2022-2023 Grand Jury Final Report

Recommendations 10

• R1
  1 By July 1, 2023, The San Joaquin County Sheriff schedule an independent audit by a Department of Justice certified Auditor in accordance with 28 CFR 115.401(a) and post the audit report on the agency’s website of completion.
• R2
  1 By July 1, 2023, The Probation Department for Juvenile Detention schedule an independent audit by a Department of Justice certified auditor in accordance with 28 CFR 115.401(a) and post the audit report on the agency’s website of completion.
• R3
  1 By October 1, 2023, the City of Lodi Jail and Police Department provide visible posters and written materials explaining inmate rights and the Department’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse in the booking, processing, and holding areas within the jail.
• R4
  1 By October 1, 2023, each school site implement an access control program that consistently includes verifying visitors' identity and collection of any issued badge before the visitor leaves the school site.
• R5
  1 January 1, 2023 compliance was not received (see R1.0) Will be October 1, 2023 The requested implemented by confirma�on of
• R6
  1 December 13, 2022 Implemented January 1, 2023 No further ac�on
• R7
  1 November 1, 2022 City of Tracy Implemented 1 st April 1, 2023 No further ac�on
• R8
  1 quarter of 2023 Implemented 1 st April 1, 2023 No further ac�on
• R12-17
  years old. Many are not confined and are immediately released to a parent, guardian, or caregiver, where they can access community-based programs and resources. Youth under 12 cannot be arrested or detained, as no delinquency or criminal court has jurisdiction over them. Youth under 12 cannot be prosecuted except for murder or forcible rape. San Joaquin County has a contact protocol for juvenile offenders, but for alternative placement, as described in SB 439, counties are urged to develop a protocol, which the County has not done. In 1991 a San Joaquin County Juvenile Court Judge said, “[t]here is a need for a place somewhere between Juvenile Hall and foster care to act as a safety valve to hold the most disruptive youths temporarily away from the shelters.” The administrators, managers, supervisors, and employees interviewed echoed the judge’s sentiment. The Welfare & Institutions Code, Sections 1990-1995, established the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant program. To receive Block Grant funds, counties must create a multiagency Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) to develop annual plans describing the facilities, programs, placement services, supervision, and reentry strategies to provide appropriate rehabilitative services for realigned youth. The San Joaquin County JJCC consists of the San Joaquin County Probation Department, Office of the Sheriff, County Office of the District Attorney, County Office of the Public Defender, HSA, BHS, Police Departments of Escalon, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Tracy, and Stockton, along with Stockton Unified School District’s Department of Public Safety. The JJCC’s annual plans include legislative changes as they become law. Based on the legislated premise that community-based support services improve an offender’s potential to reintegrate into the community successfully, counties are directed to develop and initiate such services. The evidence-based programs, practices, and alternatives to incarceration are intended to limit future crimes and reduce victimization. The JJCC plan identified and implemented several programs and continually evaluates the success and value of each. The San Joaquin Community Data Co-Op conducted the most recent evaluation report of programs 62 operated in Fiscal Year 2020-2021 by the San Joaquin County Probation Department and community-based organizations: 1) Probation Officers on Campus program, 2) the Reconnect Day Reporting Center, 3) Neighborhood Service Centers, 4) Transitional Age Youth Unit, and 5) Family Focused Intervention Team. The evaluation also included the Positive Youth Justice Initiative at Community Partnership for Families of San Joaquin and Sow A Seed Community Foundation. COVID-19 protocols severely impacted the implementation of the network of other County funded community-based programs. As a result, actions and involvement have yet to progress as planned. Accordingly, many community programs are no longer in place, while others are slowly gearing back up. As a result, youth are not receiving the community care envisioned by the legislated reforms. SB 823 is in the implementation phase of the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant, which ends in June 2023. Its success will be evaluated for both the reduction in the number of juvenile incarcerations and juvenile offenses. The shift from punishment and warehousing of juvenile offenders to prevention, rehabilitation, treatment, and second chances will not be accomplished without overcoming challenges. In California’s eagerness to reduce the number of incarcerated youth, Juvenile Courts avoid sentencing them to incarceration for anything except for murder and sex offenses. Laws reducing juveniles’ exposure to the harshness of the incarceration system failed to provide an alternative to juvenile detention or county jail, and instead created a “revolving door” in the courts. Unless the offenses are violent or deemed heinous, youth are released without consequences. According to witness testimony, “second chances” are good, but too many second chances without consequences lead to a lack of accountability. Youth offenders have no reason to change their behavior, leading to a “you can’t do anything to me” attitude, which has led to disruptions in congregate care. We do these youth a disservice because once they become adults, they will no longer be protected from prosecution for their offenses. Before SB 823, arrested youth were taken to the Juvenile Detention Facility, where they were immediately evaluated to assess their risk to the community or themselves. A comprehensive assessment was conducted by educational, medical, psychiatric, probation, and custody staff from different County agencies working together as a team at the detention facility. High-risk youth were retained. Low-risk youth were released to their parent/legal guardian or placed in foster care. Some were referred to community-based programs for services or placed on probation. After SB 823, all youth offenders are either released on probation or their charges dismissed and their records sealed, except those who committed murder or sex offenses. Critics allege this endangers public safety and puts these offenders back on the streets to commit more crimes without victims being notified. Due to this policy, youth offenders have quickly realized that there is no meaningful consequence to committing criminal acts. As highlighted in yellow in the chart below, the legislation led to a decrease in juvenile detention and an increase in the population at MGCS. Statistics from the annual Proposed Budget Books prepared for the County Board of Supervisors. Est/Act Department 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Juvenile Detention Admissions 856 695 651 664 478 Avg Daily Population 90 88 38 63 41 Camp Avg Daily Pop 24 22 16 17 8 HSA – Foster Care Institutions / Group 173 182 184 115 170 Homes / STRTP MGCS 3 Children Provide Care* 564 486 476 892 921 Avg Daily Population** 16 11 9 17 22 Findings F1.1 The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and San Joaquin County Probation Department failed to promptly take expedient measures to keep up with the ever-changing regulatory environment regarding the Juvenile Realignment Act, which created significant deficiencies in available placement options. F1.2 The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and San Joaquin County Human Services Agency failed to take timely steps to keep up with the Juvenile Realignment Act’s ever-changing regulatory environment, which created significant deficiencies in available services and placement options. F1.3 The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and San Joaquin County Human Services Agency and San Joaquin County Probation Department are underutilizing available program options like the San Joaquin County Office of Education’s Discovery ChalleNGe Academy, or the Youth Law Center’s Quality Parenting Initiative. This deprives children of additional available resources. F1.4 The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and San Joaquin County Human Services Agency and San Joaquin County Probation Department, did not plan or account for the increased number of the most difficult-to-place youth needing placement in congregate care, creating restricted access to services and potential harm to juveniles and communities throughout San Joaquin County. 3 *Figure includes services for individuals provided multiple occurrences of care throughout the year. **After January 1, 2017, the length of stay was statutorily limited to 10 days. Recommendations R1.1 By December 31, 2023, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and San Joaquin County Probation Department, through collaboration with Human Services Agency, Children’s Protective Services, Behavioral Health Services develop, adopt, and implement appropriate alternative housing placement options (e.g., transitional housing placement program, small family homes, group homes, and/or short-term residential therapeutic programs). R1.2 By December 31, 2023, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and Human Services Agency, through collaboration with the Behavioral Health Services, San Joaquin County Probation Department, San Joaquin County Office of Education, and all San Joaquin County Law Enforcement Agencies, develop, adopt, and implement appropriate programs for justice-involved youth, as listed in Finding 1.3. R1.3 By December 31, 2023, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, through collaboration with Human Services Agency, Probation, and Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, develop plans for the increased utilization of programs such as the San Joaquin County Office of Education’s Discovery ChalleNGe Academy or the Youth Law Center’s Quality Parenting Initiative. R1.4 By December 31, 2023, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, through collaboration with the Human Services Agency and San Joaquin County Probation Department, develop, adopt, and implement a type of alternative placement for the most difficult-to-place youth. 2.0 Training and Staffing Issues Throughout all presentations and interviews, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury heard on all topics investigated, recruitment and retention of personnel is a significant concern for multiple departments. The Board of Supervisors has approved many additional positions requested by the Human Services Agency and Probation Department. However, many positions remain vacant. The vacancy reasons include staff departures during the COVID-19 protocols, multiple legislative compliance requirements, County salaries not being competitive with nearby counties, and obstacles filling positions managing difficult-to-control youth. As of April 2022, the County workforce vacancies increased to 15.9% over the prior fiscal year of 4.7%. HSA and Probation are listed as departments with significant vacancies. HSA has 181 vacancies, 14% of its total workforce, and Probation has 93 vacancies, 28% of its workforce. The positions most impacted in this investigation are those dealing with the daily management of disruptive youth. In interviews conducted with HSA/CPS, MGCS, and San Joaquin County Probation Department, additional employees for these positions were deemed by all as the most essential in managing these youth. However, this specific workforce experiences a high turnover due to burnout from dealing with high-needs youth on an hourly/daily basis. In addition, many departments compete within the same pool of candidates, i.e., law enforcement and social workers. More departments are requesting the addition of social workers as more individual evaluations and treatment plans are required by legislation. San Joaquin County Probation Department and CPS work closely as many youth offenders cycle between the departments, with 65 many residing at MGCS between placements. Caseloads have increased throughout the State as the number of youth needing foster care increased, and the ratio of social workers and probation officers per child has decreased. Challenges to Having a Fully Trained Work Group Finding adequate training time requires extra staffing to maintain the necessary ratio of youth to staff. This is exceedingly difficult for departments already struggling to fill positions. In addition, the staffing turnover rate in the most challenging, and frequently lower-paid, positions is exceptionally high. “Out-of-control youth” is the description used by many interviewees. However, youth behavior has changed noticeably in the past decade. When asked about the observed behavior of youth-in-care now versus a decade ago, all witnesses testified to behavior becoming worse and worse, year upon year: • “Youth wouldn't think about punching an officer, now they do that.” • “Youth wouldn't before think about attacking a kid four times their size, now they do that.” • “A lot of self-harm… a lot of self-harm.” • “Years working at Juvenile Hall, we've regularly had kids in the psychiatric hospital on a psychiatric hold, but recently, two critical incidents of legitimately attempted suicide. Never had that before.” • “Kids used to do what they were told when they were told. And now these Gen Z are on a whole other level of do what they want when they want to do it.” • “The immediate gratification, they have social media, they have Door Dash, all these instant things that they can have in the world now, and that is very different from the kids I served in 2000, that they didn't really have cell phones or Internet or those direct connections.” Witnesses interviewed gave vague answers to straightforward questions about the way physical and sexual assaults are handled, or when a youth and their property can be searched. The Grand Jury discovered that no procedures were in place to guide congregate care employees. When asked about a hypothetical situation where a 10-year-old girl was discovered being sexually abused by a 16-year-old boy, most witnesses said they would tell the boy to stop. When the witnesses were asked what they would do if the boy refused, the Grand Jury was met with silence. All agreed the behavior should be stopped, but interviewees were unsure how. This indecisiveness was part of the reason the Sheriff’s Department became so frustrated with MGCS. In the Sheriff Department’s view, it is a crime, and there is no question that the action needs to be stopped immediately with whatever force is necessary. The Sheriff’s Department was unaware that employees could not just jump in and physically restrain youth. MGCS staff are required to try all non-physical techniques first. Their actions are guided by what is known as “trauma informed” policies, which are based on the idea that At-Risk Youth have been traumatized by the events leading to their removal from the home, being placed in the foster care system, the type of placement, along with the number of placements. All of these factors contribute to a certain amount of trauma. When dealing with these At-Risk Youth, procedures and protocols are designed to not add any additional trauma. In theory, trauma-informed policies would be sufficient for most cases. In extraordinary cases, while compassion can be a mitigating factor, it should not restrict the caregiver’s ability to prevent dangerous, illegal, or disruptive behaviors. Restorative Justice could then be applied after the event is under control. Trauma inflicted on the caregivers during such incidents is given low priority and will remain so until appropriate policy and procedural changes can be made. Compliance With State Mandates Multiple new legislation and voter proposition mandates often require developing plans, some by forming commissions. As a result, timelines for plan development can overlap. In addition, various plans require interagency teams to cooperate in the drafting and approval process. As a result of new legislation and new plans, County agencies find it necessary to update policies, procedures, and training continuously. This can confuse staff as to what policy or procedure is the current order of the day. In addition, this takes numerous hours from coordination to actual implementation and creates a challenge to maintain day-to-day operations. Mary Graham Children’s Shelter MGCS provides services to all youth who do not have a caretaker. They cannot refuse to take in any youth brought to them. Most interviewees mentioned the value of MGCS to the County. However, either due to a lack of sufficient staffing or inadequate training, MGCS staff are not equipped to manage every youth they receive. This includes youth who are removed from homes for their safety, youth between treatment programs, and justice-involved youth who have been adjudicated and returned to MGCS. In addition, the population may include severely emotionally disturbed youth that would have previously been candidates for secured facilities. The County Board of Supervisors recognized the need for increased staffing allocations at MGCS and approved the budget for increased staffing. However, MGCS continues to experience a remarkably high staff turnover rate. Multiple openings are continuously posted for applications. As a result, MGCS is perpetually going through the staff fulfillment process. A typical hiring scenario starts with 25 applicants for 14 open positions and fills only two. Only half of the applicants respond and schedule an interview. Of that half, eight show up for the interview, six pass background checks, one resigns before training is over, and three leave when the job proves too difficult. The most difficult-to-fill positions are “floor staff” that deal hourly with youth. As discussed in Section 1.0, with more youth not being detained per the new justice guidelines, MGCS is receiving more disruptive youth, and at the same time, they are experiencing a shortage of floor staff. In addition, assaults experienced by floor staff happen quite often, ranging from attacks as severe as a knife to the neck and being jumped on, to spitting, hitting, shoving, and throwing things, including chairs, food, hygiene products, and hot water. Staff also endure screaming, yelling, and cursing. These cumulative incidents lead to a high rate of staff trauma and attrition of floor staff. Concerns 67 for staff safety have resulted in a recent union-negotiated safety supplement increase in wages for these positions. Additionally, with the rise in incidents, in view of the 13,000 calls from MGCS for service reviewed by the Grand Jury, HSA/CPS reached out to the Sheriff’s Office for assistance to determine whether the Sheriff’s Office would be willing to provide a deputy on a 24-hour basis, modeled after Orange County’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with their Sheriff’s Office. CPS hoped this service, which would be funded by HSA/CPS, would provide deputies with the demeanor, approach, and concern for the youth served at MGCS. After discussion, the Sheriff’s Office declined this request. Training Training has been and continues to be a source of concern for MGCS. The 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury noted non-adherence to annual training requirements as a reason for deficient performance. The 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Grand Jury noted that staff were unsure what they could or could not do in certain situations, especially regarding physical assaults, drug and alcohol possession and use, and sexual activity by youth. While MGCS used an Excel spreadsheet to track the completion of training, CCLD noted that the records were spotty at best and sometimes nonexistent. No method was in place to regularly monitor what training was necessary, how often, and what certifications needed renewing. Scheduling and attendance were also questionable. During COVID-19, witnesses stated that all training “kind of stopped at the very beginning of the pandemic” from March 2020 until May 2021, when virtual training began. Training and the scheduling of training has been inconsistent. Training to renew certifications for physical intervention by MGCS employees lapsed. Since this lapse, staff have been relegated to managing behaviors using verbal de-escalation or body proximity (inserting themselves between youth). Management claims their failure to maintain timely training was due to a lack of staff. Management further maintained staff could not attend training sessions because they could not be released without violating mandated staffing ratios. In response to a number of CCLD citations, HSA was required