Honoring Commitments to the Public County Agency Actions in Response to

R2

Santa Cruz County Probation—Officers Inadequately Equipped and At Risk 6 Key Findings 6 Key Recommendations 7 Responses 7 2021 Update: Were Commitments Kept? 8

R3

Library IT does privacy audits with all third-party vendors Addresses (including those provided by a library consortia) asking each a Recommendation 4 list of vendor security questions and publishing their privacy statements for the public to review. 2021 Update: Were Commitments Kept? We commend Santa Cruz Public Libraries’ response to the Grand Jury’s recommendations. In addition to updating general privacy policies, the Santa Cruz Public Libraries put a moratorium on any additional use of Gale Analytics On Demand software in 2018. Libraries’ leadership voted to end use of the product and delete all files in January 2019.[7] 2. Santa Cruz County Probation—Officers Inadequately Equipped and At Risk Summary: The role of the Probation Department (Department) in Santa Cruz County has changed significantly in recent years due to legislation and voter-approved propositions. As a result, prison inmates with a higher level of criminal sophistication are frequently released on probation. Many of them have prior felony criminal histories. These persons can require probation officer supervision at the community level. This Grand Jury report identified concerns about the dangers and unnecessary risks Adult Division Deputy Probation Officers (Probation Officers) face in supervising some high-risk offenders. The report found that inadequate or faulty safety equipment, lack of training, limited law enforcement support, and lack of an armed unit all contributed to an unsafe working environment.[8] The Grand Jury concluded its report with five findings and made four recommendations that required responses. The Key Findings and Key Recommendations sections, below, provide context for the Response section. The Response section describes agency responses to the investigation report. In some cases, marked with an asterisk (*), information is edited for clarity or brevity. Key Findings Probation Officers’ lack of safety equipment impedes their ability to do Finding 1 their assigned field visits without jeopardizing their own safety. The Department collects and stores, but does not track, serious incident Finding 2 reports involving Probation Officers with offenders. The Department meets the minimum state requirements for annual Finding 3 Probation Officers training, but does not provide sufficient safety training for Probation Officers in the field. Law enforcement is not always available to accompany Probation Finding 4 Officers in high-risk situations, resulting in fewer contact visits by Probation Officers. The failure of the Department to include an armed unit supporting Finding 5 Probation Officers increases safety risks to Probation Officers in the field. Key Recommendations The Department should provide Probation Officers with Recommendation 1 standardized safety gear (individually fitted vests, functioning radios, tasers, OC spray, identifiable clothing, and Narcan) for their field visits. The Department should provide all Probation Officers with Recommendation 2 mandatory initial and ongoing field safety training in collaboration with the Department’s Safety Committee. The Department should coordinate with local law enforcement Recommendation 3 to develop policies and procedures for law enforcement officers to accompany Probation Officers during field visits. The Department should commission a needs assessment by Recommendation 4 an independent consultant to ascertain the potential harm to unarmed officers doing field work with high-risk offenders, with a focus on developing an armed unit. Responses[9] The Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer did not agree Addresses Finding 1 that sworn staff were inadequately equipped. They added that tasers would be implemented in 2019 and that in FY 19/20, the department will be ordering individually fitted vests over time as fiscally allowable. Narcan is available for checkout as of July 2019. The Chief Probation Officer responded that the Incident Addresses Finding 2 Report form has been enhanced to include more detailed areas for follow-up and debriefing when needed (with a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threats analysis model noted for consistency in response). In August 2018, the Probation Department implemented a Addresses Finding 3 Pilot Field Training Program. This is facilitated by Probation Officer II/III staff who are trained as Field Training Officers.* Addresses Finding 4 The Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer stated that law enforcement officers are always available to assist probation officers with high-risk work, but conceded that there may be significant wait times based on other public safety priorities. The Chief Probation Officer stated that the Department Addresses was not aware of any research supporting the arming of Recommendation 4 probation officers.* Additional information[10] 2021 Update: Were Commitments Kept? The Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer agreed to assign a full-time deputy to the Probation Department to assist probation officers with higher-risk assignments. These assignments include searches, arrests, transportation, and other work prioritized by the Probation Department. The County Board of Supervisors approved funding for one additional deputy for this purpose for the 2019–2020 fiscal year budget. The Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer will work together toward implementation. The assigned deputy was scheduled to start with the Probation Department in September 2019. As of November 15, 2021, the County reports that the Probation Department has a full-time deputy assigned to the department to assist with higher-risk assignments.[11] 3. Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts—How Complex Contracts Misled County Leaders Summary: Santa Cruz County (County) has contracts with criminal defense attorneys who in turn represent accused criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay for their own defense. These contracts are called the County’s public defense contracts. This report investigated two closely related topics concerning the administration and fiscal management of the public defense contracts: ● Gaps in management and accountability of public defense contracts for services provided by private sector defense attorneys which have led to excessive costs. ● How County practices and processes for contract creation, tracking, and reporting obscured the scope and cost of complex contracts, such as the public defense contracts. For almost fifty years the County’s main public defense contract was with the law firm of Biggam, Christensen and Minsloff (Biggam). In addition to the contract with Biggam, the County has contracts with two other private law firms that specialize in criminal defense. These additional contracts are needed to avoid conflicts in having Biggam represent multiple defendants charged in the same case (Conflict Attorneys).[12] The Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts report focused on the cost of the County’s public defense contracts, which had risen more than the rate of inflation over the prior 20 years. The Grand Jury considered whether caseloads, number of felony jury trials, or minimum staffing requirements explained the increase. The Grand Jury also investigated whether the public defense contracts followed the County’s contract rules and processes and whether the County administered the public defense contracts in accordance with the County’s standard contract practices. The Grand Jury found that the County’s management of the public defense contracts did not provide adequate oversight of the services and costs. The Grand Jury also found that the Board of Supervisors approved increases to contract payments and provision of complimentary office space without a clear understanding of the true cost of the services, or why the costs were increasing.[13] The Key Findings and Key Recommendations sections provide context for the Response section. The Response section describes agency responses to the investigation report. For items marked with an asterisk (*), information has been edited for clarity or brevity. Findings and Recommendations where the agencies declined to take action, or which do not seem to the Grand Jury to be critical to improving government functions at this time, are not included. The investigation produced 12

R4

in the Santa Cruz County Probation—Officers Inadequately Equipped and At Risk Report, p. 11. Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2019_final/Proba tionCPOResponse.pdf#page=12 11. Confidential Grand Jury document. 12. 2018–2019 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury. June 27, 2019. Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts, p. 3. Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2019_final/Public DefenseContracts.pdf#page=3 13. 2018–2019 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury. June 27, 2019. Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts. Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2019_final/Public DefenseContracts.pdf 14. Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer. September 25, 2019. Responses to the Santa Cruz County’s Public Defense Contracts Report. Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2019_final/CAO %20Response.pdf 15. Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer. September 25, 2019. Response to

R1

The CAO should enter into a written agreement with private attorneys using County office space outlining the basic understanding of the attorneys’ use of this space. (F5, F6) Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By Santa Cruz County 90 Days

R1

The CAO should enter into a written agreement with private attorneys using County office space outlining the basic understanding of the attorneys’ use of this space. (F5, F6) Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By Santa Cruz County 90 Days