Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2023-2024
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (71)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Underfunding the road and culvert maintenance work on the 586 miles of County roads in unincorporated Santa Cruz County for more than four decades has created a backlog of deferred maintenance currently exceeding ¾ of a billion dollars which creates a hazard for residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by December 31, 2024 which shows the prioritization of culvert and drainage ditch maintenance in order to help prevent road washouts that are more costly to repair. (F1, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
F2:
Due to the large shortfall in funding, Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works adheres to the accepted practice promoted by the Federal Highway Administration and RTC of prioritizing pavement preservation over pavement restoration. Much of the public lacks awareness of this practice in the absence of a formally documented policy which impacts voter choices.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F3:
The County road maintenance strategy differs by Supervisorial District leading to inconsistent road repair expectations among districts. This lack of a coordinated strategy leaves residents frustrated and with a sense of unfair treatment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F4:
Storms of 2017 and 2023 caused significant road failures. Contributing factors were inadequate culvert, drainage ditch, and road surface maintenance which led to culvert failures and full road washouts leaving residents stranded or incurring significant delay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F5:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to ask unincorporated County voters to increase the funding of the Special District 9D (1-3) road assessment fee since its inception in 1988, which has resulted in a drastic loss of revenue for maintaining County roads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by December 31, 2024 which shows the prioritization of culvert and drainage ditch maintenance in order to help prevent road washouts that are more costly to repair. (F1, F5)
F6:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to perform resurfacing maintenance on many of the smaller unincorporated local roads, resulting in higher failure rates and at least a 10 times increased maintenance cost when and if those roads are resurfaced.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO detailing expenditures in each of the three zones of CSA 9D for the years 2020-2023 by October 31, 2024. (F6, F10)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area 9 Service and Sphere of Influence Review incorporating detailed data of expenditures for each 9D zone by March 15, 2025. (F6, F10)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors should begin the process necessary to increase the funding in CSA 9D to an amount in line with what is needed to reduce the backlog of very poor and failed road repairs by December 31, 2024. (F6)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors take steps necessary to add a consumer price index increase to CSA 9D, as allowed by law, by December 31, 2024. (F6)
F7:
Santa Cruz County's neglect of unincorporated local roads for many decades has led to an average Pavement Condition Index of less than 48 (as of 2019) which is 17 points below the statewide average. With the current funding level, it is projected to be 38 in 2024, and it is further projected to drop to 33 by 2028 which will leave the County in a position to experience higher catastrophic road failures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F8:
The County prioritizes preventive maintenance of roads in fair to good condition over road repair and reconstruction due to limited discretionary funds. As a result, many residents in local road areas will have to contend with very poor/failed roads into the foreseeable future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
F9:
The most recent LAFCO and County reports fail to provide detailed accounting of how 9D funds are being spent. The result is that taxpayers lack the information to ensure that generated funds are being used appropriately.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F10:
Minor progress has been made in seeking and securing additional funding sources. The additional funding is far short of what is needed to maintain and repair the road network. Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 15
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO detailing expenditures in each of the three zones of CSA 9D for the years 2020-2023 by October 31, 2024. (F6, F10)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area 9 Service and Sphere of Influence Review incorporating detailed data of expenditures for each 9D zone by March 15, 2025. (F6, F10)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11)
F11:
Measure K funds go directly into the General Fund and road maintenance funding expenditures are only recommended. This may allow the funding to go to other needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11)
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice to prepare for reentry would show positive improvement to public safety and a reduction in recidivism for reentering inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a comprehensive plan to increase the number of programs that steer inmates towards reentry into the community with new job skills development, education, work release and transitional programs. (F12) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 74 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
F17:
By not filling essential positions for months at a time, services for residents suffer harm when vacancies persist.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-20:
hours a day. According to answers given by Wellpath on 02/13/2024 in a Request for Proposal - Vendor Report to the County, many staffing positions are currently vacant including:[26] ● One Mental Health Coordinator ● Two full time Mental Health Clinicians ● Three full time Registered Nurses ● Four full time Licensed Vocational Nurses Some notable numbers from the report: ● Average daily # of detox patients - 12 ● Average daily # of combined segregation inmates - 25-30 ● Percentage of inmate population on medication - 65 ● Percentage of inmate population on psych medication - 68 ● Percentage of inmate population who are Severely Mentally Ill - 12 The Grand Jury is concerned with these crisis-level numbers. The workload appears to be a problem, given the vacancies of medical and mental health staff. Reducing staffing level caseloads is not the whole answer, but it is a crucial element to the question of whether inmates with mental illness are being provided with the required level of care. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 62 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury A recent Santa Cruz Criminal Justice report, as well as statements by jail staff and the Health Inspector, have all expressed concerns about Wellpath‘s high turnover of staff and the fact that they only provide coverage for eighteen hours a day.[27] [31] While someone is always a call away, the overall effectiveness of mental health services by Wellpath is inadequate to the needs of inmates. This adversely affects inmates’ mental health treatment.[3] [31] While medical staff are away, the mental health needs of the inmates are in the care of correctional staff. Because they have very limited medical training it could lead to inappropriate mental health care decisions.[32] Solitary Confinement and Use of a Safety Cell ● Formerly known as Solitary confinement, “Administrative Separation” (AD-Sep) or Modified Schedule is the physical separation of an incarcerated person from the general jail population.[33] ● The Main Jail has three Safety Cells that are video monitored 24 hours a day with 15-minute visual checks by the correctional staff - not Wellpath. There are an average of 36 inmate/patients placed on suicide watch per month.[34] ● Incarcerated individuals in and out of AD-Sep are provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week.[35] ● Safety Cells are used in the Main Jail if a risk assessment deems the inmate is a danger to themselves or others, is making suicidal statements, as punishment for not following the rules, or is having a mental health crisis requiring a 5150 hold while waiting to transfer to a mental health facility.[22] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] ● On February 28, 2024 there were forty-three (43) inmates on a Modified Schedule and for all of 2022, 321 were separated from the rest of the inmate population.[49] [50] Medical and Mental Health Treatment in the Jail People in the criminal legal system often have a background of trauma and poverty as well as acute health needs. One-quarter have serious mental illness, many have multiple physical health conditions, and 60% of California incarcerated people have substance use disorders.[51] Through jail tours and interviews with staff, the Grand Jury learned that the Main Jail, while not a certified mental healthcare facility, houses many mentally ill inmates. The Grand Jury reviewed two years of reports that review medical health care in the Jail. The reports are conducted annually and are from the County Public Health officer to the Sheriff’s office. The inspections were conducted by an expert with over twenty (20) years experience in reviewing and assessing Title 15 state-mandated medical conditions within county jails.[52] The inspector noted that the jails were in good compliance with regulations except for several significant deficiencies identified in this report.