to develop a Plan of Correction (POC) to address MGCS employee training. A new analyst position was created at MGCS to formalize the training and tracking of employees. After the expiration of the physical intervention certifications, a decision was made by MGCS leadership to go with a new certification program vendor. This necessitated training an in-house trainer (the new Analyst) before training employees. The result of this decision has been a year-long gap in recertification for physical intervention by staff dealing with youth. MGCS continues to track training on an updated spreadsheet, which has resulted in two subsequent inspections of training records by CCLD yielding positive reports. While focus and concern are given to youth trauma, the Grand Jury heard concerns about the lack of safety training focused on staff’s safety from assaults and emotional trauma. Currently, employees can talk to a CCLD-contracted psychologist and utilize their medical health benefits. However, this process may take six months from an incident to a counseling appointment. In addition, after-incident reports do not include official debriefings of the entire floor staff, 68 supervision, and management. Floor staff have told their supervisors that they want to be debriefed after incidents occur to improve incident responses. Human Services Agency/Children’s Protective Services The Children’s Protective Services Bureau of HSA (CPS) requires specific in-person service delivery by social workers to prevent or remedy neglect or abuse. Social workers are formed into teams to address the multiple needs of youth removed from the home: • Investigation, Intake, and Assessment. • Court. • Permanent placement. • Federal case review. • Child and Family Team. • Child Advocacy Center. • Family Reunification. • Intensive Family Preservation. In 2020-2021, many social workers left employment with this department. Compared to the previous three fiscal years, the attrition has slowed. However, the positions dealing with day-to-day care continue to experience more vacancies, many due to burnout. CPS social workers routinely enter situations that are highly emotional and potentially volatile. Often, law enforcement assistance is needed. The social workers deal with families going through a traumatic experience for all involved. Parents are frustrated when a child is separated from their family, and social workers may be threatened. Children are removed because of concern for the child’s welfare due to neglect and physical and/or sexual abuse. Social workers interview these children to obtain detailed information and hear troubling stories daily. Overall, the substance use rate in the County is very high, resulting in a high volume of cases. When CPS separates a child from their parent(s), social workers go to court to testify and are cross-examined frequently to justify the child’s removal. Child welfare contains many laws requiring continuous reporting. The paperwork is onerous and time-consuming. These social workers were deemed essential during the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring them to continue going into homes, in-person meetings, and court. Many were uncomfortable doing so and left these positions, causing an increased workload for the remaining workers. A bachelor's degree or a master's degree in social work is required for these positions. Many social workers in CPS with a master's degree were able to transfer to mental health clinical positions, as the number of these positions in the County has increased and offer higher salaries for a much less stressful job. On April 26, 2023, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors awarded $5.2 million in grant money to San Joaquin County Behavioral Health Services and HealthForce Partners Northern San Joaquin Valley. This new workforce development program will “find ways to get people into behavioral health services because there's a huge need. Not many people go into the field, so any way we can make it easier for folks — to not only learn here but to stay here — and grow our community, is really important," as reported in Recordnet.com. Findings F2.1 Human Services Agency, Children’s Protective Services, and Mary Graham Children’s Shelter are critically and chronically understaffed and fail to provide the level of supervision required for At-Risk Youth and sheltered children. F2.2 Human Services Agency, Children’s Protective Services, and Mary Graham Children’s Shelter training has been inconsistent and inadequate to meet regulatory requirements that are critical for the staff to maintain the welfare of At-Risk Youth and sheltered children. F2.3 Mary Graham Children’s Shelter employees lack clear and concise guidance for handling disruptive behaviors, which creates an environment where the safety of children and staff is compromised. Recommendations R2.1 By December 31, 2023, Human Services Agency implement an ongoing recruitment plan utilizing the services of a third-party recruiter. R2.2 By December 31, 2023, Human Services Agency and Mary Graham Children’s Shelter develop and implement a regular training schedule for all levels of employees and administrators, and provide accurate documentation that all required training has been completed. R2.3 By December 31, 2023, Human Services Agency requests clear and concise written guidance from the California Care Licensing Department concerning how to deal with disruptive behaviors by youth. 3.0 Lack of Interagency Cooperation AB 2083 (System of Care) requires each county in California to develop and implement an MOU outlining the roles and responsibilities of the various local entities serving At-Risk Youth. In January 2021, San Joaquin County prepared and submitted its MOU to the State. Signatories to this MOU were agency heads from the following entities: • San Joaquin County Health Care Services. • San Joaquin County Behavioral Health Services. • San Joaquin County Human Services Agency. • San Joaquin County Probation Department. • San Joaquin County Office of Education. • Valley Mountain Regional Center. In addition to the agency heads, the attorneys for Behavioral Health Services and Human Services Agency signed the document. Further, representatives from the Lodi Unified School District and Stockton Unified School District signed the document. Conspicuously missing from the MOU were 70 any representatives from the San Joaquin Sheriff’s Office or any discussion about how the Sheriff’s Office would fit into this plan. The absence of the Sheriff’s Office from participation in the development of the MOU was a significant omission. Their exclusion from the MOU created a disconnect between the social agencies responsible for the immediate care of At-Risk Youth and the Sheriff’s Office, whose services are often required in moments of crisis. From the beginning of the Grand Jury’s investigation, it became clear that one of the most significant issues impacting the policies for managing the care for At-Risk Youth in the County was a lack of meaningful interagency cooperation. The Grand Jury heard testimony from several witnesses from different agencies, each of whom blamed the other for ineffective collaboration. For example, witnesses from HSA/CPS and MGCS testified that to help reduce the number of runaways from MGCS and instances of inappropriate behavior there (e.g., substance use, physical and sexual misconduct), they asked the Sheriff’s Office during a meeting in 2021 to station a deputy 24 hours a day at the shelter. The Sheriff’s Office was initially receptive to the proposal but, at a subsequent meeting, responded that they did not have the budget or staffing for such an assignment. When HSA/CPS offered to provide the funds necessary for such an assignment, the Sheriff’s Office failed to respond. As a result, no further discussions were held or plans made to address this matter. Witnesses from the Sheriff's Office testified that they were overwhelmed by calls to MGCS due to runaways, violent altercations between youth residing at the shelter, altercations between youth and staff, illicit drug and alcohol use, and inappropriate sexual activity. The Sheriff’s Office attributed these issues to MGCS’s failure to enforce its rules. Their witnesses and documents noted over 13,000 calls for service over a year and a half, stating that it was a drain on their available resources. The Sheriff’s Office witnesses were unaware that MGCS and every congregate care facility are required to call a law enforcement agency whenever a child leaves the premises without permission. The calls for runaways represented the majority of calls for service the Grand Jury reviewed. One member from the Sheriff’s Office threatened to have MGCS shut down if they could not resolve their issues internally. After meetings between the Sheriff’s Office, HSA/CPS, and MGCS proved unfruitful, the Sheriff’s Office filed a complaint with CCLD, alleging that MGCS was not following its internal protocols. The Sheriff’s Office also requested clarification from CCLD concerning what actions could be taken to stop inappropriate behaviors. During the meetings with CCLD, HSA/CPS, the Sheriff's Office, and Probation, CCLD explained the children’s rights as they pertained to searches for contraband. However, the meeting became adversarial, and the Sheriff’s Office made no recommendations other than that MGCS needed to enforce its rules. CCLD never provided the requested clarification and declined to appear before the Grand Jury. A fourth meeting was held in December 2022, where representatives from HSA/CPS, MGCS, Probation, Behavioral Health Services, CCLD, California Department of Social Services (CDSS), and the Sheriff’s Office were in attendance. CDSS facilitated the meeting based upon an understanding that work needed to be done regarding collaboration between the County partners. The consensus was that the other agencies collaborated consistently except for the Sheriff's Office. However, the Sheriff's Office persisted by inquiring what MGCS was doing to make changes. The representative from CDSS stated the purpose of the meeting was not to determine what MGCS was doing, as they 71 were already working on a Plan of Correction. Instead, the purpose of the meeting was to focus on interagency collaboration. As a result, HSA/CPS and the Sheriff's Office offered to provide training to each other’s staff. An apparent agreement had been reached to provide CPS field training to deputies, and the Sheriff’s Office would provide narcotics training to MGCS staff. Both parties agreed on a date. However, HSA/CPS reached out multiple times to the Sheriff’s Office to confirm the dates; but they were met with silence. Due to the agency heads’ failure to follow through on the training, the Sheriff’s Field Training Officers took the initiative to ask CPS staff for training on how to conduct their interactions with At-Risk Youth. In exchange, the officers would provide narcotics training to CPS staff. At the time of this report, no interagency meetings or training have taken place. Findings F3.1 The absence of the Sheriff’s Office from participation in the development of the System of Care Memorandum of Understanding was a significant omission by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency, which failed to capitalize on law enforcement experience when developing the MOU. F3.2 Substantial issues in managing the care for At-Risk Youth in the County were due to a lack of meaningful interagency cooperation, which missed an opportunity to leverage and gain sustainable support from other agencies. F3.3 The Sheriff’s Office has failed to meaningfully collaborate with the other agencies charged with the care of At-Risk Youth, leaving those agencies more vulnerable to threats and challenges. Recommendations R3.1 By December 31, 2023, San Joaquin County Human Services Agency prepare an addendum to the System of Care MOU that includes the participation of the Sheriff’s Office. R3.2 By December 31, 2023, San Joaquin County Human Services Agency establish and utilize a multiagency task force to focus on managing the care for At-Risk Youth in the County. R3.3 By October 1, 2023, the Sheriff’s Office designate a permanent liaison to collaborate with the other agencies charged with the care of At-Risk Youth. Conclusion The agencies of San Joaquin County tasked with caring for the health and safety of our At-Risk Youth need to come together and be proactive in changing the current system. Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all remedy that solves all the problems. What is recommended in this report may help in the short term, but long-term solutions require a reevaluation of recent legislative changes and guiding principles. Locally, the system needs to be given the priority it deserves. County leaders must work together to seek out and take advantage of all existing State and Federal programs. They must become more effective leaders. They need to join, sponsor, and advocate for groups and programs by lobbying for legislative changes. Currently, the County needs more hands-on, face-to-face staffing to care for and guide the most challenging youth. The County needs to have structured placement options with some restrictions to separate the justice-involved youth from the youth Children’s Protective Services has removed for safety reasons. The County should immediately enhance recruitment efforts through the use of a third-party recruiter. In addition, priority should be given to recognizing and aiding at-risk families, helping them stabilize and stay together so foster care will not be needed. The County has plenty of laws, funds, and the knowledge that the system as it currently exists needs to be improved. Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1(a), and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). The Grand Jury issued this report except for one member of the jury. This juror was excluded from all parts of the investigation including interviews, deliberations, and the making and acceptance of the report. Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court of receipt of the report. Note: If the responder is an elected official, the response must be sent of receipt. San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors Findings – F1.1, F1.2, F1.3, F1.4, F3.1, and F3.2 Recommendations – R.1.1, R1.2, R1.3, R1.4, R3.1, and R3.2 San Joaquin County Human Services Agency Findings – F1.2, F1.3, F1.4, F2.1, F2.2, F2.3, F3.1, and F3.2 Recommendations – R1.1, R1.2, R.1.4, R2.1, R2.2, R2.3, R3.1, and R3.2 San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office Findings – F3.2 and F3.3 Recommendations – R3.2 and R3.3 San Joaquin County Probation Department Findings – F1.1, F1.3, and F3.2 73 Recommendations – R1.1, R1.2, R1.3, and R3.2 Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Michael D. Coughlan, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J Stockton, California 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Mr. Irving Jimenez, Judicial Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@sjcourts.org. 74 2022–2023 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Working Title 1: Working Title 2 (Case No. xx20) The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority: A Rubik’s Cube of Water Management Case #0622 Summary Water has been a concern for all Californians since the earliest days of statehood. Years of severe drought are often followed by a superabundance of rain and snow that results in flooding. Both can be devastating, as has been the case recently in San Joaquin County. Because our State’s water 75 supply is cyclical, the need for intelligent and efficient management of this crucial resource is vitally important for everyone. Our water sources generally can be categorized as either surface water (rivers, creeks, lakes, etc.) or groundwater (water held in the soil or underground aquifers). In the early 1900s, the State government began authorizing the creation of water districts to manage groundwater, favoring local control of this resource. Due to decades-long declines in groundwater levels and water quality, in 2014 the State legislature adopted three bills that together are known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA requires the creation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), which are tasked to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). GSPs describe how to avoid undesirable results and mitigate groundwater overdrafts in basins and subbasins identified as being in a state of critical overdraft by 2040. Our Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is in critical overdraft. In 2017, the 16 GSAs and local agencies responsible for managing the groundwater in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin joined together to form the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) to cooperatively carry out the purposes of SGMA. Having received a citizen’s complaint and subsequently reviewing concerns about public outreach and engagement by the ESJGWA in the course of its work, and because of the significance of water issues to San Joaquin County residents, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury elected to undertake an investigation. The Grand Jury conducted 12 interviews with the complainant, members of the ESJGWA Board of Directors (current and former), County staff, representatives of several stakeholder groups, and interested citizens. The State Department of Water Resources (DWR) staff, who have been meeting monthly and working directly with the ESJGWA, declined the Grand Jury’s request for an interview. The Grand Jury also reviewed ESJGWA governance documents, meeting minutes, budgets, annual reports, initial and final GSPs, and public outreach materials; websites of the ESJGWA and its member GSAs; portions of the SGMA and related Department of Water Resources (DWR) requirements, California Water Code, and other relevant government codes; stakeholder correspondence; news media stories on groundwater in the Central Valley; and many other pertinent documents. The Grand Jury concluded that while the ESJGWA has successfully developed and is currently implementing its GSP, concerns exist about inadequate public engagement, a lack of transparency in the conduct of its business, and administrative issues. Although the ESJGWA developed an unadopted plan for public outreach and engagement and has contracted a consultant to develop a new plan, it currently has none. Outreach efforts to identify and engage members of disadvantaged communities and non-English speakers have been limited and unsuccessful. DWR and ESJGWA also have not developed a clear and consistent message to help the public understand the importance of SGMA and how groundwater shortages can impact their lives. Important ESJGWA financial information is buried deep within the websites of the County Flood Control & Water Conservation District and the County Administrator’s Office (CAO), making it nearly impossible for citizens to locate. The ESJGWA’s website does not include information 76 required by several State laws, does not identify the members of the Board of Directors, minutes of public meetings are difficult to locate or missing, and financial information is absent. Board and other public meetings are routinely held at inconvenient times for public participation, and repeated public requests that meeting times be changed have not been addressed. Possible Brown Act violations have occurred relating to the ESJGWA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The ESJGWA has inadequate staff support to function efficiently and effectively. This is evidenced by the year-long lapse of an important agreement between one of the member parties and the County, and by staff members’ testimony. To correct these deficiencies, the Grand Jury recommends the ESJGWA Board of Directors, County Board of Supervisors, and Auditor-Controller’s Office take the following actions: • Develop, adopt, and implement a plan to improve public communications and outreach. • Reinstitute periodic outreach events to inform the public about the GSP and the status of its related implementing projects. • Identify ways to better find and engage with members of disadvantaged communities (DACs), including non-English speakers, in the San Joaquin Subbasin. • Update the website to provide easier, more comprehensible access to ESJGWA financial information. • Update the Flood Control & Water Conservation District’s website to provide convenient access to financial and project information related to the use of Zone 2 funds. • Explain the differences between the fiscal year-end ESJGWA fund balance reports and the annual independent audit balance sheets. • Update the website, esjgroundwater.org, to ensure full compliance with the provisions of SB 929, SB 272, and Government Code Section 7405. • Update the website and Board Bylaws to reflect the actual dates and times for Board meetings. • Update the website to enable easier public