revenue could be raised. It is important to note that the charts illustrate the revenue that would have been raised if the production taxes used in other locations were applied to the number of barrels extracted in the County in 2012. The Jury notes that oil taxation is constantly changing across the country. At this writing, there were over 40 pieces of legislation under consideration, including SB241 in the California State Senate,16 to implement new oil taxes and/or to change elements of existing taxes in various states. For the County, implementing the tax per barrel would be the simplest way to tax oil production as there is already a requirement to report to the State of California the number of barrels extracted. An oil production tax would represent a new source of revenue, not imposed on the general populace, such as a sales tax would be. An oil production tax could garner additional ongoing revenues for the County. 16 SB241, The California Education and Resources Reinvestment Act (CERRA), if passed, would impose a 9.9% severance tax on the extraction of oil from the earth or water within California’s jurisdiction. Ninety- three percent of the proceeds would go to the University of California, California State University, and Community College systems. Seven percent of the proceeds would go to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 13
• OB2
  Bureau Staff The staff includes a Sergeant, a Forensic Pathologist, an Office Assistant and four Deputy Detectives (Coroner Detectives). In 2011, there were 2,871 deaths in the county with 1,476 requiring an investigation. The Bureau detectives have the highest caseload in the Sheriff’s Office, conducting all the required death investigations within the County regardless of law enforcement agency jurisdiction. If the deceased has not been under the care of a medical 3 PBS.org/frontline2011 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 29 professional within 20 days of death, by law the death becomes a coroner case.4 Approximately 150 autopsies are performed annually. From interviews at every level of the Sheriff Office, the Jury learned the Bureau is understaffed and in need of a full-time forensic technician to assist the pathologist during autopsies. Currently this position is being filled by retired personnel from the Bureau on a part-time basis. Any detective can be dispatched to a death scene. However, the Jury was told that detectives not assigned to the Bureau may not be adequately trained in death-scene investigation. This lack of training could unknowingly compromise important evidence. All new Bureau staff receive a dedicated two week coroner training course and the Jury was assured all staff were current on the POST (Police Officer Standards Training, State of California) Training. Among the Jury concerns were conflicting and inconsistent answers given by various employees regarding any specialized training, its documentation and who is responsible for monitoring that employees receive it. According to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations, the public and the staff would be better served if the staff received more specialized training in areas such as infection control and blood-borne pathogens.5 Bureau Facilities – Santa Barbara The physical facility consists of three structures: the main building, a portable structure and a Conex box. The public area of the main building includes a reception area, the Sergeant’s office and a grieving room. The employee area of the building includes a break room, a storage room and a small computer work space. These two areas are connected via a corridor that passes by the walk-in refrigeration unit for the deceased and goes through the autopsy room. The arrangement of these rooms exposes the entire working environment to noxious odors and possibly to airborne contaminants. During interviews and visits, the Jury learned that the interior walk-in refrigeration unit is designed to accommodate 16 bodies and is connected to a backup generator. There is also an outside refrigeration unit where the deceased can be placed temporarily. The Jury was informed by staff that the current ventilation system is 25 years old and since no building permit could be located, the system may not have been designed to provide adequate 4Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, 2011 Annual Report 5 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5308a1.htm (CDC.gov Recommendations and Reports June 11, 2004, /53(RR08) Medical Examiners, Coroners, and Biologic Terrorism) 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 30 ventilation to this type of facility. Adequate ventilation which includes negative air pressure6,5 is a necessary requirement for the control of infection, removal of noxious odors, dilution and expulsion of contaminants. Conducting autopsies in an area with inadequate ventilation presents a risk of circulating airborne pathogens. The ventilation system is not equipped with a filtration component to prevent the spread of airborne bacterial, viral or other organisms. This system presents a potential health and safety risk for employees. To provide for the safety of the staff and visiting public, a code-compliant ventilation system, must be installed to ensure contaminated air is exhausted from all rooms and not redistributed into other areas of the building. The Jury was informed that on warm days the autopsy room, which has a window mounted air conditioner unit, is not adequately cooled to create a comfortable working environment. The Bureau’s facility is not equipped with an isolation room suitable for working on high-risk cases. An isolation room is needed and must be provided with its own autopsy table and sink, to protect staff from contagious diseases. The ventilation system for this room must be separate from the rest of the facility and, according to industry standards, provide for negative air pressure.6 Air from this isolation