[37] [38] [53] [54] [55] We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 63 Among the deficiencies noted were: ● Failure to prepare Health Service Audits ● Improper use of Safety Cells ● Lack of Mental Health Services and Transfer to Treatment Facilities ● Insufficient Informed Consent ● Over-prescription of Psychotropic Medications The following sections expand on the deficiencies noted above. Health Service Audits According to Title 15 the health authority shall develop and implement a written plan for annual statistical summaries of healthcare and pharmaceutical services that are provided by the Jail.[56] Based on information from these audits, the health authority shall provide the facility administrator with an annual written report on healthcare and pharmaceutical services delivered.[53] [57] Wellpath has not prepared Health Service Audits for several years. The absence of these reports, with essential data concerning the quality of care, is an obstacle to developing steps to increase inmate safety. It also hinders efforts to improve inmate health. The Jail Quality Improvement committee needs these audits to conduct valuable data analysis for data-driven medical care improvements. Also, when all jail medical staff are involved with data gathering, they can provide input and suggestions which in turn promote good morale.[54] Ad-Sep and the Improper Use of a Safety Cell Being incarcerated, even for those in good mental health, is associated with subsequent depression and bipolar disorder and has been documented that it can worsen mental health.[58] An incarcerated person may be isolated from the rest of the inmates in their own cell, or in some cases in a Safety Cell. Generally, Ad-Sep means spending 22 to 23 hours per day in a single cell, usually about the size of an elevator, and are only required to be provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 64 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Figure 6: A sobering cell on the left and a safety cell on the right. Photo courtesy of Ashley Keehn.[59] [60] According to The health Inspection Report citing California Title 15 section 1209 regulations governing jails, as well as the Sheriff’s own policies and procedures state, “in no case shall the safety cell be used for punishment or as a substitute for Mental Health treatment.”[40] [61] The Grand Jury has learned through reviewing relevant reports and conducting interviews that inmates are put in Safety Cells for numerous reasons including, but not limited to: ● Breaking the rules[41] [43] ● Threatening to hurt themselves and others[38] [41] [62] ● Having a Mental Health Crisis[41] Documented evidence provided to the Grand Jury revealed that inmates were held in Safety Cells for days.[37] [38] [39] [39] [40] Do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for months or even years at a time? That is not going to make us safer. That’s not going to make us stronger. And if those individuals are ultimately released, how are they ever going to adapt? It’s not smart. Barack Obama, 2015[63] The number 5150 is the section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code that evaluates adults who are deemed to be a danger to others, himself or herself, or are gravely disabled. A 5150 hold allows an adult to be involuntarily detained for 72 hours in We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 65 a psychiatric hospital or clinic.[36] Santa Cruz has one (1) psychiatric clinic. Patients do not have to be treated in a psychiatric hospital, a clinic is sufficient. They also could be treated at the Emergency department at Dominican until transferred to an LPS facility. To meet a 5150 hold criteria in the jail, the inmate must display suicidal thoughts as determined by a jail medical provider or, absent that, by the correctional officer in charge. However, it has been the practice in our jails to only initiate a 5150 hold immediately prior to release from the jail. Once a 5150 hold is issued you must transfer the inmate to a mental health facility for care. Waiting until discharge to initiate a 5150 hold means inmates may be held in Safety Cells for long periods of time. Use of a 5150 hold by the Sheriff's office numbered more than twenty-six (26) per month in 2022 and there were 321 such holds in 2022, according to the Sheriff’s statistics.[50] In the report, the Health Inspector’s main concern was the use of Safety Cells, and they spoke directly to the mental health professional in charge to determine if correct Title 15 procedures were being followed. According to the report, medical and jail staff were not using correct procedures.[64] This deficiency is closely related to the misuse of giving required mental health care services. It also is related to the proper procedures for transferring inmates to a mental health facility. Mental health care is provided in what are called LPS treatment facilities and are explained below.[44] To read more Safety Cell information see
R81-29:
to make the prevention of rape and domestic violence one of its highest priorities. In 2023, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted a Five Year Strategic Plan. The Plan makes no mention of rape and domestic violence. Over the past decade, the City’s Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women has failed to provide the City Council with solid Annual Reports that document City, community, and police efforts to prevent rape and domestic violence. Recent reports have either included no data or limited data. The 2023 CPVAW Joint Report has no metrics on important trends such as whether the City of Santa Cruz still has a higher than average rate of rapes by strangers. What areas of the city were the crimes committed in? Have there been arrests? Long-standing Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network of local businesses are currently idle. This year the Santa Cruz City Schools District canceled the Commission’s popular self-defense classes for middle and high school students. The in-person classes are being replaced with an online self-esteem video. The City has ended the Commission’s thirty five-year access to redacted police reports of rape and domestic violence. These reports enabled the Commission to evaluate police response, respond to complaints and recommend training if needed. The Grand Jury submits its findings and recommendations to bring the City of Santa Cruz into compliance with City Ordinance 81-29. The personal safety and well-being of the community is at stake. Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence published June 27, 2024 408 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Table of Contents Summary 1 Table of Contents 2 Background 3 Scope and Methodology 3 Investigation 4 History Of Commission Work 4 Decline in Report Quality and Frequency 5 Metrics On Reported Rape in the City 6 Commission Programs and Resources 8 Self-Defense 9 Cuts to Self-Defense 9 Safe Place Network 10 Bar Coasters 11 Banners 12 Measuring the City’s Support 13 Not In the City Five Year Strategic Plan 13 Decline In Dedicated Staffing 13 Ongoing Budget Reductions 14 Loss Of Visible Location 14 Frequency Of Meetings 15 SCPD And The Commission 15 High Incidence of Stranger Rape 15 Defining Rape 16 FBI And Revised Rape Definition 17 SCPD, CPVAW and the Definition of Rape 17 Commission Access to Redacted Police Reports on Rape 20 Conclusion 20 Findings 21 Recommendations 21 Required Responses 22 Invited Responses 23 Definitions 23 Sources 23 References 23
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Underfunding the road and culvert maintenance work on the 586 miles of County roads in unincorporated Santa Cruz County for more than four decades has created a backlog of deferred maintenance currently exceeding ¾ of a billion dollars which creates a hazard for residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by December 31, 2024 which shows the prioritization of culvert and drainage ditch maintenance in order to help prevent road washouts that are more costly to repair. (F1, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
F2:
Due to the large shortfall in funding, Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works adheres to the accepted practice promoted by the Federal Highway Administration and RTC of prioritizing pavement preservation over pavement restoration. Much of the public lacks awareness of this practice in the absence of a formally documented policy which impacts voter choices.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F3:
The County road maintenance strategy differs by Supervisorial District leading to inconsistent road repair expectations among districts. This lack of a coordinated strategy leaves residents frustrated and with a sense of unfair treatment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F4:
Storms of 2017 and 2023 caused significant road failures. Contributing factors were inadequate culvert, drainage ditch, and road surface maintenance which led to culvert failures and full road washouts leaving residents stranded or incurring significant delay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F5:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to ask unincorporated County voters to increase the funding of the Special District 9D (1-3) road assessment fee since its inception in 1988, which has resulted in a drastic loss of revenue for maintaining County roads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by December 31, 2024 which shows the prioritization of culvert and drainage ditch maintenance in order to help prevent road washouts that are more costly to repair. (F1, F5)