access to meeting minutes. • Identify the members of the Board on the website, meeting agendas, and official written documents. • Consider ways to enable and promote increased public attendance at open meetings. • Formalize the status of the TAC as a standing committee and bring it into compliance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. • Monitor the expiration dates for any relevant governance or contractual documents and GSP implementation deadlines to ensure the Board can act before any lapses occur. • Ensure staff support is adequate for efficient, cost-effective operations. Glossary • AB: Assembly Bill. • Ad Hoc Committee: A committee created for a particular purpose when necessary or as needed. • Basin: An underground reserve of water. • CAO: San Joaquin County Administrator’s Office. • California Code of Regulations (CCR) 354.10(d)(3): That part of the California Code of Regulations pertaining to notification and communication requirements for groundwater sustainability plans. • County Resolution R-15-17: The Resolution whereby the County Board of Supervisors adopted the 2015 Strategic Plan to Meet Water Needs and Zone No. 2 property-related fees. • Cal Water: California Water Services Company. • CPRA: California Public Records Act. • DAC: Disadvantaged Community. A census designated area with an annual median household income (MHI) that is less than 80 percent of the Statewide annual MHI. • District: San Joaquin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. • DWR: California Department of Water Resources. The DWR protects, conserves, develops, and manages much of California's water supply. Its mission is to sustainably manage the water resources of California, in cooperation with other agencies, to benefit the state’s people and protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human environments. • ESJGWA: Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority. • Ex officio: A person who holds a position in one body (such as an organization’s staff) by virtue of holding a position in another. • GBA: Ground Water Banking Authority. The predecessor agency to the ESJGWA. • Government Code Section 7405: Passed by the State Legislature in 2016, this directs that State governmental entities follow Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act requiring accessibility of electronic and information technology. • GSA: Groundwater Sustainability Agency. • GSP: Groundwater Sustainability Plan. • ISD: Independent Special District. • JPA: Joint Powers Agreement (or Authority). A written legal agreement between two or more public agencies allowing joint exercise of common powers. See California Government Code beginning at Section 6500. • MHI: Median Household Income. • MOA: Memorandum of Agreement. A written document reflecting an agreement between parties to cooperatively work together on a project or objective. • Meeting Minutes: The official written record of a meeting, including who was in attendance, what decisions were made, and other consequential events that happened at the meeting. • Overdraft: When the rate of groundwater pumping exceeds the rate of groundwater recharge. • SB: Senate Bill. • SB 272: Approved in 2015, SB 272 adds a section to the California Public Records Act requiring local agencies to create a catalog of Enterprise Systems by July 1, 2016, with annual updates. 78 • SB 929: Passed in late 2018, SB 929 is a law requiring all independent special districts in California to create and maintain a website by January 2020, with five distinct pieces of information posted: contact information, the current agenda for regular meetings, a financial transaction report, a compensation report, and an enterprise system catalog. • SGMA: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. SGMA comprises a three-bill legislative package (AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319) signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2015. It requires local agencies to form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) for high- and medium-priority basins. GSAs must develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) to avoid undesirable results and mitigate overdraft by 2040. • TAC: Technical Advisory Committee. • Water Code Section 10723: The part of the California Water Code that pertains to establishing groundwater sustainability agencies. • Water Code Section 10728.4: The part of the California Water Code that describes notification requirements for holding a public hearing prior to adoption or amendment of a groundwater sustainability plan. • Zone 2: Water Investigation Zone No. 2, which was established by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors as a Countywide zone in 1989. In 2015, San Joaquin County property owners approved a property-related fee in support of the water management efforts funded by Zone 2. Background Most Californians depend on two sources for water: surface water and groundwater. Surface water begins as rain or snow running through rivers and streams, lakes, reservoirs, canals, treatment plants, and finally into the pipes that lead to our faucets. Groundwater is held in layers of soil, gravel, and rocks known as aquifers, which absorb and store water that percolates through the soil. Groundwater is pumped from wells and used for drinking and other home uses, for the water needs of businesses and industry, and for farm irrigation and livestock watering. See Figure 1. Figure 1. Diagram of the Hydrologic Cycle. (Source: Department of Water Resources, “Groundwater: Understanding and Managing this Vital Resource.” https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ff075c25b77e4b1d95ce86a82bf0fe96) 79 As shown in Figure 2, groundwater use in California varies by location, but Statewide approximately 40 to 60 percent of the water used in California is groundwater. The amount of groundwater used in a year depends on precipitation and reservoir conditions, with more groundwater being pumped in dry years when it serves as a crucial buffer during drought conditions. Figure 2. Groundwater Use Versus Other Water Sources for Different Areas of California. (Source: Department of Water Resources, “Groundwater: Understanding and Managing this Vital Resource.” https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ff075c25b77e4b1d95ce86a82bf0fe96) 80 As Figure 1 illustrates, water can go back into the aquifers in a groundwater basin (recharge) through natural processes and human efforts. However, the amount of groundwater is limited. When the rate of pumping exceeds the rate of recharge (overdraft), the aquifer becomes depleted. This can cause shallow wells to go dry and pumping costs to rise as wells must pump water from deeper levels. It can take years, if not decades, to replenish depleted aquifers. In some areas where groundwater levels have dropped because of excessive pumping, portions of the aquifers have collapsed causing the land surface to drop (land subsidence). Less groundwater can be stored in the aquifer for future use, and less groundwater is available as a buffer against drought. Worse, when aquifers collapse, the negative impact on storage capacity cannot be reversed. The series of “atmospheric river” storms that pummeled California in the winter and spring of 2023 dumped record-setting levels of rain and snow, unfortunately resulting in serious flooding for certain areas. A positive aspect has been the replenishment of depleted lakes and reservoirs, bringing some immediate drought relief. However, the effects of many preceding years of extreme drought, an increase in the number of wells to replace surface water, and the resulting over- pumping of groundwater, cannot be so easily undone. Land subsidence has already occurred, shallow wells have already run dry, and aquifer recovery is slow at best. In some parts of California, often in underrepresented or disadvantaged rural communities, people rely on groundwater to supply all their water needs. When aquifers in these areas are over- pumped, families are left without clean water for drinking, cooking, and bathing. Over-pumped aquifers also can lead to higher concentrations of pollutants in the groundwater, making the groundwater that remains unsafe for drinking and unusable for agriculture. Over-pumping of groundwater and the resulting negative effects is a serious issue for all Californians. Groundwater Management in California Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution requires that all water use be both “reasonable and beneficial,” but until recently regulation focused mostly on surface water, not groundwater. Beginning in the early 1900s, the State began to study groundwater and authorized the creation of local water districts to manage groundwater within those districts. Since that time, the State policy has favored local control of groundwater resources, with the State’s role limited to funding technical studies to better understand its groundwater resources. In 1956, the State formed the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to manage much of California's water supply. In the same year, the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District was formed to plan, construct, and operate flood control, water supply, drainage, and groundwater recharge projects. By the 1980s, concern about environmental impacts, including the continuing declines in groundwater levels, led to increased support for more comprehensive management of California’s groundwater. Within San Joaquin County, local water interests have partnered together over the years to build consensus regarding the groundwater resources with varying degrees of successful implementation of plans, however, the subbasins continue to be overdrafted. In 2014, the State legislature adopted three bills, together known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which for the first time set forth a statewide framework to manage groundwater by shifting the State’s role to that of overseer and potential regulator. In signing SGMA, however, Governor Jerry Brown emphasized that “groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally.” SGMA and subsequent Statewide regulations require local agencies to 81 develop and implement plans for sustainable groundwater management within specified timelines or face the consequence of the State taking over groundwater management. SGMA and subsequent State regulations require local agencies to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) for all medium and high-priority groundwater basins in the State. GSAs are required to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) designed to avoid undesirable results and mitigate overdrafts by 2040. The State Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides regulatory oversight through its responsibility to evaluate and assess GSPs. Groundwater Management for San Joaquin County Groundwater in San Joaquin County is found in two separate subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin: the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin and the Tracy Subbasin. The 2022-2023 Grand Jury focused its attention on the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin (see Figure 3), one of 21 basins and subbasins the DWR has identified as being in a condition of critical overdraft. Figure 3. Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. (Source: Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, “Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan,” November 2019; revised June 2022. https://www.sjgov.org/docs/default-source/public-works- documents/water-resources/final-esj-revised-gsp_june2022_clean.pdf?sfvrsn=675b059b_5) 82 The Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority established in 2001 consisted of many of the same members as the ESJGWA. This group produced a Groundwater Management Plan in 2004 to address the overdraft situation as well as other water management projects. Complete follow-through on this plan and prior plans was hindered primarily by lack of funding. However, lessons learned have provided solid groundwork for the establishment of the SGMA- focused ESJGWA. In April 2017, the 16 GSAs and local agencies responsible for managing the groundwater in the subbasin entered into a joint exercise of powers agreement (JPA) to establish the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) “for the purpose of coordinating the various GSAs’ management of the Basin, in accordance with SGMA” (JPA, Recital D). Later that year, San Joaquin County and California Water Services (Cal Water), an investor-owned utility that has groundwater management operations and acts as an urban water supplier in the subbasin, signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) authorizing Cal Water to participate as a limited voting member in a GSA pursuant to a provision in SGMA allowing such arrangements. The GSAs comprising the ESJGWA are a mixture of independent special districts (ISDs), municipalities, and San Joaquin County. As defined by the California Special Districts Association, “Special districts are local governments created by the people of a community to deliver specialized services essential to their health, safety, economy, and well-being. A community forms a special district, which are political subdivisions authorized through a state’s statutes, to provide specialized services the local city or county do not provide.” Both the ESJGWA and its member GSAs are governed by individual boards of directors. The boards of the GSAs are elected by the people of their respective communities, and typically consist of three, five, or seven members. ESJGWA Board members serve by appointment; each GSA selects one of the members of its board (plus an alternate) to also serve on the ESJGWA Board. Thus, the ESJGWA Board has 16 members. The 16 GSAs that comprise the ESJGWA are as follows: • Calaveras County Water District/Stanislaus • Lockeford Community Services County (Eastside San Joaquin GSA) District • California Water Service Company (Cal • North San Joaquin Water Water-San Joaquin County No. 2) Conservation District • Central Delta Water Agency • Oakdale Irrigation District • Central San Joaquin Water Conservation • San Joaquin County District • City of Lodi • South Delta Water Agency • City of Manteca • South San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Agency • City of Stockton • Stockton East Water District • Linden County Water District • Woodbridge Irrigation District GSA 83 The service areas for each of these agencies is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4. Areas Served by ESJGWA Member GSAs. (Source: Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, “Members.” http://www.esjgroundwater.org/About- Us/Members) Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen’s written complaint, conducted an interview, and subsequently reviewed issues concerning public outreach and engagement by the ESJGWA. According to the State’s publication, Governments Working Together, A Citizen’s Guide to Joint Powers Agreements, the Grand Jury is an agency for the public that can provide independent oversight of Joint Powers Authorities such as the ESJGWA. Due to the significance of water issues to the citizens of San Joaquin County, the ESJGWA’s activities were an important subject for investigation. Method of Investigation Owing to the history and complexity of water issues and entities in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury concentrated its investigation on the transparency of the ESJGWA’s meetings, public engagement, and decision-making processes; its efforts to encourage and facilitate public participation during and after the development of its initial Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA); and the correctness and transparency of its financial records. The Grand Jury did not evaluate the substantive actions recommended in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan adopted by the ESJGWA. The Grand Jury reviewed the legal requirements and State Department of Water Resources (DWR) recommended actions for developing a GSP; the ESJGWA’s governance documents and bylaws; the meeting minutes for the ESJGWA Board and other committees; ESJGWA and GSA websites; presentations and budgets; technical and outreach materials related to how the ESJGWA developed its GSP; and correspondence from stakeholder organizations. The Grand Jury conducted 12 interviews with current and former ESJGWA and GSA Board members, County officials, staff, and stakeholders. Grand Jury members also attended several ESJGWA and GSA Board meetings. Materials Reviewed • 2020–2021 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury. Independent Special Districts: Transparency “Not Found,” Case #0220. • California Department of Water Resources. Guidance Document for Groundwater Sustainability Plan Stakeholder Communication and Engagement. January 2018. • California State Legislature, Senate Local Government Committee. Governments Working Together, A Citizen’s Guide to Joint Powers Agreements. August 2007. • California State Legislature, Senate Local Government Committee. What’s So Special About Special Districts? A Citizen’s Guide to Special Districts in California. Third Edition, February 2002. • Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority. Stakeholder Engagement & Public Outreach Plan DRAFT. June 25, 2018. • Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Bylaws. August 9, 2017. • Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Water Annual Reports for 2019-2021. • Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Establishing the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority. Adopted April 17, 2017. • “Letter of Extension of the Memorandum of Agreement Forming the Cal Water-County Groundwater Sustainability Agency.” December 17, 2019. • “Memorandum of Agreement Forming the Cal Water-County Groundwater Sustainability Agency.” May 23, 2017. • San Joaquin County Public Works Department. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board & Steering Committee (SC) Assignments to TAC. Undated. • State Water Resources Control Board. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Stakeholder Inclusion. November 2022. Websites Searched • “5 Reasons Groundwater Is Vital to Californians.” Water.ca.gov. March 11, 2019. https://water.ca.gov/News/Blog/2019/March-19/5-Reasons-Groundwater-is-Vital-to- Californians. Accessed February 25, 2023. • Baig, Yousef. “Broad-Based Buy-in Is Key to Bay-Delta Water Plan.” CalMatters. September 12, 2022. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/09/broad-based-buy-in-is-key-to-bay- delta-water-plan/. Accessed February 25, 2023. • Bardeen, Sarah. “What Every Californian Should Know about Groundwater.” Public Policy Institute of California. March 22, 2022. https://www.ppic.org/blog/what-every-californian- should-know-about-groundwater/. Accessed October 29, 2022. • Cagle, Susie. “Everything You Need to Know about California’s Historic Water Law.” The Guardian. February 27, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/27/california-groundwater-sgma- law-what-does-it-mean. Accessed October 29, 2022. • Calaveras County Water District, Board of Directors. https://ccwd.org/about-us/board-of- directors/. Accessed November 4, 2022. • California Department of Water Resources. California’s Critically Overrdrafted Groundwater Basins. Accessed February 21, 2023. • California Special Districts Association. https://www.csda.net/home. Accessed January 31, 2023. • California State Controller. https://www.sco.ca.gov/. Accessed January 28, 2023. • “California Water 101 - Water Education Foundation.” Water Education Foundation. September 15, 2014, https://www.watereducation.org/photo-gallery/california-water-101. Accessed January 16, 2023. • “California’s Groundwater Live.” sgma.water.ca.gov. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/CalGWLive/#groundwater. Accessed February 21, 2023. • Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District, Board of Directors. http://csjwcd.com/about-csjwcd/board-of-directors/. Accessed November 4, 2022. • City of Manteca, Mayor and City Council. https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Mayor- Council/Pages/David%20Breitenbucher.aspx. Accessed November 4, 2022. • City of Lodi, Council Members. https://www.lodi.gov/879/Council-Members. Accessed November 4, 2022. • Draft -- Best Management Practices for Sustainable Management of Groundwater. Water.ca.gov. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best- Management-Practices-and-Guidance-Documents/Files/BMP-6-Sustainable-Management- Criteria-DRAFT_ay_19.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2023. • Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority. http://www.esjgroundwater.org/Portals/0/assets/docs/agendas/2019/ESJ-Groundwater- Sustainability-Workgroup-Stakeholder-Assessment-Highlights-Report.pdf • Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. June 2022. https://www.sjgov.org/docs/default-source/public-works- 86 documents/water-resources/final-esj-revised-gsp_june2022_clean.pdf?sfvrsn=675b059b_5. Accessed February 5, 2023. • Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Authority. www.gbawater.org. Accessed October 12, 2022. • Escriva-Bou, Alvar, et al. “Groundwater Recharge.” Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/groundwater-recharge/. Accessed February 25, 2023. • Garner, Eric, et al. “The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the Common Law of Groundwater Rights—Finding a Consistent Path Forward for Groundwater Allocation.” UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, vol. 38, no. 2. 2020. https://doi.org/10.5070/l5382050109. Accessed November 17, 2022. • Gosselin, Paul. “Through Challenges of Drought, Locally Led Solutions for Groundwater Sustainability Are Advancing.” water.ca.gov. March 11, 2022. https:// water.ca.gov/News/Blog/2022/March-22/Through-Challenges-of-Drought-Locally-Led- Solutions-for-Groundwater-Sustainability-Are-Advancing. Accessed November 30, 2022. • Greater San Joaquin County Regional Water Coordinating Committee. www.esjirwm.org. Accessed October 12, 2022. • “Groundwater.” Water Education Foundation. www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/groundwater. Accessed November 17, 2022. • “Groundwater & Drought | USGS California Water Science Center.” ca.water.usgs.gov. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/california-drought/california-drought-groundwater.html. Accessed January 16, 2023. • “Groundwater: Understanding and Managing This Vital Resource.” ArcGIS StoryMaps. March 23, 2021. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ff075c25b77e4b1d95ce86a82bf0fe96. Accessed January 31, 2023. • Hanak, Ellen, et al. A Review of Groundwater Sustainability Plans in the San Joaquin Valley. May 14, 2020. • Hank, Helen, et al. “Groundwater in California - Public Policy Institute of California.” Public Policy Institute of California. May 2017. https://www.ppic.org/publication/groundwater-in- california/. • “History of Water Development and the State Water Project.” water.ca.gov. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/SWP-Facilities/History. Accessed October 29, 2022. • Horton, Michelle. “The Past, Present and Future of California’s Groundwater | Water in the West.” waterinthewest.stanford.edu. June 11, 2020. https://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/news-events/news-insights/thepast-present-and- future-californiasgroundwater. Accessed February 25, 2023. • Jezdimirovic, Jelena, et al. “Water Availability for San Joaquin Valley Farms: A Balancing Act.” Public Policy Institute of California. April 21, 2020. https://www.ppic.org/blog/water- availability-for-san-joaquin-%20valley-farms-a-balancing-act/. Accessed February 25, 2023. • Jezdimirovic, Jelena, et al. “What’s the Plan to End Groundwater Overdraft in the San Joaquin Valley?” Public Policy Institute of California. April 6, 2020. 87 https://www.ppic.org/blog/whats-the-plan-to-end-groundwater-overdraft-in-the-san- joaquin-valley/. Accessed October 29, 2022. • Kiparsky, Michael. “Unanswered Questions for Implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.” California Agriculture, vol. 70, no. 4. August 2016. pp. 165–168. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2016a0014. • Linden County Water District. http://www.lindencwd.com/. Accessed November 4, 2022. • News, Bay City. “Scientists Use Imaging Technology in Quest to Recharge State’s Shrinking Groundwater Table.” Stocktonia. November 21, 2022. https://stocktonia.org/2022/11/21/scientists-use-imaging-technology-in-quest-to-recharge- states-shrinking-groundwater-table/. Accessed February 25, 2023. • North San Joaquin Water Conservation District. https://nsjgroundwater.org/. Accessed November 4, 2022. • Oakdale Irrigation District. https://www.oakdaleirrigation.com/division-3-director-tom- orvis-president. Accessed November 4, 2022. • Peterson, Molly. “Time’s up on Groundwater Plans: One of the Most Important New California Water Laws in 50 Years Explained.” KQED. January 20, 2020. https://www.kqed.org/science/1955916/times-up-on-groundwater-plans-one-of-the-most- important-new-california-water-laws-in-50-years-explained. Accessed January 16, 2023. • Rasmussen, Carol. Hartono, Naomi, Ed. “NASA Measures Underground Water Flowing from Sierra to Central Valley.” National Aeronautics and Space Administration. January 23, 2023. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-measures-underground-water-flowing-from-sierra- to-central-valley. Accessed January 31, 2023. • Rosato, Jr., Joe. “Central Valley Farmer’s Bold Water Experiment Setting Example for California.” NBC Bay Area. April 22, 2022. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/stories- by-joe-rosato-jr/central-valley-farmers-bold-water-experiment-setting-example-for- california/2871668/. Accessed January 13, 2023. • San Joaquin County Administrator’s Office. “OpenGov Financial Data Transparency Portal.” https://www.sjgov.org/department/cao/programs-services/opengov-financial-data- transparency-portal. Accessed May 9, 2023. • San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller. https://www.sjgov.org/department/aud/home. Accessed February 8, 2023. • San Joaquin County Boards. https://sanjoaquin.granicus.com/boards/ • San Joaquin County Council of Governments. https://www.sjcog.org/236/Demographics. Accessed April 18, 2023. • San Joaquin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. http://www.sjwater.org. • San Joaquin County Public Works Department. https://www.sjgov.org/department/pwk/home. Accessed February 2, 2023. • “San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Basin Boundaries and Hydrology.” January 20, 2006. • “SGMA Development | California State Water Resources Control Board.” www.waterboards.ca.gov. June 10, 2020. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sgma/development.html. Accessed November 17, 2022. 88 • Shao, Elena. “California Has Begun Managing Groundwater under a New Law. Experts Aren’t Sure It’s Working.” Inside Climate News. February 17, 2022. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17022022/california-groundwater-law/. Accessed January 16, 2023. • Sommer, Lauren. “3 reasons why California's drought isn't really over, despite all the rain.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/23/1165378214/3-reasons-why-californias-drought- isnt-really-over-despite-all-the-rain. Accessed March 24, 2023. • South San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. https://www.ssjid.com/about- us/agendas-and-minutes-south-san-joaquin-groundwater-sustainability-agency-ssjgsa/. Accessed November 4, 2022. • South San Joaquin Irrigation District. https://www.ssjid.com/about-us/board-of- directors/bob-holmes/. Accessed November 4, 2022. • Stockton East Water District. https://sewd.net/elected-board-members/. Accessed November 4, 2022. • Stockton East Water District. “Encouraging the Use of Surface Water.” Stockton East Water District. https://sewd.net/encouraging-the-use-of-surface-water/. Accessed February 21, 2023. • Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley). • Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Overview – Fillmore & Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency. https://www.fpbgsa.org/gsa-formations/sustainable-groundwater- management-act-overview/. Accessed November 17, 2022. • “Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).” California Department of Water Resources. 2014. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA- Groundwater-Management. Accessed November 17, 2022. • Wikipedia Contributors. “Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. September 5, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Groundwater_Management_Act. Accessed November 30, 2022. • Wyatt, Dennis. “Flood Irrigation Has Positive Water Impacts.” www.mantecabulletin.com. August 2, 2022. www.mantecabulletin.com/news/local-news/flood-irrigation-has-positive- water-impacts/. Accessed December 14, 2022. • “Your Views: It Is Time to Implement the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan.” The Stockton Record. September 24, 2022. https://www.recordnet.com/story/opinion/2022/09/23/lack-water-flows-delta-draw- public-comment/8093803001/. Accessed September 28, 2022. • Zhong, Raymond. “Parched California Misses a Chance to Store More Rain Underground.” The New York Times. February 21, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/climate/california-storms-groundwater-aquifer- recharge.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare. Accessed February 21, 2023. Discussions, Findings, and Recommendations 1.0 Outreach and Engagement Much of what the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires of local agencies like the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) is beyond the scope of this Grand Jury investigation. However, the statute and California Department of Water Resources (DWR) regulations include provisions to promote involvement of interested parties in the formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and in the development and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). As the local agency formed specifically to “cooperatively carry out the purposes of SGMA” and “satisfy the requirements of SGMA for coordination among GSAs” (JPA, Article 3.4(c) and (e)), the Grand Jury determined to investigate whether the ESJGWA had fulfilled, and is currently fulfilling, those public outreach obligations. DWR’s primary role in SGMA is to give guidance and support to GSAs. This is done through regional coordinators along with staff from four regional offices to serve as primary points of contact for GSAs. This support includes guidance on communication and engagement. During the Grand Jury’s investigation, it became evident that communication and engagement while developing the GSP was challenging. To support ESJGWA, DWR provided grant funding and contracted consultants to assist with outreach efforts. 1.1 Requirements and Suggested Practices for Outreach Under SGMA In January 2018, DWR published the Guidance Document for Groundwater Sustainability Plan Stakeholder Communication and Engagement. The guidance provided that: “Other than what is required by statute or regulation, GSAs have discretion on how they communicate and engage with the beneficial uses and users of groundwater within a basin,” and “expertise of stakeholders may increase the chance that the GSAs are using best available information and best available science for GSP development.” The guidance document included a chart to help GSAs determine who should be invited to engage in GSP development. The chart is reproduced in
• R16-19
  interested in a career in law enforcement. • Mark43: An AWS Partner Network Advanced Technology based in New York City that developed a cloud-based so�ware solu�on for the public safety industry. The Mark43 pla�orm offers records management and computer-aided dispatch (CAD) applica�ons for a growing number of police and public service organiza�ons. • Marshall Plan: A strategic ini�a�ve adopted by the Stockton City Council to reduce crime and increase public safety. The plan was discussed in Council on January 31, 2012, and the Marshall Plan Commitee met through 2012 and held a symposium for community leaders on February 8, 2013. • MHP: Mental Health Plan (San Joaquin County). • NASRO: Na�onal Associa�on of School Resource Officers. • NOBLE: Na�onal Organiza�on of Black Law Enforcement. • OYCR: Office of Youth and Community Restora�on (California). • one.Cruikshank: The San Joaquin County Office of Educa�on program (named for Judge John F. Cruikshank, Jr.) provides a fully accredited year-round educa�on for all individuals enrolled in the Juvenile Court School. Atending school is mandatory Monday through Friday for all youth. • POP: Problem-Oriented Policing diagnoses and solves problems that are increasing crime risks, usually in areas that are seeing compara�vely high levels of crime. POP is challenging in that agencies need to diagnose and solve what could be any of a wide range of crime- causing problems. • POST: Peace Officer Standard and Training sets the standards for all law enforcement training. • POST Academy: Any law enforcement academy approved by POST to provide minimum selec�on and training standards for California law enforcement. • PREA: Prison Rape Elimina�on Act established in 2003 under the Code of Federal Regula�ons 28 (CFR Part 115), the Prison Rape Elimina�on Act sets the standards for the detec�on, preven�on, reduc�on, and prosecu�on of prison sexual assault. It also provides funds to help State and local governments implement the act. • Principled Policing: Focuses on the way police interact with the public and how these interac�ons influence crime rates and the public’s view of police and willingness to obey the law. Prac�cing procedural jus�ce can have a significant impact on compliance, coopera�on, public safety, and officer safety. • Read 180: A reading interven�on program, u�lizing adap�ve technology, to help students who are reading two grades below level or have reading difficul�es. • Resident: Any person confined or detained in a juvenile facility or in a community confinement facility. • Ride-along: An opportunity for a ci�zen to ride with a police officer. • SB 92: California Senate Bill 92 Chapter 18. Commitee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Juvenile Jus�ce. Commencing July 1, 2021, it prohibits further commitment of wards to the Division of Juvenile Jus�ce unless the ward is otherwise eligible to be commited to the division and a mo�on was filed to transfer the ward from the juvenile court to a court of criminal 120 jurisdic�on. This bill requires a court to consider the commitment to county-based custody as an alterna�ve to the Division of Juvenile Jus�ce. • SB 230: California Senate Bill 230 builds on California’s rigorous officer training requirements by establishing a minimum standard on the use of force for all law enforcement agencies throughout the State. No later than January 1, 2021, it required each law enforcement agency to maintain a policy that provided guidelines on the use of force, utilizing de-escalation techniques and other alternatives to force when feasible. It also has specific guidelines for applying deadly force and factors for evaluating and reviewing all use-of-force incidents. The bill requires each agency to make its use of force policy accessible to the public. • SB 823: California Senate Bill 823 was signed into law September 30, 2020. Also known as the “Juvenile Jus�ce Realignment Act,” closes the Division of Juvenile Jus�ce and removes it from the California Department of Correc�ons and Rehabilita�on (CDCR). It places Juvenile Jus�ce under the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services in a new division called the Office of Youth and Community Restora�on (OYCR). • School-to-Prison Pipeline: Used to describe the dispropor�onate frequency of students from disadvantaged backgrounds becoming incarcerated because of harsh school and municipal policies. These policies and procedures involve zero-tolerance, suspensions, expulsions, and arrests for minor misbehavior. The school-to-prison pipeline affects students of color, students with disabili�es, and LGBTQ students more than their peers. • SJC: San Joaquin County. • SRO: School Resource Officer. • STARS: Sheriff’s Team of Ac�ve and Re�red Seniors. • Stop Data: Ar�cle 2 of the California Code of Regula�ons (CCR 999.225) iden�fies law enforcement agencies as subject to the collec�on of stop data. Stop Data is the informa�on gathered when police officers make discre�onary stops and stops resul�ng from a dispatched call for service. The Stop Data collec�on program is implemented with the inten�on of crea�ng an internal culture of accountability and ensuring that policing prac�ces are cons�tu�onal. • STRIPE: Trained student employees at the University of the Pacific who func�on as a safety escort service. • STRTP: Short-Term Residen�al Therapeu�c Programs. • SUAS: Small Unmanned Aircra� System. • SUSD: Stockton Unified School District. • SUSD DPS: Stockton Unified School District Department of Public Safety. • Title IX: The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights enforces, among other statutes, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. • UCR: Uniform Crime Repor�ng Program has generated reliable sta�s�cs for use in law enforcement since 1930. It includes data from more than 18,000 enforcement agencies. Agencies par�cipate voluntarily and submit their crime data either through a state UCR program or directly to the FBI’s UCR Program. • UOP: University of the Pacific (some�mes also referred to as Pacific). • Ward: Someone under the protec�on of the Court. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement and services for the 784,298 ci�zens of San Joaquin County. The Sheriff’s Office is the primary law enforcement provider for the 159,170 ci�zens in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Sheriff’s Office is also responsible for patrolling 500+ miles of navigable Delta waterways. The Sheriff’s Office staffing is currently near allocated levels. There is a command staff consis�ng of a Sheriff Public Administrator, an Undersheriff, an Assistant Sheriff, and a Custody Assistant Sheriff. The communica�ons center and jail central control are currently understaffed. Fi�een of the 23 allocated Communica�ons Dispatcher II posi�ons are filled. General Areas of Responsibility • Airport Security. • Animal Services. • Civil. • Courts. • Criminal. • Custody. • Public Administrator. Collabora�ve Rela�onships Between Law Enforcement and Ci�zens The Sheriff’s Office promotes collabora�ve rela�ons between law enforcement and ci�zens in the following areas: Community Car Program (ComCar) This program is designed to establish rela�onships and trust between the Sheriff’s Office and the community. ComCar depu�es work in specific areas known as “micro-beats.” Selected depu�es must display a willingness to uphold and a knowledge of the ComCar philosophy. They are expected to become experts in their assigned community, establishing good working rela�onships with residents and businesses, as well as iden�fying areas of concern. Community Revitaliza�on Unit (CRU) CRU was formed to assist ComCar depu�es in iden�fying and addressing quality of life and blight issues. CRU depu�es specialize in non-tradi�onal law enforcement tac�cs. They have recently been given Code Enforcement powers, and detailed training on County Ordinances and available resources. They work with ComCar depu�es to iden�fy where neighborhood clean-ups would help change the trajectory and pride in ownership of en�re neighborhoods. Ci�zens Academy This eight-week Academy is designed to make ci�zens beter informed by fostering a clear understanding of a deputy and correc�onal officer’s du�es and how they carry out those du�es. All applicants must pass a warrant check prior to acceptance into the Academy. STARS Volunteers and Volunteer Chaplaincy Program In addi�on to regular interac�ons through proac�ve patrols and responding to calls for service, the Field Forces Division incorporates re�red seniors, volunteer chaplains, and civilian staff to bolster the Sheriff’s Office and community rela�onships. The Sheriff’s Team of Ac�ve and Re�red Seniors (STARS) is a volunteer program for concerned ci�zens aged 50 and older. STARS volunteers assist the Sheriff’s Office by enhancing and promo�ng efforts in crime preven�on and other tasks and services as directed. Over the last three years, the Sheriff’s Office has expanded its Chaplaincy Program. It currently has four volunteer chaplains fostering familiarity with the role of law enforcement in the community. Chaplains also support depu�es when dealing with ci�zens in incidents such as accidental deaths, suicides, serious accidents, drug and alcohol abuse, and other appropriate situa�ons. This provides an addi�onal layer of service to the community during tragic events. LEAD Program The Law Enforcement Applica�on Development Program (LEAD) operates under the umbrella of the Central Valley Chapter (CVC) of the Na�onal Organiza�on of Black Law Enforcement Execu�ves (NOBLE). It is a collabora�ve opera�on between the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office, Stockton Police Department, Stockton Unified School District Police Department, several private enterprises, and stakeholders in the community. The goal of the program is to introduce and prepare young applicants for the possibility of a career within the law enforcement community. Community Mental Health Response Program Law Enforcement Responds 24/7 to: • Bizarre or erra�c behavior/crisis/drug induced. • Threatening behavior (armed/unarmed/threats). • If not a danger to others or criminal. Will refer to a clinician. o Mental Health: • Generally fixed 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. schedule. A�er hours response is unlikely (referral or follow up). o • Cannot respond to violent behavior. Including threats, suicide, bizarre ac�ons, under the influence or weapons. o Sheriff’s Office serves as a transport unit. o • Determine 72-hour commitments (5150) or immediate release. 