room must be filtered and exhausted directly to the outside, separated from supply-air intakes and populated areas. The Goleta Sanitary District (GSD) failed to re-issue an Industrial Wastewater Permit under its Ordinance No. 77, which also covers hospitals and mortuaries, although the Bureau submitted the correct paperwork. The Jury was informed that medical and infectious waste from the facility is being discharged into the sanitary system during autopsies without the proper permit from GSD. Temperature logs are not being kept for the refrigerator which holds blood samples in the autopsy room. The Jury is concerned that temperature fluctuations could compromise evidence. The American National Standards Institute and Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) recommend an eye wash station for employees who are exposed to hazardous materials.7 There was no eye wash station at the facility. During an autopsy, the Forensic Pathologist dictates his findings into a microphone that is strung through a ceiling tile that hangs over the autopsy table. This dictation is fed into a cassette 6 http://www.nrctraining.com/air_force.htm (National Resource Center, Department of the Air Force, Medical Facility Ventilation) 7 http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2FISEA+Z358.1-2009 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 31 system that then has to be transcribed into electronic form for retention and distribution. For efficiency and preservation of information gathered during an autopsy, digital equipment is needed to replace the obsolete equipment currently in use. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention current standards state that, “mechanisms should be in place to ensure that electronic death investigation data can be shared with public health authorities, law enforcement agencies, and other death-investigation agencies while providing for appropriate confidentiality and control of the release of information to authorized personnel or organizations only”.8 The Conex storage unit is located in the parking lot. It holds the records of closed cases and other evidence. The paper files are being scanned electronically when time permits, usually when the Sheriff’s Office has personnel on light duty due to injury. The portable building was once used as a classroom for the inmates of the women’s honor farm. Now it serves as the office for the four detectives and the forensic pathologist. This separation of the staff is not an efficient arrangement due to continual travel between buildings. During the hot months of the year, the air conditioning unit in the portable building is not sufficient which makes working conditions difficult. The entire area that immediately surrounds the three structures is poorly maintained, as evidenced by abundant weeds, untended shrubs, bushes and ground rodents. The space between the main building and the portable building is full of holes and weeds. Staff has attempted to address this issue, including trying to maintain the outside area on their own time. The condition of the grounds still presents fire and safety hazards. A More Centralized Location A refrigeration unit near the Santa Maria Sheriff’s facility holds the deceased from this area, until they can be transported to Santa Barbara. This transport time subtracts from the coroner detective’s investigation time. A more centralized Bureau within the county would improve this issue. In the early 1960’s, the population of Santa Barbara County was less than 200,000. The 2010 census revealed that Santa Barbara County has grown to a population of 423,900. The greater population growth has occurred in the north. Former and current staff of the Bureau suggested that the County might be better served with a more centralized location, since 55% of their caseload growth is now in the north. 8 Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 32
• OB3
  Coroner’s Bureau In 1987 the Board of Supervisors identified an “emergency need” to build a Coroner’s Bureau. The facility was built by County inmate labor in 1988. Other than a new emergency generator, there has been no significant upgrade to the main building since that time. The four Coroner’s Bureau detectives have a caseload of 1,200-1,500 per year, the largest in the Sheriff’s Office, resulting in approximately 150 autopsies performed annually. Interviews with staff members revealed they work well together despite an environment with antiquated equipment and a poorly functioning ventilation system posing a risk for exposure to airborne pathogens. The Jury finds the Coroner’s Bureau understaffed and in need of an upgrade. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 39 Isla Vista Foot Patrol Station This station is a relatively new facility; it is well kept and strategically located in the community. It serves as a holding facility, with transportation to Santa Barbara County Jail as needed. There are 20 Sheriff’s Office staff members assigned to the Station, including two deputies on bike patrol. California Highway Patrol Officers and University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Campus Police collaborate there on a daily basis. Friday and Saturday nights, the Isla Vista community can be responsible for as much as 50% of all Sheriff’s case numbers reported in the County and 25% of all reported cases in a year. One of the busiest times for the Station is the weekend after midterms. The Jury finds the Sheriff’s Office and their staff to be professional and patient in doing a difficult job. Lompoc Court Holding Facility, Cypress Street This facility is usually staffed with two to four deputies. Five holding cells have a toilet and sink, and can hold up to five inmates in each cell. Three isolation cells are available for dangerous inmates. Inmates are separated by gender and classification. Juveniles are held by the Probation Department in a different area. All inmates are provided food