F6:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to perform resurfacing maintenance on many of the smaller unincorporated local roads, resulting in higher failure rates and at least a 10 times increased maintenance cost when and if those roads are resurfaced.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO detailing expenditures in each of the three zones of CSA 9D for the years 2020-2023 by October 31, 2024. (F6, F10)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area 9 Service and Sphere of Influence Review incorporating detailed data of expenditures for each 9D zone by March 15, 2025. (F6, F10)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors should begin the process necessary to increase the funding in CSA 9D to an amount in line with what is needed to reduce the backlog of very poor and failed road repairs by December 31, 2024. (F6)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors take steps necessary to add a consumer price index increase to CSA 9D, as allowed by law, by December 31, 2024. (F6)
F7:
Santa Cruz County's neglect of unincorporated local roads for many decades has led to an average Pavement Condition Index of less than 48 (as of 2019) which is 17 points below the statewide average. With the current funding level, it is projected to be 38 in 2024, and it is further projected to drop to 33 by 2028 which will leave the County in a position to experience higher catastrophic road failures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F8:
The County prioritizes preventive maintenance of roads in fair to good condition over road repair and reconstruction due to limited discretionary funds. As a result, many residents in local road areas will have to contend with very poor/failed roads into the foreseeable future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
F9:
The most recent LAFCO and County reports fail to provide detailed accounting of how 9D funds are being spent. The result is that taxpayers lack the information to ensure that generated funds are being used appropriately.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F10:
Minor progress has been made in seeking and securing additional funding sources. The additional funding is far short of what is needed to maintain and repair the road network. Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 15
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO detailing expenditures in each of the three zones of CSA 9D for the years 2020-2023 by October 31, 2024. (F6, F10)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area 9 Service and Sphere of Influence Review incorporating detailed data of expenditures for each 9D zone by March 15, 2025. (F6, F10)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11)
F11:
Measure K funds go directly into the General Fund and road maintenance funding expenditures are only recommended. This may allow the funding to go to other needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11)
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice to prepare for reentry would show positive improvement to public safety and a reduction in recidivism for reentering inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a comprehensive plan to increase the number of programs that steer inmates towards reentry into the community with new job skills development, education, work release and transitional programs. (F12) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 74 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
F17:
By not filling essential positions for months at a time, services for residents suffer harm when vacancies persist.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-20:
hours a day. According to answers given by Wellpath on 02/13/2024 in a Request for Proposal - Vendor Report to the County, many staffing positions are currently vacant including:[26] ● One Mental Health Coordinator ● Two full time Mental Health Clinicians ● Three full time Registered Nurses ● Four full time Licensed Vocational Nurses Some notable numbers from the report: ● Average daily # of detox patients - 12 ● Average daily # of combined segregation inmates - 25-30 ● Percentage of inmate population on medication - 65 ● Percentage of inmate population on psych medication - 68 ● Percentage of inmate population who are Severely Mentally Ill - 12 The Grand Jury is concerned with these crisis-level numbers. The workload appears to be a problem, given the vacancies of medical and mental health staff. Reducing staffing level caseloads is not the whole answer, but it is a crucial element to the question of whether inmates with mental illness are being provided with the required level of care. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 62 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury A recent Santa Cruz Criminal Justice report, as well as statements by jail staff and the Health Inspector, have all expressed concerns about Wellpath‘s high turnover of staff and the fact that they only provide coverage for eighteen hours a day.[27] [31] While someone is always a call away, the overall effectiveness of mental health services by Wellpath is inadequate to the needs of inmates. This adversely affects inmates’ mental health treatment.[3] [31] While medical staff are away, the mental health needs of the inmates are in the care of correctional staff. Because they have very limited medical training it could lead to inappropriate mental health care decisions.[32] Solitary Confinement and Use of a Safety Cell ● Formerly known as Solitary confinement, “Administrative Separation” (AD-Sep) or Modified Schedule is the physical separation of an incarcerated person from the general jail population.[33] ● The Main Jail has three Safety Cells that are video monitored 24 hours a day with 15-minute visual checks by the correctional staff - not Wellpath. There are an average of 36 inmate/patients placed on suicide watch per month.[34] ● Incarcerated individuals in and out of AD-Sep are provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week.[35] ● Safety Cells are used in the Main Jail if a risk assessment deems the inmate is a danger to themselves or others, is making suicidal statements, as punishment for not following the rules, or is having a mental health crisis requiring a 5150 hold while waiting to transfer to a mental health facility.[22] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] ● On February 28, 2024 there were forty-three (43) inmates on a Modified Schedule and for all of 2022, 321 were separated from the rest of the inmate population.[49] [50] Medical and Mental Health Treatment in the Jail People in the criminal legal system often have a background of trauma and poverty as well as acute health needs. One-quarter have serious mental illness, many have multiple physical health conditions, and 60% of California incarcerated people have substance use disorders.[51] Through jail tours and interviews with staff, the Grand Jury learned that the Main Jail, while not a certified mental healthcare facility, houses many mentally ill inmates. The Grand Jury reviewed two years of reports that review medical health care in the Jail. The reports are conducted annually and are from the County Public Health officer to the Sheriff’s office. The inspections were conducted by an expert with over twenty (20) years experience in reviewing and assessing Title 15 state-mandated medical conditions within county jails.[52] The inspector noted that the jails were in good compliance with regulations except for several significant deficiencies identified in this report.[37] [38] [53] [54] [55] We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 63 Among the deficiencies noted were: ● Failure to prepare Health Service Audits ● Improper use of Safety Cells ● Lack of Mental Health Services and Transfer to Treatment Facilities ● Insufficient Informed Consent ● Over-prescription of Psychotropic Medications The following sections expand on the deficiencies noted above. Health Service Audits According to Title 15 the health authority shall develop and implement a written plan for annual statistical summaries of healthcare and pharmaceutical services that are provided by the Jail.[56] Based on information from these audits, the health authority shall provide the facility administrator with an annual written report on healthcare and pharmaceutical services delivered.[53] [57] Wellpath has not prepared Health Service Audits for several years. The absence of these reports, with essential data concerning the quality of care, is an obstacle to developing steps to increase inmate safety. It also hinders efforts to improve inmate health. The Jail Quality Improvement committee needs these audits to conduct valuable data analysis for data-driven medical care improvements. Also, when all jail medical staff are involved with data gathering, they can provide input and suggestions which in turn promote good morale.[54] Ad-Sep and the Improper Use of a Safety Cell Being incarcerated, even for those in good mental health, is associated with subsequent depression and bipolar disorder and has been documented that it can worsen mental health.[58] An incarcerated person may be isolated from the rest of the inmates in their own cell, or in some cases in a Safety Cell. Generally, Ad-Sep means spending 22 to 23 hours per day in a single cell, usually about the size of an elevator, and are only required to be provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 64 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Figure 6: A sobering cell on the left and a safety cell on the right. Photo courtesy of Ashley Keehn.[59] [60] According to The health Inspection Report citing California Title 15 section 1209 regulations governing jails, as well as the Sheriff’s own policies and procedures state, “in no case shall the safety cell be used for punishment or as a substitute for Mental Health treatment.”