9-1-1 Dispatch Policies Priority 1 – Requires immediate dispatching of units (possibly Code 3) The highest priority calls are those in which the physical well-being of a person is in jeopardy, such as traffic accidents, suicide atempts, any call involving the use of weapons, including fights and robberies. Priority 2 – Requires dispatching as quickly as possible (Code 2) These calls for service do not require an immediate response but should be dealt with as soon as possible. However, a situa�on such as a comba�ve shopli�er being detained could fall within the Priority 1 classifica�on. Priority 3 – Requires dispatching as quickly as convenient (Code 1) The majority of calls received fall into this category. They are informa�onal in nature, or the �me element dictates that no person or property is in jeopardy. Calls in this category are handled in the order in which they are received. Dispatch Training • Approximate 10-month on the job training program. • Divided into two sec�ons: call taking and radio training. • Three-week (120 hours) POST mandated Public Safety Dispatcher Basic Course. • Dispatchers must complete 24 hours of POST Con�nuing Professional Training in each two- year POST cycle to be compliant. Crime Sta�s�cs Overall calls for service have dropped 16.3% from 2021. Property crimes decreased 32.1%, vagrancy crimes decreased 28.4%, but violent crimes increased 11.3%. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office Ride-along Observa�ons During Grand Jury ride-along sessions, the Sheriff’s officer responded to calls for service that included: a reported bank fraud, suspicious persons, disturbances, welfare checks, loud music, officer assistance request from CHP, mail theft, audible alarm at a business, and an identity theft. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office Unified Court Services Division and County Jail Court The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office Unified Court Services Division provides court security to the four court facili�es in San Joaquin County. This includes the management of in-custody inmates brought to court from the county jail and juvenile facili�es, all temporary inmate holding cells, 124 courtroom security as monitored by court bailiffs, as well as monitoring and response to all security issues within the courthouse. The Sheriff’s Unified Court Services Division operates with a total alloca�on of 54 full-�me and 48 part-�me posi�ons. This includes one captain, one lieutenant, five sergeants, 39 full-�me depu�es, eight correc�onal officers, 48 part-�me depu�es and correc�onal officers. Approximately 26,320 inmates were transported to court in Fiscal Year 2021-2022. A private non-sworn security company is u�lized to monitor entry screening and a�er-hours courthouse security. Court loca�ons include Stockton, Manteca, Lodi (currently closed), Tracy (currently closed), and the Juvenile Deten�on Facility. Custody The Sheriff’s Custody Division is a complex opera�on that is managed by two captains, nine lieutenants, and an Inmate Programs Director in compliance with the California Code of Regula�on Title 15, Division 3. Each of the nine lieutenants divided responsibili�es consis�ng of, but not limited to: management of the John Zunino Jail Complex and Honor Farm Complex (Intake, Main Jail, Honor Farm), Inmate Work Programs Unit (Alterna�ve Work Program, Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP), Work Furlough Program, and Alcohol Monitoring Program), Transporta�on/Inmate Hospital Security, Medical Services, Maintenance and Food Services Liaison, Inmate Popula�on Management, Training, Records Division, Realignment/AB 109 Liaison Construc�on Project Management, and PREA Compliance. The Inmate Program Director provides a variety of programs and services to assist offenders with successful reintegra�on into the community. Booking • Live Scan. Local Automated Fingerprint Iden�fica�on System (AFIS) search to verify arrestee’s o iden�ty. • Consular No�fica�on. Completed during intake process. o Provides no�fica�on for foreign na�onals to nearest consulate (Ar�cle 36(1)(b) of o the Vienna Conven�on on Consular Rela�ons. • Programs and Services. Iden�fy level of educa�on and u�lize for jail programs and services. o • Veterans Affairs. Iden�fy veterans at booking to allow for contact with VA to link for eligible services. o Inmate Orienta�on • Orienta�on videos in both English and Spanish. • Inmate Orienta�on & Rule Book in English and Spanish given upon housing and available on tablets and kiosks. • Housing Guidelines given upon housing, posted on inmate informa�on board, available in English and Spanish. • Housing Unit Officer. Intake Housing • Intake housing units 1, 2, 3, and 4. • Two officers for up to a maximum of 131 inmates. • Double bunking. Medical Housing and Sheltered Housing Units (Adjoined) • Comprised of inmates with medical and mental needs. • One officer for 39 inmates for Medical. • Two officers for 99 inmates for Sheltered. Medical Housing and Medical/Dental Clinic • On-site medical care, non-emergency treatment, and behavioral services. • Cardiology. • Pulmonology. • Dental. • Podiatry. • Orthopedic. General Popula�on Housing Unit • Direct supervision housing. • One officer for 64 inmates. Administra�ve Segrega�on Unit (AdSeg) • Maximum Security Housing. • Two officers for 94 inmates. • Double bunking. Honor Farm • 355 Board of State and Community Correc�ons (BSCC)-rated bed capacity. Jail Popula�on When the jail popula�on reaches its capacity, it triggers a popula�on reduc�on plan. • Total Bed Capacity: 1,585. • State Rated Capacity: 1,550. • BSCC does not include medical housing bed space into their rated capacity – 35 beds. • Popula�on as of October 31, 2022, was 1,249. Educa�onal Programs • G.E.D. • High School Diploma. • Office Technology. • Crea�ve Wri�ng. • Beyond Incarcera�on. • Substance Abuse. • Read 180. • Life Skills. • Paren�ng Skills. • Ownership. 126 • Anger Management. • Crea�ve Conflict Resolu�on. Services • Human Services Agency. • Child Support. • Root and Rebound. • Malachi Dads. • Resource Fair. • Community Based Organiza�ons. • Inkoff – Tatoo Removal (coming soon). Inmate Voca�onal Programs In recognizing that inmates need viable job skills to re-enter as produc�ve community members, the expansion of inmate voca�onal programs is a high priority. • Forkli� Simulator. • ABC NORCAL Construc�on Training (coming soon). • Truck Driving Simulator (coming soon). Alterna�ve Work Programs (AWP) and Program Par�cipa�on for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 • 2,138 applica�ons. • 1,200 par�cipated. Electronic & Alcohol Monitoring (commonly called House Arrest) • 259 applica�ons. • 85 par�cipated in electronic monitoring. • 59 par�cipated in the alcohol program. Community Corps • Community Revitaliza�on. • Clean Roads & Waterways. • Recycling at County Disposal Sites. • Graffi� and Weed Abatement. • Approximately 20 par�cipants daily. • Supervised by Inmate Labor Specialist. Custody Emergency Response Team (CERT) (This is the jail version of a SWAT Team) • One CERT Captain. • Two CERT Commanders/Lieutenants. • Three CERT Team Leaders/Sergeants. • 22 CERT Operators. Escalon Police Department The City of Escalon covers 2.4 square miles and has 7,523 residents. The City’s mission statement is “Taking pride in our community through quality service.” Of the seven ci�es in San Joaquin County, Escalon has the smallest police department with 11 sworn officers. The police department, however, is augmented by 12 reserve officers. The department will be sending its first female candidate to the Delta College Police Academy during the summer of 2023. The Escalon Police Department has contracted with the Ripon Police Department to provide full-�me dispatch services since March 1, 2011. During September, October, and November of 2022, several officers atended ac�ve shooter training with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, the Ceres Police Department, and the Stockton Unified School District Department of Public Safety (SUSD DPS). Escalon Ride-along Observa�ons During the Grand Jury ride-along session with the Escalon Police Department, the officer responded to calls for service that included: a welfare check, a hit and run vehicle accident, a suspicious vehicle near a park, and found a wallet with money but no ID and was turned in to the police sta�on. Lathrop Police Department The 2010 Census reported that the popula�on of Lathrop was 18,023. By 2022, the popula�on had grown over 70% to 30,659. Formed on the 29th of June 2022, the Lathrop Police Department is the newest law enforcement agency in San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office previously patrolled Lathrop. The mission of the Lathrop Police Department is stated as, “…commited to connec�ng and partnering with our community and making it a safe and desirable place to live, work, and visit.” The Lathrop Police Department faced a big challenge in crea�ng a new department quickly. The Department has 35 sworn officers and 12 professional staff. The Department is drawing lateral officers from other agencies. Dispatch services are provided by the 128 Ripon Police Department. The Department provides Ripon Police Department funding for six dispatchers. Community connec�ons are a strong emphasis. The Department is building its social media presence. The Department also has a community mee�ng room available. The City Council voted that the squad cars be designed with an off-white paint scheme and custom decals that will differ greatly from the tradi�onal black and white vehicles that residents are used to seeing. According to the police chief the cars are reported by the public to “be seen everywhere.” Crime sta�s�cs were provided to the Grand Jury repor�ng on a period from July-October 2022. There were 126 crimes against persons, 323 crimes against property, and 296 traffic incidents. The Department has worked with San Joaquin County Behavioral Health Services for training on mental health crises interven�on strategies. Lathrop Ride-along Observa�ons During the Grand Jury ride-along session with the Lathrop Police Department, the officer responded to calls for service that included: a suspicious vehicle, traffic stops, and a threat of gun violence disturbance. Lodi Police Department The City of Lodi is 14 square miles with a popula�on of 66,348 according to the 2020 U.S Census. The Lodi Police Department’s mission “is to ensure the safety and security of our community by reducing crime, crea�ng strong partnerships, and inves�ng in our employees to prepare for the future.” Since 1906, when the Lodi Police Department was formed, the Department has grown to 79 alloted sworn officers. The current number of sworn officers is 74, leaving five posi�ons to be filled. As with other police departments in San Joaquin County, Lodi is facing a shortage of applicants that meet Department qualifica�ons. Lodi Police Ride-along Observa�ons During the Grand Jury ride-along sessions with the Lodi Police Department, officers responded to 13 different calls for service that included: a large group of unruly juveniles, welfare checks, a man down, a vehicle accident with injuries, unruly disturbance by an adult, shopli�ing, juvenile batery complaint, brandishing a gun, loitering, a silent alarm, a suspicious occupied vehicle, a man with a knife, and an internet scam involving a juvenile. Lodi Jail The Grand Jury toured the Lodi Jail on December 29, 2022, with the Lodi Police Captain. The Sheriff’s Office is the only other department that has a jail within the County. The Lodi Jail is described as the smallest deten�on facility in San Joaquin County. Jurors were surprised to observe a rather spacious facility and opera�on in Lodi. People arrested in Lodi are taken to the Lodi Jail where they are processed for either release, holding, court appearance, or transport to the County Jail. Dispatch personnel are on duty three at a �me and do double duty in the jail for intake and monitoring du�es. There are 10 cells, and if needed, each cell can accommodate two people. The Lodi jail is considered primarily a holding jail. A prisoner may be held in jail up to ten days. Detainees are taken to the facility, interviewed by a dispatcher to determine medical issues, provided with an intake packet, and then fingerprinted. Anyone requiring a body cavity search would be taken to the hospital. There is a safety padded room for those deemed to have behavioral issues, and also a drunk tank cell. There are also two rooms for juveniles who are under close observa�on. There is also an interview room, telephone access, a holding cell for the court, and a visi�ng room. The jail separates males and females. The court in Lodi, previously served by two judges, was moved to the San Joaquin County Courthouse in Stockton in March 2023. This will require the Lodi Police Department to stretch staff to move detainees to the Courthouse in Stockton. Officers appearing in court now have to travel to Stockton. PREA: Although staff indicated PREA informa�on was available to detainees, the Grand Jury members did not see such documenta�on. It needs to be more readily visible in signs and handouts. Cameras were placed in front of rooms where privacy is not an issue. The PREA coordinator was not available to the Grand Jurors on the day of the tour. Manteca Police Department The City of Manteca’s popula�on increased by 27.9% between the 2010 census of 67,096 and the 2021 popula�on of 85,792. The Manteca Police Department’s mission statement says, “The Manteca Police Department is commited to working together to form a partnership with the community. Through this rela�onship, we will protect the community while maintaining public trust and a commitment to those we serve. We will exemplify pride and professionalism in our ac�ons through our core values: honor, integrity, accountability, and fairness.” 130 The Police Department has 56 sworn posi�ons and six non-sworn posi�ons. The Department is staffed with one captain, two lieutenants, seven sergeants, 46 officers, four Community Service Officers, and two booking officers. The Department is divided into two divisions having a combined total of 109 full-�me police employees. The Opera�ons Division is led by one captain and two lieutenants and is divided into two areas—the East Area Command and the West Area Command. The second division is the Services Department. The Opera�ons Department consists of Patrol, Traffic, Community Resource Officers, School Resource Officer, SWAT, K-9, and an Unmanned Aerial Unit. In 2017 the department formed the Small Unmanned Aircra� System (SUAS) unit and was equipped with three drones. Since then, the SUAS unit has increased to 11 drones. Considered a “game changer,” the drones provide the ability to get a vantage point that keeps officers safe. If a suspect is hiding, the drone pilot can locate the person. Drones are used when Special Weapons and Tac�cs (SWAT) teams may deal with a situa�on involving barricaded armed suspects. The drones can also help in the search for missing persons, they are not used for general surveillance. Dispatch Staffing and Training The Dispatch Department consists of one Public Safety Dispatch Coordinator and 12 full-�me dispatchers. The department answered 27,430 9-1-1 calls in 2021, of which 98% were answered within 10 seconds. One hundred percent of the 9-1-1 calls in 2021 were answered within 15 seconds. Dispatcher training consists of an ini�al POST Basic Dispatch course within the first year of dispatching, and on-the-job training with a communica�ons training officer. Manteca Police Department Challenges and Goals The Manteca Police Chief shared with the Grand Jury challenges for the Department: • Con�nuously changing legisla�ve mandates. • Employee lack of wellness. • Increasing cost of contracts, equipment, and technology. • Recruitment and reten�on. The Manteca Police Chief also noted goals and priori�es to address the need for: • A new police facility. • Increased patrol staffing. • Effec�ve strategies for homeless issues and ongoing partnerships. • Increased community engagement. • Ongoing training. • Succession planning at all levels. Ripon Police Department The popula�on of Ripon was 14,297 according to the 2010 census. By 2021 the popula�on of Ripon grew to 16,440. Ripon was originally known as Stanislaus City but was renamed in 1875 for Ripon, Wisconsin. The Ripon Police Department is authorized for 24 sworn members. Officers are required to live no further than 40 miles from Ripon in an effort to secure their personal interest in the community. The mission statement of the Ripon Police Department is: “We, the members of the Ripon Police Department, are commited to being responsive to our community in the delivery of quality services. Recognizing our responsibility to maintain order, while affording dignity and respect to every individual, our objec�ve is to improve the quality of life through a community partnership which promotes safe secure neighborhoods.” This mission statement was validated by a Grand Juror who went on a ride-along. In addi�on to the Ripon Police Department’s mission statement, the Department’s philosophy is: Officers have the ability to make a difference daily through finding solu�ons to community problems, including enforcement of the law, non-enforcement contacts, and community partnerships. The Ripon Police Department has a “guardian rather than a warrior mentality.” There were zero complaints against officers in the last two years (2020-2022). The Department’s goals include: • Maintain or reduce response �me to calls for service. • Reduce the number of larcenies and shopli�ing by 5%. • Reduce the number of stolen vehicles by 5%. • Reduce the number of total assaults by 3%. • Reduce the number of traffic collisions including DUI and collisions rela�ng to speed and turning movement. • Increase staff training, including core courses and professional development. During the presenta�on to the Grand Jury, the Police Chief reviewed sta�s�cs for 2021 compared to a five-year average as described below: 132 2021 5-Year Average Total Incidents 21,614 23,730 Calls For Service 10,338 11,359 Officer Ini�ated Ac�vity 11,276 12,371 Part 1 UCR Crimes 392 365 Mental Health Incidents Incidents Reported 316 277 Reports/Evalua�on Holds 89 50 Ripon Ride-along Observa�ons During the Grand Jury ride-along session with the Ripon Police Department, the officer responded to calls for service that included: a report of a boat parked on a street that had not moved for several months, two adults observed engaged in illegal ac�vity near the Stanislaus River, and traffic stops. Stockton Police Department The City of Stockton is 65 square miles with a popula�on es�mate of 322,120 according to the 2020 U.S. Census, making it the 13th largest city in California. The Stockton Police Department undertakes a regional approach, covering six geographic districts that help address crime and the quality of life in the community. Three of these districts are north of the Calaveras River and three are south. The number of calls for service are similar in both north and south Stockton. The Sheriff’s Office (rather than the Stockton Police Department) has responsibility over several carved-out geographic areas throughout the city, ranging in size from just several blocks to much larger areas. The Department is led by the Chief of Police, an Assistant Chief, and two Deputy Chiefs. The Department is budgeted for 228 professional staff and 485 sworn officers. At the �me of a presenta�on to the Grand Jury, there were 183 professional staff and 380 sworn officers. A serious staffing shortage of more than 100 officers was reported in March 2023. Due to staffing issues, officers are called more frequently for service and face higher numbers of priority incidents. Specialty assignments such as bicycle and public housing officers were moved to patrol to fill some of the posi�ons. These officers will no longer par�cipate in Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion programs. This will have an impact on programs that support the community. Collabora�ve Rela�onships Between Law Enforcement and Ci�zens Violence Reduc�on Ini�a�ve Prior to 2012, the City of Stockton was experiencing a rise in violent crime, specifically homicides, gangs, and gun violence. To address escala�ng violence, the Stockton Police Chief proposed a “Violence Reduc�on Ini�a�ve” to the Stockton City Council in May 2012, which passed the ini�a�ve providing the following: • Establishment of the Police Department's Community Response Teams. • Reac�va�on of a camera system already installed throughout the city and used to monitor high-crime areas and deploy appropriate resources as condi�ons changed. • Refocused