and drinks if needed. Inmates are transported in and out of this facility, sometimes twice per day, to await their court appearances. The existing bus port creates a potentially unsafe environment for employees and the general public. The Jury finds this is unacceptable. New Cuyama Station This station, which serves the largest geographic area in the County, is staffed with two deputies who are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. One officer is a resident deputy. Although few arrests are made each month, the deputies respond to the same issues that the other Sheriff’s Office Deputies respond to throughout the County. There is one holding cell with a toilet. The Jury learned that the Sheriff’s Office is working with the County Fire Department to enhance their local communication system. The Jury finds this facility to be very clean and well managed. Santa Barbara Court Holding Facility, Figueroa Street This facility has eight holding cells. During the day, while awaiting their court appearances, inmates are separated by gender and classification. The cells are monitored by camera and equipped with a toilet and sink. In addition, there are four isolation cells for dangerous inmates. Food and drinks are provided if needed. In 2012, 45 percent of the time, the facility exceeded its capacity of 60 inmates for which it was designed. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 40 Some inmates are escorted by deputies to cross the street from the holding facility to the courtrooms in full view of the general public. The Jury finds that this facility is inadequate and the location presents a potential public safety hazard. Santa Barbara Main Jail (County Jail) The Jury visited the Main Jail on several occasions and found it severely overcrowded and understaffed. Sections of the facility, built in 1961, are outmoded. Prior to the enactment of AB1091 in October 2011, the average length of incarceration was 20 days. Now the jail will retain inmates with sentences in excess of one year. The staff is faced with the need to provide services for these longer term inmates. These additional challenges relate to providing adequate living space, extensive medical services, expanded exercise yards, educational programs and dietary requirements. The Jury learned that the “Sheriff’s Treatment Program2” is designed to provide support services to inmates prior to being released. These services include individual and group counseling, addiction control and educational opportunities. After several interviews with staff, the Jury learned the Main Jail is inadequate to currently handle the challenges of AB109 inmates. Santa Maria Court Services Holding Facility, Cook Street This facility is located in the basement of the Santa Maria Court Building. It has 17 cells and is capable of holding 110 inmates while they wait for their court appearances during the day. Deputies isolate inmates who are considered dangerous to themselves or others. Since this is a holding facility only, meals are brought in as necessary and medical care is provided by a local hospital. The Jury finds that the lack of cameras on the cell level makes this facility unsafe. Santa Maria Station Prior to 2012, this facility was used as an additional jail facility, supplementing the Main Jail. Due to staffing constraints, it is currently used as a holding facility. At this time, it is open nightly from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Arrestees are booked there and transported to the Main Jail, Santa Maria Court, or released each morning. The facility contains eight cells, capable of holding up to 36 arrestees. Each cell has a toilet and sink. The Jury finds this facility clean and efficiently managed. The Jury recommends that the Sheriff extend the hours of this jail facility to remain open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 1 Public Safety Realignment Act (AB109) transfers responsibility for supervising certain kinds of felony offenders and state prison parolees from state prison and state parole agents to county jails and probation officers 2 As described in the 2011 Annual Report by the Sheriff’s Office of Santa Barbara County 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 41 Santa Ynez Valley Station This station has one holding cell and is used until the person in custody can be transported to the Main Jail. When in use, the cell can be continuously observed through a window. Juveniles are held in a separate room with supervision. The Jury finds this station clean and well managed. La Posada Juvenile Hall, Santa Barbara3 Currently this facility is used as a receiving and booking station as well as a courtroom. There are seven staff members and a director. Following booking, all detainees are transported for detention to the Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center in Santa Maria and returned to La Posada for court appearances. The Jury finds the staff to be professional and experienced with sensitivity to the age of the youth. Los Prietos Boys Camp3 During the Jury’s visit in September 2012, 78 boys were at the camp which has a capacity of 96. The Jury found the camp to be in an attractive setting in the Los Padres National Forest. The 30 dedicated staff members care about the welfare of the boys. They work three shifts covering 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The boys are separated by age into two groups. The average length of stay is 5½ months and some may be referred back to repeat the program. Their educational needs are met by the Santa Barbara County Education Office which employs three teachers at the camp. The Jury had lunch with the boys and found the food adequate. The Jury commends the work furlough program and the fact the boys wrote and self-published a book of poetry. The camp was clean, well organized and maintained. Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center, Santa Maria3 This is a 24-hour maximum security facility for youthful offenders, both male and female, ranging from 12 to 18 years of age. The facility has six units with a total capacity of 140. At the time of the Jury’s visit, there were 94 minors in custody with an average age of 16 years, with an average stay of 30 days. Medical services are available seven days per week. Mental health services are provided as needed. The facility has an extensive surveillance system that is controlled centrally by a deputy who also controls the movement at each doorway. The Jury inspected some units, had lunch with the inmates and visited a classroom with teachers provided by the Santa Barbara County Education Office. The Jury finds this facility clean and efficient. Lompoc Police Department This facility operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week with a capacity of 23 and an average of seven detainees at a time. The maximum stay is 96 hours with an average stay of 48 hours. Three meals are provided per day. Males, females and juveniles are held separately. 3In 2012, the Santa Barbara County Juvenile Probation Department processed 526 juveniles, 70% from the North County and 30% from the South County. 2 012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 42 Staff advised the Jury that there have not been any major incidents in custody in over a decade. The facility is old, but the Department appears to have adopted security features that have contributed to the safety record of the jail. The Jury finds the facility clean and adequately staffed. Santa Barbara Police Department The Santa Barbara Police headquarters building has two holding cells, monitored by camera. Arrestees are booked in this facility and then transported to the Main Jail. These cells are also used to allow those arrested on public drunkenness charges to sober up prior to being released. Santa Maria Police Department The Santa Maria Police headquarters building has one small (approximately 4’ by 4’) cell with no toilet, sink or space to lie down. After booking, arrestees are transported either to the Main Jail, or if booked after 7 p.m., to the Santa Maria Sheriff’s Station.
• OB4
  Following an orientation from the staff, jurors were given a tour of the Center, which has six living sections. In the newer section, there are four identical units, each with 20 cells: 10 single person and 10 two-person cells. In the older section, two units are used for programs, but may be used for housing wards when needed. At the time of the Jury’s visit there were 94 wards in custody, with an average age of 16 years. In each unit in the newer section the cells surround an open space, which contains a dining area, entrances to two classrooms and an indoor recreation area that leads to an outdoor recreation area. In the middle of the open space, the staff uses a raised platform to monitor activities in the unit. The Center has an extensive video surveillance system capable of retaining all recordings. The system is monitored by a deputy at all times. 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 47 The Jury inspected one of the four units and had lunch with the wards. The jurors explained their reason for the visit and asked questions about the wards’ experiences at the Center. Their responses ranged from how they felt about the Center to their plans upon release. Some wards talked about how they were trying to make up credits toward their high school graduation while at the Center. Almost all stated that they wanted to return home. Some, however, were concerned about the influence of their home environments and their friends on their future behavior. Many wards seemed to have a lack of awareness of what choices are available to them upon their release. Staff expressed concern about these issues as well. PROGRAMS The Jury visited one of several classrooms at the Center. The classroom atmosphere was relaxed and the students were engaged in their lessons. Reading is encouraged and a substantial number of books are available. Computers are available to access educational programs that do not require the internet. The staff encourages the wards to complete their high school credits and to enroll in Allan Hancock College or other college programs while at the Center. A visitation program called “Baby Elmo” has been developed by the Center’s staff for those wards who have children. A nicely decorated area has been set aside for the ward and his or her child or children to interact. The program is designed to encourage bonding between the parent and child during the custody period. The staff talked about this program with great pride and stated they felt it has a positive effect on the participants. The Center has a medical team under contract with Corizon Correctional Healthcare to provide a physician, registered nurses, a licensed vocational nurse and a medical assistant. Wards needing mental health services are referred to Santa Barbara County’s Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services Department. The Center’s medical record system tracks inoculations, along with individual medical history, until the ward turns 18. Video presentations covering drugs and other health issues are available for wards that are deemed to need the information. The staff is concerned that mental health issues are not being addressed adequately before some wards leave the Center. Often, both physical and emotional traumas have contributed to the conduct resulting in a ward’s detention. When necessary, wards who may be dangerous to themselves or others, can be isolated from the Center’s population. Due to the age of the wards, they can only be isolated for a short period of time. If a longer isolation time is needed and safety issues cannot be resolved, the ward is transferred to a facility better equipped to deal with 2012-2013 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 48 those needs.

No Responses Found 1

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