📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
Can an Electronic Monitoring Program for Pre-Trial Detainees Help to Reduce Jail Overcrowding?
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 11 findings
F1
The San Mateo County men’s jail has been overcrowded each year since 2001. Over the last ten years, incarcerated populations have ranged from 120% of bed-rated capacity in 2002 to 147% in 2007.21
F2
From 2002 through 2007, 50 percent of the average daily population of the San Mateo County men’s jail facility consisted of pre-trial detainees (PTDs); since 2007, the pre- trial detainee (PTD) average daily population percentage has steadily increased to 76 percent in 2011.
F3
San Mateo County has zero (0) pre-trial detainees on an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) and nine (9) pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees on an EMP.
F4
The Grand Jury found that significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day is available if selected pre-trial detainees are released into an EMP.
F5
Currently, there is a risk assessment tool in use to determine eligibility for EMP with pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees. This risk assessment tool is not used with pre-trial detainees. Sheriff’s Office Information: San Mateo County Sentenced vs. Pretrial in Custody Inmate Population Percentage. 8
F6
Based on the U.S. Department of Justice adult male arrest data provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, the violent crime index in the county has remained relatively stable from 2001-2009.
F7
According to information gathered from interviews conducted by the Grand Jury, the reasons for the increase in the pre-trial detainee male jail population (compared to pre- sentenced/sentenced detainees) in recent years are due to two main factors: • The types of charges that detainees increasingly face (immigration holds, gang affiliation, violent crimes, sex crimes, DUIs, outstanding warrants) are offenses that eliminate eligibility for any form of release. • To comply with the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), in 2008 the Sheriff’s Office changed its classification system for parole holds and others with pending cases or warrants from sentenced to pre-trial. This increased the pre-trial detainee population by 10-15%.22
F8
The statistics reported by the U.S. Department of Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics (see, Appendix B) from data provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office do not support the first factor listed in Finding #7.23
F9
The Sheriff’s Office and the Probation Department have not budgeted for studying or implementing an EMP for pre-trial detainees.
F10
Elsewhere EMPs for PTDs have been implemented to varying degrees: • Santa Cruz and Santa Clara have purchased their own ankle bracelets and related equipment. • Santa Cruz and Sacramento have an active budget for EMP expansion and Pre- trial Services. • Santa Clara has one PTD on EMP; Santa Cruz has 25 PTDs on EMP; and Sacramento’s EMP program for PTDs begins May 2012. • Santa Cruz is a member of the California Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS) and uses the Virginia Assessment tool to determine eligibility of PTDs for EMP. • San Mateo County spends $7-10 (not including monitoring, supervision costs) per day on EMP for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees versus a $169 daily incarceration cost. Interview with Sheriff’s Office staff from ASB on March 7, 2012 23 U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, FBI, Uniform Crime Reporting Program; Date of Version: September 2011 9
F11
Substantial literature exists for the study and guidance of non-incarceration options, eligibility guidelines, EMP applications, best-practices, etc. (See, Appendix D) Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes:
Recommendations 11
-
R1The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office: Conduct an objective analysis and issue a report regarding the feasibility of an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) for selected pre-trial detainees. Include: eligibility and risk assessment program, comparative costs versus incarceration, societal risks and benefits; and potential reduction of jail overcrowding.
-
R2The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office: Should the objective analysis and the results of the report indicate that an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees be feasible, prepare an implementation plan to expand EMP for pre-trial detainees for full implementation This process will include: • A review of the available literature and best-practices in adjoining counties and elsewhere for possible application in the County’s expansion of EMP for pre-trial detainees. 10 • Implementation of a risk assessment tool, such as the Virginia Risk Assessment, for determining defendant eligibility for EMP for pre-trial detainees. 11
-
R3Of incarcerated PTDs, what types of charges are they facing? Using the list below, please rank the following nine charges from most frequent to least frequent with 1 being the most and 9 being the least. • immigration/other holds ________ • gang affiliation ________ • violent crimes ________ • multiple/ repeats ________ • sex crimes ________ • outstanding warrants ________ • DUI ________ • drug offences/trafficking ________ • other serious offenses ________
-
R4Of the total PTDs, what percentage face charges other than those listed above and are eligible for an electronic monitoring program (EMP)? ________
-
R5What is the approximate cost ($ / day / person) to sustain a PTD in your EMP? ________. Please include all direct and indirect costs (vendors fees, supervision, enforcement response, other functions' support, monitoring, administration, etc).
-
R6What is the equivalent, comparative approximate cost ($ / day / person) to keep a PTD incarcerated? ________. Please consider all direct and indirect costs.
-
R7Please provide copies or links to your public policies regarding eligibility criteria and processes for administering your EMP programs, especially those that might be relevant to PTDs.
-
R8How many PTDs are currently in your EMP? ________ How many total convicts (tried and sentenced) are in your EMP? ________
-
R9Do you have active, budgeted plans to expand EMP? ________ for only PDTs? ________
-
R10[OPTIONAL] Please provide any comments regarding other aspects of expanded utilization of EMP for PTDs, such as: • beneficial results re recidivism, re-entry, family, restitution opportunities, medical cost savings etc • opportunity to substantially reduce prison overcrowding • legal liability exposure or control restrictions, when releasing PTDs into EMP • citizens' safety concerns • added infra-structure and support costs, need for staff training/organization • other Thank you for taking the time to answer this survey. NONE OF YOUR RESPONSES WILL BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU OR YOUR SPECIFIC COUNTY. If you wish to receive a copy of our final published report, please note on your returned responses and we will forward a copy to you. 14
-
R11Substantial literature exists for the study and guidance of non-incarceration options, eligibility guidelines, EMP applications, best-practices, etc. (See,