[40] [61] The Grand Jury has learned through reviewing relevant reports and conducting interviews that inmates are put in Safety Cells for numerous reasons including, but not limited to: ● Breaking the rules[41] [43] ● Threatening to hurt themselves and others[38] [41] [62] ● Having a Mental Health Crisis[41] Documented evidence provided to the Grand Jury revealed that inmates were held in Safety Cells for days.[37] [38] [39] [39] [40] Do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for months or even years at a time? That is not going to make us safer. That’s not going to make us stronger. And if those individuals are ultimately released, how are they ever going to adapt? It’s not smart. Barack Obama, 2015[63] The number 5150 is the section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code that evaluates adults who are deemed to be a danger to others, himself or herself, or are gravely disabled. A 5150 hold allows an adult to be involuntarily detained for 72 hours in We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 65 a psychiatric hospital or clinic.[36] Santa Cruz has one (1) psychiatric clinic. Patients do not have to be treated in a psychiatric hospital, a clinic is sufficient. They also could be treated at the Emergency department at Dominican until transferred to an LPS facility. To meet a 5150 hold criteria in the jail, the inmate must display suicidal thoughts as determined by a jail medical provider or, absent that, by the correctional officer in charge. However, it has been the practice in our jails to only initiate a 5150 hold immediately prior to release from the jail. Once a 5150 hold is issued you must transfer the inmate to a mental health facility for care. Waiting until discharge to initiate a 5150 hold means inmates may be held in Safety Cells for long periods of time. Use of a 5150 hold by the Sheriff's office numbered more than twenty-six (26) per month in 2022 and there were 321 such holds in 2022, according to the Sheriff’s statistics.[50] In the report, the Health Inspector’s main concern was the use of Safety Cells, and they spoke directly to the mental health professional in charge to determine if correct Title 15 procedures were being followed. According to the report, medical and jail staff were not using correct procedures.[64] This deficiency is closely related to the misuse of giving required mental health care services. It also is related to the proper procedures for transferring inmates to a mental health facility. Mental health care is provided in what are called LPS treatment facilities and are explained below.[44] To read more Safety Cell information see
R81-29:
to make the prevention of rape and domestic violence one of its highest priorities. In 2023, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted a Five Year Strategic Plan. The Plan makes no mention of rape and domestic violence. Over the past decade, the City’s Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women has failed to provide the City Council with solid Annual Reports that document City, community, and police efforts to prevent rape and domestic violence. Recent reports have either included no data or limited data. The 2023 CPVAW Joint Report has no metrics on important trends such as whether the City of Santa Cruz still has a higher than average rate of rapes by strangers. What areas of the city were the crimes committed in? Have there been arrests? Long-standing Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network of local businesses are currently idle. This year the Santa Cruz City Schools District canceled the Commission’s popular self-defense classes for middle and high school students. The in-person classes are being replaced with an online self-esteem video. The City has ended the Commission’s thirty five-year access to redacted police reports of rape and domestic violence. These reports enabled the Commission to evaluate police response, respond to complaints and recommend training if needed. The Grand Jury submits its findings and recommendations to bring the City of Santa Cruz into compliance with City Ordinance 81-29. The personal safety and well-being of the community is at stake. Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence published June 27, 2024 408 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Table of Contents Summary 1 Table of Contents 2 Background 3 Scope and Methodology 3 Investigation 4 History Of Commission Work 4 Decline in Report Quality and Frequency 5 Metrics On Reported Rape in the City 6 Commission Programs and Resources 8 Self-Defense 9 Cuts to Self-Defense 9 Safe Place Network 10 Bar Coasters 11 Banners 12 Measuring the City’s Support 13 Not In the City Five Year Strategic Plan 13 Decline In Dedicated Staffing 13 Ongoing Budget Reductions 14 Loss Of Visible Location 14 Frequency Of Meetings 15 SCPD And The Commission 15 High Incidence of Stranger Rape 15 Defining Rape 16 FBI And Revised Rape Definition 17 SCPD, CPVAW and the Definition of Rape 17 Commission Access to Redacted Police Reports on Rape 20 Conclusion 20 Findings 21 Recommendations 21 Required Responses 22 Invited Responses 23 Definitions 23 Sources 23 References 23
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Underfunding the road and culvert maintenance work on the 586 miles of County roads in unincorporated Santa Cruz County for more than four decades has created a backlog of deferred maintenance currently exceeding ¾ of a billion dollars which creates a hazard for residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by December 31, 2024 which shows the prioritization of culvert and drainage ditch maintenance in order to help prevent road washouts that are more costly to repair. (F1, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
F2:
Due to the large shortfall in funding, Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works adheres to the accepted practice promoted by the Federal Highway Administration and RTC of prioritizing pavement preservation over pavement restoration. Much of the public lacks awareness of this practice in the absence of a formally documented policy which impacts voter choices.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F3:
The County road maintenance strategy differs by Supervisorial District leading to inconsistent road repair expectations among districts. This lack of a coordinated strategy leaves residents frustrated and with a sense of unfair treatment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F4:
Storms of 2017 and 2023 caused significant road failures. Contributing factors were inadequate culvert, drainage ditch, and road surface maintenance which led to culvert failures and full road washouts leaving residents stranded or incurring significant delay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F5:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to ask unincorporated County voters to increase the funding of the Special District 9D (1-3) road assessment fee since its inception in 1988, which has resulted in a drastic loss of revenue for maintaining County roads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by December 31, 2024 which shows the prioritization of culvert and drainage ditch maintenance in order to help prevent road washouts that are more costly to repair. (F1, F5)
F6:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to perform resurfacing maintenance on many of the smaller unincorporated local roads, resulting in higher failure rates and at least a 10 times increased maintenance cost when and if those roads are resurfaced.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO detailing expenditures in each of the three zones of CSA 9D for the years 2020-2023 by October 31, 2024. (F6, F10)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area 9 Service and Sphere of Influence Review incorporating detailed data of expenditures for each 9D zone by March 15, 2025. (F6, F10)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors should begin the process necessary to increase the funding in CSA 9D to an amount in line with what is needed to reduce the backlog of very poor and failed road repairs by December 31, 2024. (F6)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors take steps necessary to add a consumer price index increase to CSA 9D, as allowed by law, by December 31, 2024. (F6)
F7:
Santa Cruz County's neglect of unincorporated local roads for many decades has led to an average Pavement Condition Index of less than 48 (as of 2019) which is 17 points below the statewide average. With the current funding level, it is projected to be 38 in 2024, and it is further projected to drop to 33 by 2028 which will leave the County in a position to experience higher catastrophic road failures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F8:
The County prioritizes preventive maintenance of roads in fair to good condition over road repair and reconstruction due to limited discretionary funds. As a result, many residents in local road areas will have to contend with very poor/failed roads into the foreseeable future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
F9:
The most recent LAFCO and County reports fail to provide detailed accounting of how 9D funds are being spent. The result is that taxpayers lack the information to ensure that generated funds are being used appropriately.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F10:
Minor progress has been made in seeking and securing additional funding sources. The additional funding is far short of what is needed to maintain and repair the road network. Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 15