gang/street outreach. • Establishment of the Police Chief's Community Advisory Board in November 2012. Community Response Teams In early 2012, the Department began real-�me policing strategies that adjust staffing and deployment driven by intelligence gathering and trending violence data. These strategies focus on data and community input to define neighborhood problems. Department Intelligence- Communica�on and Planning (I-CAP) mee�ngs help deploy available resources in hot-spot neighborhoods in an atempt to prevent retaliatory shoo�ngs. I-CAP evolved into the current Community Response Teams which meet with neighborhoods to develop rela�onships, define problems, and follow up with proac�ve enforcement and problem- solving. Efforts to Build Community Trust Community Advisory Board The Community Advisory Board intends to foster beter communica�on, trust, and collabora�on between the people of Stockton and their police. The board gathers a cross-sec�on of the Stockton community to maintain an open dialogue with the Police Chief. Opera�on Ceasefire Opera�on Ceasefire is a program adopted by many ci�es across the country as a partner-based violence reduc�on strategy using respec�ul, direct communica�on with the highest-risk youth and young adults. It is an ac�on item from the City’s Marshall Plan and offers a mul�-disciplinary approach to the most at-risk violent offenders. Watch Programs Neighborhood Watch Groups were developed to encourage ci�zen involvement to deter crime by early detec�on. Business Watch establishes communica�on links among various businesses within a specific geographic area such as a plaza, mall, complex, or city block. Each business works with the others to keep the Police Department informed of any ac�vity that could be considered criminal in nature. Crime Free Mul�-Housing is a partnership between the Stockton Police Department and managers/owners of mul�-unit rental proper�es working together to prevent crime and enforce 134 the penal code and civil code viola�ons. Management and residents agree to work together to keep a well-maintained property and promote good quality of life while reducing crime. Expanded Communica�ons The department offers two-way communica�on with the community through social media such as Facebook and text-�pping, which allows anonymous �ps via email or cell phone. Increased Law Enforcement Collabora�ons The department reaches out and collaborates at the: • Federal level—U.S. Marshals Task Force, ATF, DEA, and FBI partnerships. • State level—CHP assistance with Community Response Teams. • County level—Countywide Gang Task Force, Countywide Firearms Reduc�on Consor�um, and Countywide Community Correc�ons Partnership Task Force. Expanded Outreach and Volunteer Programs Ci�zen input has helped expand Crime Stoppers, the Police Chaplaincy, the Stockton Police Youth Ac�vi�es League, and now the Sen�nel Program, a volunteer program for adults. Efforts to Address Mental Health The city is partnering with Community Medical Centers (CMC) on a pilot project to explore how the police can work with mental health personnel to provide services to persons who are not in immediate danger. The Care Team has one team currently available Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Within the next few years, CMC plans to have two “primary response” vans with basic medical aid and two transport vans. Dispatching Call Priori�za�on Ra�onale • The Dispatch Center received 654,463 calls in 2021, of which 225,865 were through 9-1-1. • A call for service priority is determined by the call type, based on whether the crime is in progress, danger to a person or property, and the presence of a suspect. • Dispatchers have the op�on of adjus�ng the priority of each call for service based on the informa�on received from the caller (crimes in progress, weapons involved, etc. would take priority). Dispatch Staffing and Training • The Dispatch Center is a 24/7 opera�on, with the total number of dispatchers on duty fluctua�ng based on historical call intake data. • Dispatchers undergo a 12-month intensive, on-the-job training program, in addi�on to atending a mandatory three-week POST Academy. • Budgeted for 41 full-�me posi�ons, eight of which are currently vacant. They also have six supervisor posi�ons, with one vacancy. Principled Policing Principled Policing has been integrated throughout the Department with its tenets included in departmental policies, employee evalua�ons, and special assignment requests. Stockton Police Department personnel have received intensive training in three areas: 1. Procedural Jus�ce focuses on how the characteris�cs of police interac�ons with the public shape the public’s views of the police and improve community-police rela�ons and trust. 2. Implicit Bias focuses on how subconscious psychological processes can shape an officer’s ac�ons and lead to racially disparate outcomes, even where actual prejudice is not present. 3. Trust Building focuses on reconcilia�on and facilita�ng honest conversa�ons between communi�es and police that address historical tensions, grievances, and misconcep�ons with the ul�mate goal of rese�ng rela�onships. Crime Sta�s�cs Summary In a comparison of 2021 crime sta�s�cs to 2020, total crime was down 8%, property crime was down 12%, and violent crime was down 8%. Dispatch handled 382,790 calls for service in 2021; the department dispatched 211,446 calls for service. There were 681 firearms booked for evidence, and a total of 1,088 firearms in 2021, represen�ng a 2% decrease from 2020. Available crime sta�s�cs through September of 2022 compared to the same �me in 2021 showed that total crime was up 7.3%, property crime was up 11.1%, violent crime was up 0.8%, and homicides were up from 31 in 2021 to 43 in 2022. Recrui�ng and Reten�on Sworn Officer Hiring • Authorized and budgeted: 485 officers. • Current Staffing: 380 officers as of October 18, 2022. • 15 Trainees in a POST academy. • 6 Trainees in Problem-Oriented Policing (POP). • 18 Trainees supervised by Field Training Officers (FTO). • 11 hired/30 separated. • 18 sworn lateral transfers to other agencies. Recrui�ng • Recrui�ng events: 85. • Current recruiters: 39. • Currently in the background check process: 32 Officer candidates. o 12 Professional staff candidates. o 136 Stockton Police Department Ride-along Observa�ons During the Grand Jury ride-along sessions with the Stockton Police Department, officers responded to calls for service that included: a violation of a restraining order, theft, traffic hazards, a family disturbance, burglary and foot pursuit of a suspect, suspicious vehicle, suspicious persons, a man waiving a machete at a retail location, and a mental health patient waving a hammer in the roadway. Tracy Police Department The City of Tracy has a popula�on of approximately 93,000 according to the 2020 Census. Tracy covers approximately 21 square miles, is the second most-populated city in San Joaquin County, and is located in the southern part of the County. The Tracy Police Chief’s philosophy promotes the values of “Service, Integrity, and Excellence” and “respec�ng the sanc�ty of human life and dignity without prejudice.” Emphasis is “how to make it beter” and “con�nuously seek to improve, grow, and enhance police commitment to protect and preserve life under an umbrella of accountability.” The emphasis during the Police Chief’s presenta�on was placed on community engagement and community expecta�ons. The Chief men�oned the Department had over 150 outreach events for the public. Also men�oned were promo�onal videos, website development, partnerships with businesses, schools, community organiza�ons, Neighborhood Watch Groups, and other suppor�ve community efforts. The Department develops strategies to gain the public’s trust. It makes available English and Spanish speakers and coordinates with community programs focusing on juveniles such as the Juvenile Leadership Academy. The Tracy Police Department is fully staffed and approved for 104 police officers. It can therefore respond to most calls in a very �mely manner. Officers have �me for proac�ve patrolling and community engagement. Officers typically range in age from 25 to 35. Most hires are lateral transfers from other departments, primarily from Stockton and Sacramento. The emphasis for recruitment is on educa�on and having a posi�ve demeanor. Word-of-mouth from officers atracts recruits, and there is a $1,000 cash bonus to a current employee who refers a candidate who is later hired. The Department is a “full-service opera�on” including a field patrol unit staffed with seven teams of police and community officers under a police sergeant. There are three bureaus: the Bureau of Field Opera�ons, the Bureau of Support Services, and the Bureau of Inves�ga�ons. The Bureau of Field 137 Opera�ons consists of the Patrol Division with 56 posi�ons and the Community Services Division with 45.5 posi�ons. The Community Services Division includes a Neighborhood Resources Unit (i.e., School Resource Officers, Crime Preven�on Specialists, and Volunteers in Police Services), Traffic Safety Unit, and Code Enforcement. The Bureau of Support Services includes Police Support Services, Animal Services, Dispatch, and Records. The Bureau of Inves�ga�ons includes General Inves�ga�ons, Special Inves�ga�ons, Special Enforcement, and the Crime Scene Unit. Technology and equipment upgrades were also described as a big category of emphasis including equipment for vehicle technology, camera and license plate reading equipment, and drones. The Community Mental Health Response Program coordinates with San Joaquin County Behavioral Health. Mental health outreach efforts average two to four days a month. Mental health calls for service increased 17% from 2020 to 2021. The department has started a Familiar Faces Program to provide a homeless outreach team staffed by two Homeless Outreach Coordinators and one Neighborhood Resource Officer. The objec�ve is to provide shelter resources, transporta�on, medical resources, and transi�onal life coaching for the unsheltered. All 9-1-1 calls have a predesignated priority with crimes against people having the highest priority. All calls for service increased 17% from 2020 to 2021. The Department trains for Mass Casualty and Ac�ve Shooter Response, and in the spring of 2022 conducted a “live” training experience. The Department trains officers to immediately respond to neutralize a threat even if only one officer is on the scene. It adheres to the mutual aid model and trains with other departments. Gangs and homelessness were not described as major problems in Tracy compared to other ci�es. However, an encampment of homeless people at El Pescadero Park concerned ci�zens. Property crimes placed the highest demand on the department. The UCR Part I Crime Sta�s�cs indicated that there were 2,023 crimes in 2019 and 1,639 in 2020. Traffic incidents are the biggest concern for the city. Besides an increase in speeding, there was also an increase in traffic fatali�es in 2022. The contribu�ng factors are the configura�on of the highways surrounding Tracy, known as the “Tracy Triangle,” and traffic cu�ng through town. Tracy Police Ride-along Observa�ons During the Grand Jury ride-along sessions with the Tracy Police Department, officers responded to six different calls for service that included: a possible break-in, a need for medical assistance, shopli�ing, welfare checks, a disturbance, and drone surveillance in the downtown area. San Joaquin Delta College District Police Department The San Joaquin Delta College prides itself as being one of the “safest” places within the City of Stockton, due in large part to the efforts of the San Joaquin Delta College District Police. There are over 16,000 students atending Delta College. There are also many private and public events that bring large groups to campus such as the Delta Flea Market. The Department rarely has calls that involve serious crimes. The San Joaquin Delta College District Police Department is current with their required filing of crime sta�s�cs as required by the Clery Act. The Clery Act is a Federal requirement for higher educa�on ins�tu�ons to report to the Department of Educa�on (DOE) on 11 defined crimes. Delta College District Police has assigned an officer to be a dedicated liaison for the transient or homeless popula�on that come onto campus. The liaison has lessened the need for an escalated response in calls that involve the homeless. There are over 200 cameras across campus, as well as a callbox/camera tower. The cameras have been a significant deterrent in crime preven�on. Police presence on campus has made a posi�ve impact in reducing parking lot break-ins and vehicle the�. The police department has enacted de-escala�on training in conjunc�on with the Stockton Police Department as part of their officer effec�veness training in resolving hos�le conflicts as required by California Senate Bill SB 230. The Department has had successful results u�lizing the recently acquired Virtual Reality (VR) in training for difficult scenarios. Delta College has a POST Academy program on campus. The course is designed for entry-level training for students preparing for a posi�on as a Reserve Officer, Peace Office, or Deputy Sheriff assigned to patrol. The Delta College District Police, therefore, is in a good posi�on to recruit new officers from the Academy. Delta College Police Department is uniquely posi�oned to offer assistance to the Stockton Police Department and may at �mes have a faster response �me due to their proximity to high profile/crime loca�ons such as the malls that are across the street. Budgetary constraints have hampered the upgrade of the en�re communica�on system. This has been brought to the aten�on of the College administra�on. San Joaquin Delta College Ride-along Observa�ons During a Grand Jury ride-along, the Delta College Police Chief circled the campus. There were no calls for service. The juror met several other officers and a Student Service Officer who were checking the security of a classroom door. University of the Pacific Department of Public Safety University of the Pacific (referred to as UOP or Pacific) is one of only two private universi�es in California whose officers have full police officer authority, giving them the ability to focus on keeping the University community safe. The Department of Public Safety works under the authority of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Stockton Police Department. UOP police take training courses under Stockton Police Department, including de-escala�on techniques, ac�ve shooter training, and an�-bias training. The Department provides protec�on, services, and educa�on to ensure a safe place for students, faculty, staff, and guests to live, study, work, and visit. Through the Department’s strategic approach to campus safety and the work of its officers, Pacific’s crime sta�s�cs are low. The Department has 15 officers and six dispatchers. All the officers are POST trained. Geographically, they are limited to a three-block radius around the University, patrolling nearby neighborhoods. There is a low number of calls. Clery and Annual Security Reports (ASR) are prepared annually in compliance with Federal laws. The report is prepared with data and informa�on provided by the UOP Department of Public Safety, the office of the Dean of Students, Environmental Health and Safety, the Title IX Coordinator, and various law enforcement agencies that provide services to Pacific proper�es within their jurisdic�ons. Crime sta�s�cs for the years 2020 to 2022 were provided to the Grand Jury. Most offenses were property crimes. In 2020-2021, burglaries were up to seven and fondling incidents up to nine. There were seven “use of force” occurrences. A typical occurrence would be a traffic stop and “a weapon seen,” so that an officer would need to draw a weapon. No ci�zen complaints were submited against officers. As required by California Penal Code Sec�on 832.5(a)(1) each department shall establish a procedure to inves�gate complaints. Through Stop Data, bias complaints are also tracked. A serious crime or inves�ga�on would be turned over to the Stockton Police Department per the MOU. The Student Counseling Center assists with student mental health needs. The Center transfers students to a hospital for serious concerns. There is a homeless liaison officer who trains fellow officers on how to deal with homeless contacts. The homeless liaison officer patrols the levee of the Calaveras River looking for homeless encampments. If an officer finds an encampment, they immediately ask the people to leave. The officer provides them with a brochure containing informa�on regarding community resources. Security is a priority on campus with hundreds of cameras in use. Sixty STRIPE students have du�es locking and checking on doors around campus. The STRIPE program is essen�ally students who are police cadets and who may go on to the academy. Recently, a STRIPE student did go on to the police training academy. They are trained on the use of golf carts and escort students safely home from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. Recruitment is a challenging issue, especially when trying to build a diverse team. The University of the Pacific Department of Public Safety finds it difficult to compete with the larger, higher-paying departments in the area. Typical candidates have been officers from other agencies looking for a slower pace before they re�re. The community atmosphere and close posi�ve connec�ons to students is seen as a posi�ve experience. A tui�on remission plan for employees and their children is a benefit that atracts officers and is an incen�ve to stay at UOP. Because UOP does not have a degree program in Criminal Jus�ce, students interested in a career in Law Enforcement must atend school elsewhere. There are plans to develop a master’s degree in criminal jus�ce that would bring more students on campus interested in law enforcement and increase the poten�al for more recruits. A new Social Services program being developed is envisioned as being a benefit to the community. University of the Pacific Public Safety Department Ride-along Observa�ons During the Grand Jury ride-along session with the UOP Police, the officer responded to a report of a person passed out in a vehicle and medical assistance for a person with breathing difficul�es. Stockton Unified School District Department of Public Safety (SUSD DPS) The Stockton Unified School District Department of Public Safety (SUSD DPS) is one of two school districts in Northern California (12 total in the State) that maintains its own police department. They receive their law enforcement authority through California Penal Code 830.32 and Educa�on Code 38000. The Department reports directly to the SUSD Superintendent of Schools. The SUSD DPS is accountable to the California Department of Jus�ce. The Department is budgeted for a staff of 40, with 26 being sworn officers. The Department works 24/7 and serves over 40,000 students, faculty, and staff at more than 60 schools in the Greater Stockton area. A School Resource Officer (SRO) is placed at every high school and the School for Adults. The Department prides itself on the posi�ve rela�onships SRO officers develop with school personnel and students, including the School for Adults (English learners), where students coming from other countries are o�en afraid of the police. SUSD DPS officers receive specialized training through the 141 Na�onal Associa�on of School Resource Officers (NASRO), including de-escala�on, crisis interven�on, and awareness of bias issues. The Department prepares for mass shoo�ngs and ac�ve shooter situa�ons through District Emergency Preparedness Training, Tac�cal Medicine Training, and Mul�-Agency Training with the Stockton Police Department, Sheriff’s Office, San Joaquin Delta College, and California State University Stanislaus Police. They par�cipate in table-top training as well as on-site drills (although scheduling those with school personnel can be difficult). A recent high school drill where the campus closed down within two to three minutes was seen as a big success. The next training drill is scheduled for November 2023. Policy 709, SUSD DPS Policy Manual Military Equipment, provides guidelines for the approval, acquisi�on, and repor�ng requirements of military equipment (Government Code Sec�ons 7070,7071, and 7072) as set forth under Assembly Bill 481 (2021). A request was made on April 4, 2023, to the SUSD Board of Trustees for the purchase of such military equipment. As noted in the policy, the decision regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should “give strong considera�on to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liber�es, and should be based on meaningful public input.” The request describes the specific equipment, necessary training, and the need to safeguard the public. Following a Department of Jus�ce Agreement in 2019 to address discriminatory treatment of minority