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO detailing expenditures in each of the three zones of CSA 9D for the years 2020-2023 by October 31, 2024. (F6, F10)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area 9 Service and Sphere of Influence Review incorporating detailed data of expenditures for each 9D zone by March 15, 2025. (F6, F10)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11)
F11:
Measure K funds go directly into the General Fund and road maintenance funding expenditures are only recommended. This may allow the funding to go to other needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11)
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice to prepare for reentry would show positive improvement to public safety and a reduction in recidivism for reentering inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a comprehensive plan to increase the number of programs that steer inmates towards reentry into the community with new job skills development, education, work release and transitional programs. (F12) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 74 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
F17:
By not filling essential positions for months at a time, services for residents suffer harm when vacancies persist.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-20:
hours a day. According to answers given by Wellpath on 02/13/2024 in a Request for Proposal - Vendor Report to the County, many staffing positions are currently vacant including:[26] ● One Mental Health Coordinator ● Two full time Mental Health Clinicians ● Three full time Registered Nurses ● Four full time Licensed Vocational Nurses Some notable numbers from the report: ● Average daily # of detox patients - 12 ● Average daily # of combined segregation inmates - 25-30 ● Percentage of inmate population on medication - 65 ● Percentage of inmate population on psych medication - 68 ● Percentage of inmate population who are Severely Mentally Ill - 12 The Grand Jury is concerned with these crisis-level numbers. The workload appears to be a problem, given the vacancies of medical and mental health staff. Reducing staffing level caseloads is not the whole answer, but it is a crucial element to the question of whether inmates with mental illness are being provided with the required level of care. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 62 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury A recent Santa Cruz Criminal Justice report, as well as statements by jail staff and the Health Inspector, have all expressed concerns about Wellpath‘s high turnover of staff and the fact that they only provide coverage for eighteen hours a day.[27] [31] While someone is always a call away, the overall effectiveness of mental health services by Wellpath is inadequate to the needs of inmates. This adversely affects inmates’ mental health treatment.[3] [31] While medical staff are away, the mental health needs of the inmates are in the care of correctional staff. Because they have very limited medical training it could lead to inappropriate mental health care decisions.[32] Solitary Confinement and Use of a Safety Cell ● Formerly known as Solitary confinement, “Administrative Separation” (AD-Sep) or Modified Schedule is the physical separation of an incarcerated person from the general jail population.[33] ● The Main Jail has three Safety Cells that are video monitored 24 hours a day with 15-minute visual checks by the correctional staff - not Wellpath. There are an average of 36 inmate/patients placed on suicide watch per month.[34] ● Incarcerated individuals in and out of AD-Sep are provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week.[35] ● Safety Cells are used in the Main Jail if a risk assessment deems the inmate is a danger to themselves or others, is making suicidal statements, as punishment for not following the rules, or is having a mental health crisis requiring a 5150 hold while waiting to transfer to a mental health facility.[22] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] ● On February 28, 2024 there were forty-three (43) inmates on a Modified Schedule and for all of 2022, 321 were separated from the rest of the inmate population.[49] [50] Medical and Mental Health Treatment in the Jail People in the criminal legal system often have a background of trauma and poverty as well as acute health needs. One-quarter have serious mental illness, many have multiple physical health conditions, and 60% of California incarcerated people have substance use disorders.[51] Through jail tours and interviews with staff, the Grand Jury learned that the Main Jail, while not a certified mental healthcare facility, houses many mentally ill inmates. The Grand Jury reviewed two years of reports that review medical health care in the Jail. The reports are conducted annually and are from the County Public Health officer to the Sheriff’s office. The inspections were conducted by an expert with over twenty (20) years experience in reviewing and assessing Title 15 state-mandated medical conditions within county jails.[52] The inspector noted that the jails were in good compliance with regulations except for several significant deficiencies identified in this report.[37] [38] [53] [54] [55] We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 63 Among the deficiencies noted were: ● Failure to prepare Health Service Audits ● Improper use of Safety Cells ● Lack of Mental Health Services and Transfer to Treatment Facilities ● Insufficient Informed Consent ● Over-prescription of Psychotropic Medications The following sections expand on the deficiencies noted above. Health Service Audits According to Title 15 the health authority shall develop and implement a written plan for annual statistical summaries of healthcare and pharmaceutical services that are provided by the Jail.[56] Based on information from these audits, the health authority shall provide the facility administrator with an annual written report on healthcare and pharmaceutical services delivered.[53] [57] Wellpath has not prepared Health Service Audits for several years. The absence of these reports, with essential data concerning the quality of care, is an obstacle to developing steps to increase inmate safety. It also hinders efforts to improve inmate health. The Jail Quality Improvement committee needs these audits to conduct valuable data analysis for data-driven medical care improvements. Also, when all jail medical staff are involved with data gathering, they can provide input and suggestions which in turn promote good morale.[54] Ad-Sep and the Improper Use of a Safety Cell Being incarcerated, even for those in good mental health, is associated with subsequent depression and bipolar disorder and has been documented that it can worsen mental health.[58] An incarcerated person may be isolated from the rest of the inmates in their own cell, or in some cases in a Safety Cell. Generally, Ad-Sep means spending 22 to 23 hours per day in a single cell, usually about the size of an elevator, and are only required to be provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 64 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Figure 6: A sobering cell on the left and a safety cell on the right. Photo courtesy of Ashley Keehn.[59] [60] According to The health Inspection Report citing California Title 15 section 1209 regulations governing jails, as well as the Sheriff’s own policies and procedures state, “in no case shall the safety cell be used for punishment or as a substitute for Mental Health treatment.”[40] [61] The Grand Jury has learned through reviewing relevant reports and conducting interviews that inmates are put in Safety Cells for numerous reasons including, but not limited to: ● Breaking the rules[41] [43] ● Threatening to hurt themselves and others[38] [41] [62] ● Having a Mental Health Crisis[41] Documented evidence provided to the Grand Jury revealed that inmates were held in Safety Cells for days.[37] [38] [39] [39] [40] Do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for months or even years at a time? That is not going to make us safer. That’s not going to make us stronger. And if those individuals are ultimately released, how are they ever going to adapt? It’s not smart. Barack Obama, 2015[63] The number 5150 is the section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code that evaluates adults who are deemed to be a danger to others, himself or herself, or are gravely disabled. A 5150 hold allows an adult to be involuntarily detained for 72 hours in We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 65 a psychiatric hospital or clinic.[36] Santa Cruz has one (1) psychiatric clinic. Patients do not have to be treated in a psychiatric hospital, a clinic is sufficient. They also could be treated at the Emergency department at Dominican until transferred to an LPS facility. To meet a 5150 hold criteria in the jail, the inmate must display suicidal thoughts as determined by a jail medical provider or, absent that, by the correctional officer in charge. However, it has been the practice in our jails to only initiate a 5150 hold immediately prior to release from the jail. Once a 5150 hold is issued you must transfer the inmate to a mental health facility for care. Waiting until discharge to initiate a 5150 hold means inmates may be held in Safety Cells for long periods of time. Use of a 5150 hold by the Sheriff's office numbered more than twenty-six (26) per month in 2022 and there were 321 such holds in 2022, according to the Sheriff’s statistics.[50] In the report, the Health Inspector’s main concern was the use of Safety Cells, and they spoke directly to the mental health professional in charge to determine if correct Title 15 procedures were being followed. According to the report, medical and jail staff were not using correct procedures.[64] This deficiency is closely related to the misuse of giving required mental health care services. It also is related to the proper procedures for transferring inmates to a mental health facility. Mental health care is provided in what are called LPS treatment facilities and are explained below.[44] To read more Safety Cell information see
R81-29:
to make the prevention of rape and domestic violence one of its highest priorities. In 2023, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted a Five Year Strategic Plan. The Plan makes no mention of rape and domestic violence. Over the past decade, the City’s Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women has failed to provide the City Council with solid Annual Reports that document City, community, and police efforts to prevent rape and domestic violence. Recent reports have either included no data or limited data. The 2023 CPVAW Joint Report has no metrics on important trends such as whether the City of Santa Cruz still has a higher than average rate of rapes by strangers. What areas of the city were the crimes committed in? Have there been arrests? Long-standing Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network of local businesses are currently idle. This year the Santa Cruz City Schools District canceled the Commission’s popular self-defense classes for middle and high school students. The in-person classes are being replaced with an online self-esteem video. The City has ended the Commission’s thirty five-year access to redacted police reports of rape and domestic violence. These reports enabled the Commission to evaluate police response, respond to complaints and recommend training if needed. The Grand Jury submits its findings and recommendations to bring the City of Santa Cruz into compliance with City Ordinance 81-29. The personal safety and well-being of the community is at stake. Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence published June 27, 2024 408 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Table of Contents Summary 1 Table of Contents 2 Background 3 Scope and Methodology 3 Investigation 4 History Of Commission Work 4 Decline in Report Quality and Frequency 5 Metrics On Reported Rape in the City 6 Commission Programs and Resources 8 Self-Defense 9 Cuts to Self-Defense 9 Safe Place Network 10 Bar Coasters 11 Banners 12 Measuring the City’s Support 13 Not In the City Five Year Strategic Plan 13 Decline In Dedicated Staffing 13 Ongoing Budget Reductions 14 Loss Of Visible Location 14 Frequency Of Meetings 15 SCPD And The Commission 15 High Incidence of Stranger Rape 15 Defining Rape 16 FBI And Revised Rape Definition 17 SCPD, CPVAW and the Definition of Rape 17 Commission Access to Redacted Police Reports on Rape 20 Conclusion 20 Findings 21 Recommendations 21 Required Responses 22 Invited Responses 23 Definitions 23 Sources 23 References 23
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The failure of Wellpath, the medical provider contracted by the Sheriff to provide data from required Health Service Audits, has adversely affected inmate health and resulted in poor health care and lack of pharmaceutical services for inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to begin the Health Service Audits. (F1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F2:
The failure of Wellpath to implement a comprehensive discharge plan causes inmates to be released without community connection to medical treatment and medication.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __ HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe __ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed local roads is not and never was a policy of Public Works. A better funded pavement management program could result in more frequent road treatments throughout the unincorporated County. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 45 Grand Jury Grand Jury Road Report re LAFCO Response Joe Serrano Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 9:30 AM To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" Cc: Francisco Estrada Good Morning Honorable Katherine Hansen, As requested, LAFCO has reviewed and provide comments to the latest Grand Jury Report titled “Santa Cruz County Local Roads: A smooth path through paradise or a hell of a road?” Attached you will find our response letter, which was approved by LAFCO during yesterday’s Commission meeting. The following link also directs you to the August 7th staff report for your records: https://santacruzlafco.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/6c.0- Grand-Jury-Response-Staff-Report_Hyperlinked.pdf Let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you. -Joe Joe A. Serrano Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County 701 Ocean Street, Room 318-D, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Email: [email protected] Phone: (831) 454-2055 8-8-24 LAFCO Response Letter (Adopted Version).pdf 224K 46 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury LAFCO Response Letter (Grand Jury Report) August 8, 2024
F3:
The failure of the Sheriff”s jail staff to properly address inmates' mental illness crises has caused mentally disabled inmates to be held in Safety Cells for excessively long periods.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __ HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe __ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed local roads is not and never was a policy of Public Works. A better funded pavement management program could result in more frequent road treatments throughout the unincorporated County. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 45 Grand Jury Grand Jury Road Report re LAFCO Response Joe Serrano Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 9:30 AM To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" Cc: Francisco Estrada Good Morning Honorable Katherine Hansen, As requested, LAFCO has reviewed and provide comments to the latest Grand Jury Report titled “Santa Cruz County Local Roads: A smooth path through paradise or a hell of a road?” Attached you will find our response letter, which was approved by LAFCO during yesterday’s Commission meeting. The following link also directs you to the August 7th staff report for your records: https://santacruzlafco.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/6c.0- Grand-Jury-Response-Staff-Report_Hyperlinked.pdf Let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you. -Joe Joe A. Serrano Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County 701 Ocean Street, Room 318-D, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Email: [email protected] Phone: (831) 454-2055 8-8-24 LAFCO Response Letter (Adopted Version).pdf 224K 46 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury LAFCO Response Letter (Grand Jury Report) August 8, 2024
F4:
The improper use of Safety Cells by the Sheriff’s jail staff to isolate inmates who are greatly in need of mental health care and/or have made suicidal statements causes a violation of required procedure.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __ HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe __ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed local roads is not and never was a policy of Public Works. A better funded pavement management program could result in more frequent road treatments throughout the unincorporated County. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 45 Grand Jury Grand Jury Road Report re LAFCO Response Joe Serrano Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 9:30 AM To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" Cc: Francisco Estrada Good Morning Honorable Katherine Hansen, As requested, LAFCO has reviewed and provide comments to the latest Grand Jury Report titled “Santa Cruz County Local Roads: A smooth path through paradise or a hell of a road?” Attached you will find our response letter, which was approved by LAFCO during yesterday’s Commission meeting. The following link also directs you to the August 7th staff report for your records: https://santacruzlafco.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/6c.0- Grand-Jury-Response-Staff-Report_Hyperlinked.pdf Let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you. -Joe Joe A. Serrano Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County 701 Ocean Street, Room 318-D, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Email: [email protected] Phone: (831) 454-2055 8-8-24 LAFCO Response Letter (Adopted Version).pdf 224K 46 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury LAFCO Response Letter (Grand Jury Report) August 8, 2024
F5:
The use of Safety Cells for punishment has resulted in violations of Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s Policy and Procedures Manual policy 516.2. This may expose the Sheriff’s department to lawsuits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F6:
The practice of excluding mentally ill patients from 5150 hold and transfer until discharge results in a violation of both Title 15 and Sheriff’s Policies and Procedures manual policy 516.2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff with the proper use of a 5150 hold and the transfer of inmates to a mental health facility according to Title 15 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F6) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 73