students and students with disabili�es, SUSD DPS has worked extremely hard to establish new programs. They provide school safety through restora�ve jus�ce, youth engagement, a holis�c approach, and community involvement. A major change for the Department is the implementa�on of arrest diversion under the Deflec�on Program with arrests declining by 90%. Rather than ci�ng students and pu�ng them into the judicial system (“School-to-Prison Pipeline”), efforts are made to provide services for any non- violent offender. They receive support to mi�gate future nega�ve ac�ons. The Deflec�on Program includes screening and assessment, educa�on and tutorial services, vic�m awareness, substance use counseling, mental health treatment, crisis interven�on, family counseling, recrea�on, and sports programs. “Wrap around” services include access to community resources such as meals and support for shelter. These efforts have made SUSD DPS a role model for other school districts, who have reached out to learn about the Deflec�on Program. Programs designed to engage students with the police in posi�ve ways include the Explorer program, which provides opportuni�es for students interested in a career in law enforcement and currently has about 20 youths ages 14-21; Police Ac�vity League (PAL), which provides sports ac�vi�es; Gang Resistance Educa�on and Training (GREAT Program); Peer Leaders Uni�ng Students (PLUS); and Anger Management for Students (AMPS). The holis�c approach to school safety addresses criminal jus�ce, socioeconomic, and environmental factors that adversely affect the community. These include family and youth resource referrals, working with mental health clinicians, and also ensure the wellbeing of and support for officers. SUSD DPS supports the community’s involvement with the homeless. The Department works in collabora�on with the San Joaquin Homeless Strike Team. Students may be referred to the Spot Youth Center located at the Women’s Center for cri�cal housing needs. The Department holds 142 annual community events to benefit SUSD Families in Transi�on, including a Back-to-School Supply Drive, a Holiday Food Drive, and a Toy Drive. These and other implemented programs have had a significant impact on student success and a posi�ve view of SUSD DPS by the public. Port of Stockton Police Department At the start of a site visit in January 2023, the Director of the Port of Stockton provided the Grand Jury with a PowerPoint presenta�on and discussed the layout of the Port. A brochure, “Port of Stockton Inves�ng in Our Future, 2021 Annual Report,” and a summary sheet, “By the Numbers, Port of Stockton, California,” were provided. The Stockton Port District, more commonly known as the Port of Stockton, is a unique inland Port situated on the Delta of the San Joaquin River. As a California Special District and public en�ty, the Port offers flexible solu�ons for domes�c and interna�onal distribu�on by ship, rail, or truck. Boas�ng world-class warehouse facili�es and recent infrastructure improvements, state-of-the-art cargo handling equipment upgrades, and offering land approved for new development, The Port of Stockton has the capacity to meet a growing demand for efficient shipping. The Deputy Director provided a driving tour with detailed explana�ons and informa�on. The Grand Jurors viewed docked ships, new building projects and development, rail lines and roads, movement and storage of cargo from ships and trucks, products both export and import, private companies on the property, and historical naval buildings, such as the Lindley House (the historic Naval Commander’s house). The security of the Port was of par�cular interest. There is a Police Department at the Port, but not a fire department. In the event of a fire, the Stockton Fire Department would respond. The Port Police Department has 16 sworn officers, two for Explosive Ordinance Detec�on with a K-9 officer, a Patrol Boat Unit, eight support technicians, and one security analyst. The Port Police Department polices 4,000 acres that are cordoned off by security gates. The main gate serves as the security point for vehicle entry into the Port. There are 90 cameras on the property. Cameras are monitored and patrols are dispatched from a single loca�on at the main gate. Some of the structures on the property are not in use due to their age or safety concerns, lessening the need for patrolling those buildings. The police maintain order and security at the Port water access, road access, and railroad lines. Those who do not belong are quickly escorted off the property. There is a transient homelessness 143 problem that borders the surrounding proper�es, but due to patrolling, incidences of trespassing are low. Officers monitor the homeless that are in proximity to staging areas for railcars to avoid incidents that could hinder rail movement. The Stockton Police Department and/or the Sheriff’s Office would respond if an arrest were warranted. If there is a Homeland Security issue, the Coast Guard would respond. The Department is small but effec�ve and will have to grow as the Port is currently star�ng to develop large tracts of land for future projects. Juvenile Deten�on Facility In October 2022, the Grand Jury toured the San Joaquin County Juvenile Deten�on Facility (known also or previously as the Juvenile Deten�on Center, Juvenile Hall, and Peterson Juvenile Hall). The Deputy Chief Proba�on Officer provided an overview of the facility opera�ons. The San Joaquin County Juvenile Deten�on Facility is a minimum-security juvenile deten�on facility in French Camp. The 229-bed facility consists of the Juvenile Deten�on Hall and Camp Peterson and has been opera�onal since 1980. At the �me of the visit, the juvenile resident popula�on was about 55. Twenty-two of the residents had been involved in murders or atempted murders, many of which were gang related. With the Juvenile Jus�ce Realignment Block SB 823 changes, at the �me of the tour six older youth (over age 18) were expected to return to the facility. The Juvenile Deten�on Facility holds youth who 1) have been accused of viola�ng the law, 2) have pending court proceedings, or 3) have been commited by order of the court. When detainees arrive, they are evaluated to assess their risk to the community, others, or themselves. An assessment is conducted by educa�onal, medical, psychiatric, proba�on, and custody staff. Services provided to residents include Evidenced Based Programming (EBP), educational and vocational pathways, mentoring, structured activities, counseling services, and family engagement. The goal is to reunite youth with their family whenever possible or transition the offender to safe transitional housing, and sustainable employment. Good behavior allows more privileges such as video game time, television, food credits, additional phone and visiting time. Poor behavior results in restricted privileges. Counseling Services • Juvenile Deten�on Facility staff are available to talk with residents at all �mes. • Behavioral Health or substance use counseling is available upon request. • Proba�on Officers are available Monday through Friday. Programming/Ac�vi�es • Evidence-Based Programming (EBP) and support services. • Cogni�ve Behavioral Training (CBT) Open Group Sessions. • Ac�vi�es include arts and cra�s, table games, video games, television, and access to reading materials in the library. Educa�on The Juvenile Deten�on Facility provides school year-round, offered by the San Joaquin County Office of Educa�on (SJCOE) through one.Cruikshank, an educa�on program for the residents. Educa�on is the focus for reducing recidivism. All residents are encouraged to earn a high school diploma or further their educa�on. The facility has ini�ated a technology and business skills training program that includes computer coding and programming, a pre-appren�ce construc�on program, and an introduc�on to building trades. Forkli� training is a new program that could lead to employment opportuni�es. The staff were par�cularly proud of a new virtual reality simulator that assists students in their prepara�on for cer�fica�on. Gardening is used as a learning tool to teach math and science. An on-site kitchen is used for a culinary training program. The SJCOE provides a tutor to facilitate communica�on and assist the students. Residents who are high school graduates are encouraged to enroll in on-line classes through San Joaquin Delta College. Students iden�fied as needing an Independent Educa�onal Program (IEP) have a special program set up for them through one.Cruikshank. Students that already have an IEP from their previous school have it transferred to one.Cruikshank in one to four days. However, the Grand Jury learned the IEP may get delayed two to six weeks if students come from districts or programs outside of San Joaquin County. Students that are ini�ally iden�fied as needing an IEP program in one.Cruikshank require observa�on to understand the problem and obtain approval from a parent/guardian to develop a plan. The IEP is then developed by a team led by the school counselor and in consulta�on with the Resource Specialist Teacher or IEP specialist. Once agreed to by the parent/guardian, this plan can take up to 60 days to be finalized. The challenges are that students may not be at the Juvenile Deten�on Facility for very long, the parent/guardian may want to wait un�l the child is out of the Facility, or if the child does not want to cooperate. Although there are concerns regarding delays receiving files from students’ previous schools, and se�ng up a new program, the special educa�on staff immediately respond to students’ needs and support faculty efforts. Facility Physical Improvements Improving aesthe�cs was a major effort in the last few years and included new furniture, brightly colored walls including murals created by the residents and upgraded recrea�on areas. Work is s�ll in progress for addi�onal upgrades. Landscape Management and Construc�on Programs SJCOE has partnered with Greater Valley Conserva�on Corps to undertake a full landscaping project to include walking paths, pa�o space, new sprinkler systems, grass, trees, flower beds, and exercise space. Future plans for outdoor courtyard gardens were also described. Another program is the 145 Northern California Construc�on Training, an “out-of-custody” pre-appren�ceship program, which focuses on the building trades. Pain�ng or Murals A local ar�st is guiding residents in pain�ng murals in the recrea�on yards and in the main hallways of the ins�tu�on. The ar�st uses art therapy in working with the residents to conceptualize ideas for the artwork. Eight murals have been completed to date. Housing Placement Housing placements are based on informa�on gathered during an evalua�on of the residents. A detailed assessment is completed before placement in a unit. The evalua�on assesses mental, emo�onal, physical, sexual, age, sophis�ca�on level, safety concerns, and risk level. Classifica�on is ongoing as popula�on changes are con�nuous. Units include an open area with tables to work with staff, classrooms, and banks of bedrooms where residents are enclosed at night. One unit houses females of which there were only five at the �me of the visit. One unit was designated for younger or less sophis�cated residents, and another unit was for higher risk and older residents. Camp Peterson Camp Peterson is a separate facility within the Juvenile Jus�ce Facility that has 45 beds for male residents. It is an open dormitory se�ng, providing bunk bed dorms, a mul�-programming area, classrooms, and living area. A basketball court and outdoor areas were available to residents. Placement is earned through good behavior and is considered a reward. Dream Center The Dream Center is an incen�ve-based program providing residents fun and posi�ve ac�vi�es away from the living units. In group entertainment areas such as the Dream Center, efforts are made to provide a calm and welcoming environment showcasing resident art and crea�ve works. Residents earn incen�ve points to par�cipate in games and purchase snacks. Programs Offered Culturally Responsive Programs are held monthly to promote residents’ understanding of cultural topics and celebra�ons. A San Joaquin Delta College class emphasizes social awareness, ethnic studies, and tolerance. Family Engagement Family members are encouraged to par�cipate in programs with the juvenile residents. An atrac�ve visi�ng area was evident with a place for younger siblings to play. Staffing to cover visits could be an issue due to overall staff shortages. Camera Security A camera monitoring room was staffed by one person at a �me. The Grand Jury was told that plans for new equipment and so�ware, including mo�on-triggered cameras, were being developed. Resident and Staff Movement Security Residents were dressed in different colored shirts to iden�fy their unit. Residents were either escorted or on their own, with doors being opened and monitored by staff. Staff also radioed or called security to move through hallway doors and outside areas. Medical Services A doctor is on site once a week and a nurse is available seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. A parent can consent to COVID shots. 9-1-1 is called in an emergency. An ambulance or a staff member takes residents to the San Joaquin County Hospital. Staffing The Grand Jury met a very dedicated staff. They are extremely hard-working and seemed to work well together for the care of the residents. The Facility, however, was understaffed and has not been able to recruit or retain desired staff levels due to lower salaries compared to the County Jail, and significant restric�ons and rules regarding controlling juvenile residents. Due to the staff shortage, staff had long shi�s and at �mes double shi�s. The jobs were described as much more demanding than other custodial jobs in the County. Despite these issues the staff promoted a posi�ve and nurturing environment. Prison Rape Elimina�on Act (PREA) A PREA Coordinator is assigned to ensure compliance with PREA. At the �me of the tour, PREA posters were not readily seen in all units. PREA informa�on is published in the new Youth Handbook, dated December 7, 2022, which provides instruc�ons on how to report an incident and receive assistance. Grievance and PREA Forms A resident may bring a grievance to the unit staff or supervisor. If the grievance cannot be resolved, they may complete a writen grievance form and submit it to the Youth Advocate. They may also seek aid or advice from the Public Defender, a private atorney, the Ombudsman, or a proba�on officer. Grand Jury members did not see any forms readily available in every unit. With wri�ng instruments under control, the forms would need to be filed with the assistance of a staff member making any confiden�al grievances impossible. This is especially troubling for PREA complaints. Special Report on the Juvenile Jus�ce System and Con�nuum of Care Reform For nearly two decades, California has enacted a series of legisla�ve and voter-approved measures designed to reduce commitments of youth to the State juvenile and adult systems by reducing reliance on incarcera�on and expanding community-based op�ons for youth. To further reach this goal, the State has transferred the responsibility of managing all youth under the jurisdic�on of the juvenile courts pursuant to Welfare and Ins�tu�ons Code Sec�on 602 to local jurisdic�ons. The impact of the Division of Juvenile Jus�ce (DJJ) realignment and closure plan has been significant, leading to the elimina�on of State juvenile deten�on facili�es and an increase in the number of youths compe�ng for out-of-home care or into county juvenile deten�on facili�es. However, the plan has also faced challenges, including limited resources and funding for the 147 development of local programs and facili�es, as well as concerns over the quality of care and services provided to youth in these programs. Realignment transfers responsibility for managing all youthful offenders from the State to local jurisdic�ons. Under SB 823, new commitments of juvenile offenders ceased a�er June 30, 2021. Youth adjudicated but not delivered to DJJ prior to July 1, 2021, will s�ll be accepted. Limited excep�ons apply per SB 823. Under SB 823, chapter 337 (statutes of 2020), juvenile offenders cannot be commited to DJJ a�er July 1, 2021, unless a youth who is otherwise eligible to be commited under exis�ng law and in whose case a mo�on to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdic�on was filed. If an eligible youth is commited a�er July 1, 2021, DJJ will process acceptance through current procedures. Youth adjudicated on or before June 30, 2021, will s�ll be accepted and will be subject to the county fee in effect on the date of adjudica�on. SB 92 sets a defined closure date of June 30, 2023, for all DJJ facili�es. This builds on the State’s commitment to provide more treatment and rehabilita�ve services for youth closer to home. SB 823 has repealed previous legisla�on, moving the DJJ into the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS) as the Office of Youth and Community Restora�on (OYCR). DJJ implemented the phased closure of its facili�es. The decision to close certain housing units or en�re facili�es was driven by the desire to eliminate incarcera�ons. Although Juvenile Jus�ce Reform and Foster Care Reform took divergent paths, both are rooted in the belief that youth are best served and have the best outcome when they remain in the community in family-based care. Unintended consequences of Juvenile Jus�ce Reform added difficul�es in placing youth in foster care. It could, however, be mi�gated by greater efforts commited to youth programs. As part of CCR, group homes were replaced with Short-Term Residen�al Therapeu�c Programs (STRTP) intended to serve children and youth whose challenging behaviors and significant emo�onal and developmental needs created barriers to placement in family-based care. This new STRTP license category required providers to obtain na�onal accredita�on, meet Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) mental health standards, procure a contract with a County Mental Health Plan (MHP), and implement trauma-informed care. STRTPs were quickly overwhelmed by a licensing and compliance focus and a glaring lack of coordina�on between the coun�es throughout California and the Department of Social Services (DSS) and DHCS—the two State Departments entrusted to oversee the implementa�on of this level of care. According to the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, this uncoordinated approach has resulted in: • Regula�ons that are redundant, conflic�ng, and in some cases superfluous. • Regula�on and funding methods that compartmentalize the mental health and “care and supervision” components of integrated 24/7 treatment. • Minimal direc�on to placing agencies (coun�es) regarding the type and intensity of mental health services indicated for youth in STRTP. • Failure to conform to the mental health contrac�ng condi�ons that differ significantly across coun�es. 148 • Flawed assump�ons about occupancy rates and mental health revenue, resul�ng in financially under-resourced STRTP. • Lack of considera�on for the cri�cal role of educa�on in a short-term residen�al treatment se�ng. • Complete disregard of financial resources and regulatory direc�on to fund and facilitate a�ercare and transi�ons as a cri�cal component of STRTPs. Appendix: Bibliography or Sources Reviewed Materials Reviewed • By the Numbers, Port of Stockton, California. Summary sheet. • Leathley, Aaron. Another Op�on: Stockton care team on the streets full-�me to help with crises. Stockton Record, February 19, 2023, p. 1. • Port of Stockton Investing in Our Future, 2021 Annual Report. • PowerPoint Presenta�ons from the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office, Escalon PD, Lathrop PD, Lodi PD, Manteca PD, Ripon PD, Stockton PD, Tracy PD, San Joaquin County Juvenile Deten�on, Stockton Unified School District Department of Public Safety, and The Port of Stockton. • San Joaquin County, Juvenile Deten�on Facility, Youth Handbook, rev. 12/07/2022. • Stockton Unified School District. 