F7:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer inmates with suicidal ideation or in a mental health crisis to an out-of-county LPS facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff train staff on how to transfer suicidal inmates to an LPS facility for mental health care. (F7)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __ HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe __ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed local roads is not and never was a policy of Public Works. A better funded pavement management program could result in more frequent road treatments throughout the unincorporated County. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 45 Grand Jury Grand Jury Road Report re LAFCO Response Joe Serrano Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 9:30 AM To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" Cc: Francisco Estrada Good Morning Honorable Katherine Hansen, As requested, LAFCO has reviewed and provide comments to the latest Grand Jury Report titled “Santa Cruz County Local Roads: A smooth path through paradise or a hell of a road?” Attached you will find our response letter, which was approved by LAFCO during yesterday’s Commission meeting. The following link also directs you to the August 7th staff report for your records: https://santacruzlafco.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/6c.0- Grand-Jury-Response-Staff-Report_Hyperlinked.pdf Let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you. -Joe Joe A. Serrano Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County 701 Ocean Street, Room 318-D, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Email: [email protected] Phone: (831) 454-2055 8-8-24 LAFCO Response Letter (Adopted Version).pdf 224K 46 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury LAFCO Response Letter (Grand Jury Report) August 8, 2024
F8:
The failure of the Crisis Intervention Team to issue a 5150 hold and transfer before an inmate is discharged adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff direct the CIT team to not withhold a 5150 hold and make a transfer until release because this is not proper or best practice for inmates in need of mental health care. (F8)
F9:
The practice of placement in Administrative Separation (solitary confinement) causes inmates to suffer mental health problems including, but not limited to, anxiety, insomnia, paranoia, aggression, and depression.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __ HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe __ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed local roads is not and never was a policy of Public Works. A better funded pavement management program could result in more frequent road treatments throughout the unincorporated County. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 45 Grand Jury Grand Jury Road Report re LAFCO Response Joe Serrano Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 9:30 AM To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" Cc: Francisco Estrada Good Morning Honorable Katherine Hansen, As requested, LAFCO has reviewed and provide comments to the latest Grand Jury Report titled “Santa Cruz County Local Roads: A smooth path through paradise or a hell of a road?” Attached you will find our response letter, which was approved by LAFCO during yesterday’s Commission meeting. The following link also directs you to the August 7th staff report for your records: https://santacruzlafco.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/6c.0- Grand-Jury-Response-Staff-Report_Hyperlinked.pdf Let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you. -Joe Joe A. Serrano Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County 701 Ocean Street, Room 318-D, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Email: [email protected] Phone: (831) 454-2055 8-8-24 LAFCO Response Letter (Adopted Version).pdf 224K 46 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury LAFCO Response Letter (Grand Jury Report) August 8, 2024
F10:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer Inmates who are suffering from mental health crises symptoms to an LPS Facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F11:
Opening the closed unit at Rountree and increasing the number of re-entry programs would result in better conditions for inmates and less stress for the correctional officers.
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice to prepare for reentry would show positive improvement to public safety and a reduction in recidivism for reentering inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a comprehensive plan to increase the number of programs that steer inmates towards reentry into the community with new job skills development, education, work release and transitional programs. (F12) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 74 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-20:
hours a day. According to answers given by Wellpath on 02/13/2024 in a Request for Proposal - Vendor Report to the County, many staffing positions are currently vacant including:[26] ● One Mental Health Coordinator ● Two full time Mental Health Clinicians ● Three full time Registered Nurses ● Four full time Licensed Vocational Nurses Some notable numbers from the report: ● Average daily # of detox patients - 12 ● Average daily # of combined segregation inmates - 25-30 ● Percentage of inmate population on medication - 65 ● Percentage of inmate population on psych medication - 68 ● Percentage of inmate population who are Severely Mentally Ill - 12 The Grand Jury is concerned with these crisis-level numbers. The workload appears to be a problem, given the vacancies of medical and mental health staff. Reducing staffing level caseloads is not the whole answer, but it is a crucial element to the question of whether inmates with mental illness are being provided with the required level of care. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
The contradictory entries on the City’s website and in the City’s legal documents on whether Inclusionary Housing is restricted to Low, Very Low and Extremely Low-income levels or whether it includes the Moderate- income level is a major discrepancy with consequences about who is eligible for and who obtains Inclusionary Housing. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The process for determining income eligibility depends on the governing resolution that was approved by the City Council at the specific point in time that the affordable housing agreement between the City and the Developer was executed. This does not change over time for units in a specific project, so a project approved in 2007 would have different requirements and governing resolutions than a project approved in 2024. On the City’s Measure O Resolutions and Ordinances web page, eight resolutions are posted that govern the calculation of income eligibility for Inclusionary Housing /Measure O units in the City of Santa Cruz. Measure O is a voter-approved initiative originally adopted in 1979 that requires developers of residential projects to provide a certain percentage of the total number of units as affordable to income eligible households. The City’s Inclusionary Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 24.16, Part One) codifies the requirements of Measure O. Each resolution was approved by Santa Cruz City Council at different times to establish the income, monthly housing cost guidelines, and asset limits for the inclusionary units throughout the City of Santa Cruz. Additionally, each project has specific requirements related to the affordability threshold depending on the project type. The applicable resolution for an available Inclusionary Unit is noted when a unit is available either under the “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR PURCHASE” or “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR RENT” lists respectively. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 347
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council state exactly which HCD Income Levels are covered by the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Resolutions, and make that information public by December 31, 2024. (F1) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The HCD income is listed in each linked resolution on the City’s Measure O Rents and Incomes webpage. Please note that State HCD updates the income limits annually and these are the incomes that the City uses to determine the City’s Measure O calculations as specified by each resolution. Additionally, the specific resolution for an available inclusionary unit is noted when a unit is available either under the “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR PURCHASE” or “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR RENT” lists respectively. The chart below summarizes the number of units monitored by affordability level in the City of Santa Cruz since 1964. Staff will post a more comprehensive breakdown by project to the City’s website during the current calendar year. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 350 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Total Afford. Ex Very Units Units Low Low Low Mod TOTALS: 5769 2642 117 1275 996 254
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council create an Inclusionary Housing public dashboard that covers the data called for in this report by February 28, 2025. (F1, F2, F3) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City does not want to stigmatize tenants of Inclusionary/Measure O units by publicly releasing their addresses. Specific units available for rent or sale are listed on the City’s Measure O website. The City currently curates an interactive map, which notes the inclusionary requirement for larger projects, but does not directly display which specific units are affordable. Please refer to the website link here: https://www.choosesantacruz.com/resources/affordable-housing-projects-map Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 [Return to Table of Contents] 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 353 New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department Residents Deserve a Fully Staffed Workforce