2022 Annual Report AB48a, Military Equipment Use Report, March 2023. • Stockton Unified School District. Department of Public Safety. Stockton USD PD Policy Manual. Policy 709 Military Equipment. Draft c Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/08. • Tracy Police Department: Handout documents given to the Grand Jury during the presenta�on dated October 27, 2022, describing the overview and response to topics and Tracy UCR Part I Crime index 2020 and 2019 Comparison sta�s�cs. Websites Visited • California Department of Justice, Stockton Unified School District Enter into Agreement to Address Discriminatory Treatment of Minority Students and Students with Disabilities. htps://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-department-jus�ce-stockton-unified- school-district-enter-agreement. Accessed March 30, 2023. • California Legislative Information. Bill Text - SB-823 Juvenile jus�ce realignment: Office of Youth and Community Restora�on. (ca.gov). Accessed March 7, 2023. • California Legisla�ve Informa�on. Juvenile Jus�ce 2020-2022. Senate Bill No. 92. htps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB92. Accessed March 9, 2022. • Escalon Police Department htps://escalon.hosted.civiclive.com/government/departments/police. Accessed February 27, 2023 • ‘A Game Changer’ Drones take off at Manteca Police Department. tps://www.abc10.com/ar�cle/news/a-game-changer-drones-take-off-at-manteca-pd/103- 0e9b9df6-1d98-475b-bb26-967da127b55e. Accessed March 5, 2023. • Leathley, Aaron. Bike officers, others reassigned amid Stockton Police staff shortages, union says. htps://www.recordnet.com/story/news/local/2023/03/30/stockton-police- department-facing-staffing-woesunion-says/70042359007/. Accessed April 2, 2023. • Manteca Police Department. htps://www.manteca.gov/departments/police-department. Accessed February 27, 2023. 150 • Manteca Police Department Mission Statement. htp://connect2agencies.com/agency/manteca-police-department. Accessed February 28, 2023. • Port of Stockton. htps://www.portofstockton.com/. Accessed January 28, 2022 • POST Training academies. htps://post.ca.gov/basic-training-academies. Accessed February 25, 2023. • Ripon Police Department. htps://ripond.org. Accessed February 28, 2023. • San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office. htps://sjsheriff.org/ Website viewed February 17, 2023. • San Joaquin County Jail. htps://sjsheriff.org/. Accessed February 17, 2023. • Stockton Police Department. htp://ww1.stocktonca.gov/Departments/Police. Accessed February 16, 2023. • Stockton Police Department. Strategic Plan. 2020-2022. • SPD-Strategic-Plan-2020_2022-Final-Dra�.pdf (stocktonca.gov). Accessed March 25, 2023. • SUSD Board of Trustees. April 4, 2023, Regular Board Meeting. htp://go.board.docs.com/ca/susd/Board.nsf/vpublic?open. Accessed April 10, 2023. • SUSD Department of Public Safety. htps://www.stocktonusd.net/Page/333. Accessed March 30, 2023. • Tracy Police Department. htps//www.cityo�racy.org/our-city/departments/police- department Accessed November 11, 2022. • University of the Pacific Public Safety htps://www.pacific.edu/student-life/safety- wellness/public-safety. Accessed November 12, 2022. • U. S. Department of Jus�ce. Open Government/Open Data. htps://www.jus�ce.gov/open/open-data. Accessed March 13, 2023. 151 152 SECTION 4: FOLLOW-UP Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash Case #0519 .................................................... San Joaquin County: A Fragmented COVID-19 Response Case #0120 .................................................... Independent Special Districts: Transparency “Not Found” Case #0220 .................................................... Stockton Unified School District: A Failing Grade in Public Trust Case #0121 .................................................... San Joaquin County and Its Seven Ci�es: Cybersecurity: Local Defense Against a Global Threat Case #0321 .................................................... Lathrop-Manteca Fire District: A Work in Progress: From Turmoil to Healing Case #0721 .................................................... 153 154 Follow-up Report to the ) Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash Case #0519 Preface This report contains a continuation of the responses to the 2019-2020 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding illegal dumping in San Joaquin County. The 2022-2023 Grand Jury reviewed the agency responses to the 2021-2022 Grand Jury follow-up recommendations. Conclusions are presented after the agency responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2022-2023 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses are found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/. Summary The 2019-2020 Grand Jury investigated the complex issue of illegal dumping in San Joaquin County. The investigation produced multiple findings and recommendations, requiring responses from the County Board of Supervisors and the City of Stockton. The City of Stockton responded with their willingness to participate in all the recommendations. Their participation, however, depended upon San Joaquin County developing and mobilizing an illegal dumping task force. It is possible that the outbreak of the COVID pandemic had a direct impact on the ability of the County to fulfill the recommendations of the Grand Jury. The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple attempts to obtain verification of the task force formation, as well as resolution of the recommendations. Only the recommendation of the assignment of an Administrative Hearing Officer for code enforcement was fulfilled. All other recommendations remained unsatisfied. The 2021-2022 Grand Jury verified that the task force was created and held several meetings to discuss the issue of illegal dumping in the County. Other recommendations were also fulfilled, but several remained unresolved. The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined that recommendations R1, R2, and R3 from the 2021-2022 Grand Jury follow-up report have either been sufficiently implemented or are nearly complete in the implementation plan for monitoring cameras and codifying enforcement. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2022-2023 Grand Jury reviewed the original 2019-2020 report and the follow-up responses to report #0519, Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash. The Grand Jury interviewed a member of the Board of Supervisors and reviewed the responses to the findings and recommendations to determine: • if the agency’s responses were complete and comprehensible; • if the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • if confirmation was necessary. Confirmation could include written documentation, interviews, or site inspections. Glossary • CDD: Community Development Department • County: San Joaquin County • GORequest: San Joaquin County website to report service requests • Rec #: Recommenda�on number • 3 E’s Plan: Comprehensive plan to address illegal dumping • CRU: Community Revitaliza�on Unit • CCU: Community Car Unit Summary of Responses and 2022-2023 Grand Jury Conclusions. 2021-2022 2022-2023 Grand Jury Conclusion Respondent Response Rec # Rec # Due Date Conclusion SJC Board of Will be R1 R1 September 30, 2022 No further ac�on Supervisors implemented SJC Board of R2 Will be R2 September 30, 2022 No further ac�on Supervisors implemented SJC Board of R3 Will be R3 September 30, 2022 No further ac�on Supervisors implemented 156 2021-2022 Findings, Recommendations, and Agency Responses Board of Supervisors 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1: Because the County has not created a strong, enforceable ordinance, illegal dumping continues without consequences. Agency Response: Agree. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By September 30, 2022, the Board of Supervisors adopts an enforceable ordinance to deter illegal dumping. This ordinance will include a mechanism for collecting fines, an appeals process, and a way to recoup the cost of administration from the illegal dumpers. Agency Response: Will be implemented. A draft ordinance will be agendized for introduction to the Board of Supervisors on August 23, 2022, and for adoption on September 13, 2022. If adopted the ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption. The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to protect public and private property from illegal dumping, to hold any person that takes actions that substantially contribute to illegal dumping accountable, to deter illegal dumping and to mitigate the harms that the County has found are caused by illegal dumping. Ordinance provisions prohibit all illegal dumping and, among other things, make vehicle or trailer owners liable if their vehicle or trailer is used for illegal dumping with the express or implied permission of the owner. For example, if the County Sheriff’s Office gets video of an identifiable vehicle or trailer, even if they cannot identify the driver, they can take action against the vehicle/trailer owner. This is to address situations in which residents obtained video of vehicles dumping waste, but authorities could not take enforcement action because they could not identify the driver. Further, the proposed ordinance is going to the Board of Supervisors as part of an illegal dumping mitigation plan called the “3 E’s Plan” to address Illegal Dumping. The Plan will be carried out by the County’s Illegal Dumping Task Force, which will report back to the Board of Supervisors on the effectiveness of the Plan, including the ordinance if it is adopted, in one-year. A draft ordinance is complete and will be part of an illegal dumping mitigation package proposed for approval to the Board of Supervisors by early summer of 2022. The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2: San Joaquin County still lacks the capability to monitor dumping hotspots and to prosecute illegal dumpers. Agency Response: Partially disagree. The County disagrees that it still lacks the capability to monitor dumping hotspots; however, agrees that the County still lacks the capability to prosecute illegal dumpers. 157 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By September 30, 2022, approves a plan to effectively monitor the surveillance camera. Agency Response: Will be implemented. On August 23, 2022, the County Board of Supervisors will consider the “3 E’s Plan” to address Illegal Dumping, which includes the posting and monitoring of surveillance cameras. The Plan proposed to be carried out by the County’s Illegal Dumping Task Force, includes action items relating to education, enforcement, and eradication. As part of the plan to implement robust enforcement, including the adoption of a new ordinance prohibiting illegal dumping, the County’s Sheriff’s Office, with assistance and funding to the Public Works Department, will be as follows: A. Video surveillance using cellular fed cameras equipped with a notification system, will be used to monitor dumping hot spots, and send notifications when movement is detected. Data will be stored in the system’s cloud database and accessible to download and memorialize for investigational purposes. B. The Sheriff’s Office Community Revitalization Unit (CRU) and the Community Car Unit (CCU) will proactively identify and investigate illegal dumping issues with the County. i. CRU consists of eight specially trained Deputies to address the quality-of-life issues surrounding illegal dumping and homelessness. ii. CCU designates a Deputy to be assigned to a smaller area within the County to establish close relationship and address issues within the community. C. Sheriff’s Office will provide training to all sworn Deputies to educate them on how to effectively enforce the ordinance from a call-for-service model. D. The Strategic Intelligence Unit will collect data on reports of illegal dumping, issued citations, deployment of Sheriff’s Office resources, and other relevant data to evaluate the effectiveness of the illegal dumping ordinance. E. The Sheriff’s Office and other County departments, including but not limited to Public Works, Community Development, Environmental Health, and County Administrator’s Office, will conduct continuous evaluation and review of the effectiveness of the Sheriff’s Office response and deployment strategy to modify enforcement strategies as needed. 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3: Regional limitations prevent each jurisdiction from sharing the specific costs of cleanup outside of its respective boundaries. These limitations make a coordinated response difficult. Agency Response: Agree. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: By September 30, 2022, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors develop and adopt a plan to equitably share costs for illegal dumping removal throughout the County. Agency Response: Will be implemented. Illegal dumping and its negative effects do not stop at City borders, but no single jurisdiction has the funding to tackle it. Further, there are legal limitations on the use of certain funds across jurisdictional boundaries. Accordingly, on August 23, 2022, the County Board of Supervisors will consider the “3 E’s Plan” to address Illegal Dumping, which includes specific direction to staff to work cooperatively with the 7 cities within the County to propose development of consistent regulatory frameworks and joint education, eradication, and enforcement measures. The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1(a), and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). 159 160 Follow-up Report to the 2020-2021 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury San Joaquin County: A Fragmented COVID-19 Response Case #0120 se #0120Fragmented COVID-19 Response Preface This report contains the responses to the 2020-2021 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report, “A Fragmented COVID-19 Response.” This follow-up report focuses on the 2020-2021 Grand Jury findings and recommendations and the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors’ responses, which are presented verbatim in this report. The 2022-2023 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s responses to each recommendation. Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2022-2023 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black. Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/ Summary The 2020-2021 Grand Jury investigated the County’s overall capabilities, preparedness, and response to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigation was initiated following a presentation by County staff outlining their capabilities and response to this health crisis. Findings and recommendations were made regarding: • the County’s Public Health Service organizational structure; • the development, testing, and implementation of plans and procedures to address future public health emergencies; 161 • written clarification of policies for placement and utilization of personnel designated as disaster service workers; and • the development and implementation of written policies with definitive procedures requiring all County employees who may be called upon to perform disaster service work to be trained annually on the County’s Emergency Operation Plan. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current Grand Jury reviewed the original 2020-2021 report Case #0120, “A Fragmented COVID- 19 Response,” and the follow-up report of the 2021-2022 Grand Jury. The mandatory responses from the Board of Supervisors to the findings and recommendations were reviewed to determine the following: • if the agency’s responses were complete and comprehensible; • if the agency would implement the recommenda�ons within the stated deadlines; and • if confirma�on was necessary. Confirma�on could include writen documenta�on, interviews, or site inspec�ons. Glossary • BOS: Board of Supervisors • CAO: Administrator’s Office • COVID-19: Coronavirus disease • EMSA: Emergency Medical Services Agency • EOC: Emergency Operation Center • EOP: Emergency Operations Plan • OES: Office of Emergency Services • Tabletop Exercise: Discussion-based sessions where team members meet in an informal classroom setting to discuss their roles during an emergency and their responses to a particular emergency. A facilitator guides participants through a discussion of one or more scenarios. Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results 1.0 Overall Lack of Coordination & Collaboration 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F1.3: When Public Health Services took over management of the COVID-19 response, communication and coordination between departments failed, which delayed the process of curtailing the spread of the COVID-19 Virus. Agency Response: Partially Agree. Due to COVID-19 gathering protocols, all in person meetings were eliminated and many government staff teleworked. This created another 162 unprecedented issue for the EOC. While some methods were in place for webinars and conference calls, not all agencies or staff had access or experience in this method. This required additional modifications to the EOC operations, where key leadership EOC positions were filled virtually, creating coordination issues as well. The various phases of the pandemic caused new direction and communication constantly, sometimes every few days, by way of the State and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The dynamic of this pandemic and information changing rapidly would seem like information was not received timely or coordinated. The majority of the time this was out of the County's control, and methods for communicating would be altered to meet the needs of the current situation. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: By June 1, 2022, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors approve the Office of Emergency Services written policy with procedures and practical application exercises, requiring annual testing of the overall coordination, effectiveness, and application of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan, including its Emergency Support Function Annexes. Agency Response: Will be implemented. A written policy with procedures will be developed, however may not be approved by the Board of Supervisors before June 1, 2022. It should be noted here that the County Disaster Council, as chaired by the Director of Emergency Services is empowered by County Ordinance (Title 4, Division 3, Chapter 1, 4-3003 & 4-3007) to review and approve emergency and mutual aid plans developed by the Director of Emergency Operations in cooperation with the Chiefs of Emergency Services. Once the policy and procedures are approved, the Office of Emergency Services will ensure the Grand Jury receives a copy. The Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan (MYTEP) and Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) were completed and updated in October 2021. The EOP was approved by the Disaster Council, department heads, and the Board of Supervisors in January 2022 (R-22-15). The MYTEP transitioned to the Integrated Preparedness Plan in late 2022. The training and exercise program outlined in this plan will assist the County and stakeholders in developing and meeting training and exercise objectives. This plan is supported by County Policy 1911 – Emergency Operations Training adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 24, 2023 (B-23-31). The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.4: By October 1, 2022, Office of Emergency Services conduct the first assessment of the overall coordina�on, effec�veness, and applica�on of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Opera�ons Plan, and its Emergency Support Func�on Annexes using prac�cal applica�on exercises and report their findings and recommenda�ons to the Board of Supervisors. Agency Response: Will be implemented. The recommendation will be implemented but potentially not before October 1, 2022. While workshops, drills, tabletops, functional and 163 full-scale exercises are typically the method for assessing the coordination and effectiveness of emergency plans, an After-Action Report and Improvement Plan (AAR/IP) is the final requirement for any exercise. The EOP identifies this requirement consistent with the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program, which provides tools to develop, conduct, and evaluate such exercises. The AAR/IP is a collaboration of all participants and identifies actions taken, necessary modifications to plans and procedures, training needs, and recovery activities to date. The EOP outlines that the completed AAR/IP will be distributed to County leadership and Department Heads of the end of the event. The MYTEP outlines the plan of action, and the AAR/IP documents strengths and weaknesses of the exercises. The Emergency Operations Plan was approved by the Disaster Council, department heads, and the Board of Supervisors in January 2022 (R-22-15). A functional full- scale regional flood exercise was conducted in August 2022, and an Improvement Plan was developed. On December 13, 2022, the Board of Supervisors accepted and approved the COVID-19 Emergency After-Action Report and Improvement Plan. The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 4.0 Inadequate Public Health Emergency Response Capabili�es 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F4.1: The lack of understanding of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Opera�ons Plan delayed a collabora�ve and coordinated response necessary to meet the requirements outlined in the Public Health Emergency Preparedness agreement. Agency Response: Partially agree. The County partially agrees with this finding, which identifies opportunities for improving leadership, collaboration, and coordination in