F2:
The City has no data on whether Inclusionary Housing is occupied by income-verified local residents and local workers. Both groups are given preference for housing as required by Ordinance. Without data, neither the City nor the community can be assured that such housing is meeting its intended purpose. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Generally, the intended purpose for inclusionary housing is to serve low-income households (with exceptions allowing moderate-income housing for some projects). Local preferences are not required by Measure O; they were initially adopted in October 2006, and some projects are not subject to the preferences. Our annual compliance monitoring verifies income eligibility of occupants of rental inclusionary housing. We also confirm eligibility of homebuyers when a for-sale unit is purchased. The Santa Cruz Housing Authority reviews the actual applications and confirms income eligibility for Measure O units, and the City reviews the Housing Authority’s determination and associated documentation. However, in 100 percent affordable projects, the City’s agreements generally allow the property manager to review and certify tenant applications, because those projects are subject to the requirements of multiple funding sources and then the property manager sends this reporting to the City for annual review and verification. In some cases, conditions placed on federal, or state funds may not be consistent with the City’s preferences. However, at initial lease-up, where permitted, typically the developer establishes a lottery system with rankings based on the required preferences. Staff has recently initiated a new compliance form for developers/property managers to sign prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, when the units are getting ready to be leased up or sold, verifying that the developer or property manager is complying with the City’s local preference policy. In addition, the affordable housing agreements entered into between the City and the Developer at the time of building permit issuance require the Developer to comply with the City’s local preferences, and these agreements are recorded on title. The City believes that the mechanisms in place effectively enforce the City’s preferences to the extent possible given existing agreements and state and federal laws, while avoiding excessive administrative burdens on property managers. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 348 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council develop an ongoing system to track, document and verify within 30 days of occupancy whether a unit is occupied by an income-verified local resident or local worker as required by the Ordinance, specifying which category the renter fulfills, and have such a system in place by January 31, 2025. (F2) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City local preference only applies to the following resolutions: NS-29,463, NS- 27,885, NS-27,629, and NS-27,383; the earliest resolution was adopted in October 2006. The City’s practice is generally not to reveal personally identifiable information for residents of inclusionary units and so does not provide preference information for a specific unit address that is rented or sold. Please refer to the City’s response to
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council create an Inclusionary Housing public dashboard that covers the data called for in this report by February 28, 2025. (F1, F2, F3) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City does not want to stigmatize tenants of Inclusionary/Measure O units by publicly releasing their addresses. Specific units available for rent or sale are listed on the City’s Measure O website. The City currently curates an interactive map, which notes the inclusionary requirement for larger projects, but does not directly display which specific units are affordable. Please refer to the website link here: https://www.choosesantacruz.com/resources/affordable-housing-projects-map Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 [Return to Table of Contents] 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 353 New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department Residents Deserve a Fully Staffed Workforce
F3:
The City has no data on the percentage of units in Inclusionary and 100% Affordable Housing projects that are rented to UCSC students. This leaves the City and the public unable to assess the impact of UCSC on the local affordable housing supply. Such data is important for the City’s ongoing negotiations with UCSC to build more on-campus housing. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City does not currently track the percentage of UCSC students occupying Inclusionary Units or 100% affordable housing projects. The City does recommend that UCSC track where their students live. The impact of UCSC students on the availability of inclusionary units is likely fairly limited as the income eligibility requirements would disqualify UCSC students who are claimed as dependents by their parents. At this time, the City is unaware of UCSC students renting inclusionary units. Most undergraduate students (nearly 90% of USCS students) are likely to be claimed as dependents. If the students are dependents, then the entire household’s income must be shown on the Measure O application and all household members must reside in the unit as their principal place of residence. This likely excludes most students from being deemed eligible for inclusionary housing. The City recommends that UCSC track where their students live, which would allow the City to determine if they are residing in inclusionary unit Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 349
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council document the percentage of the City’s Inclusionary and 100% Affordable Housing units that are rented to UCSC students, making that data public by February 28, 2025 with annual updates. (F3) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _x_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As previously stated in the response for F3, at this time, the City is unaware of UCSC students renting inclusionary units. Most undergraduate students (nearly 90% of USCS students) are likely to be claimed as dependents. If the students are dependents, then the entire household’s income must be shown on the Measure O application and all household members must reside in the unit as their principal place of residence. This likely excludes most students from being deemed eligible for inclusionary housing. The City recommends that UCSC track where their students live, which would allow the City to determine if they are residing in inclusionary units. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 352 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council create an Inclusionary Housing public dashboard that covers the data called for in this report by February 28, 2025. (F1, F2, F3) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City does not want to stigmatize tenants of Inclusionary/Measure O units by publicly releasing their addresses. Specific units available for rent or sale are listed on the City’s Measure O website. The City currently curates an interactive map, which notes the inclusionary requirement for larger projects, but does not directly display which specific units are affordable. Please refer to the website link here: https://www.choosesantacruz.com/resources/affordable-housing-projects-map Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 [Return to Table of Contents] 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 353 New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department Residents Deserve a Fully Staffed Workforce
F4:
By not sending candidates for difficult to fill positions directly to hiring managers the chances of hiring well qualified candidates are reduced.
F5:
Most county departments lack dedicated hiring managers leading to overloaded administrators.
F6:
The Personnel Department has not changed policies and procedures in the face of fewer candidates applying for County positions resulting in additional vacancies and slower recruitment and hiring processes.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department develop a plan detailing how they will solicit and evaluate employee recommendations that could help reduce the backlog of difficult to fill positions. (F6, F12)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department publicly document how they have engaged external expertise which would likely improve hiring and promoting processes. (F6, F12) New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department published June 27, 2024 370 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Evaluate Peer Counties for Best Practices
F7:
The Personnel Department’s website advertising continuous open positions without regular updates makes it very difficult for candidates to find opportunities on search engines because the information is stale and not up to date.
F8:
Continuous improvement for promoting existing employees in departments with difficult to fill positions can help to maintain effective staffing levels.
F9:
Promoting employees within departments with many difficult to fill positions can limit the damage caused by attrition, especially at more senior levels.
F10:
The months-long hiring process is frustrating to candidates and jeopardizes the County’s chances of hiring good candidates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department publish a cost/benefit analysis comparing their current approach with that offered by integrated HR solutions. (F10, F11) Embrace Continual Improvement within Personnel Department
F11:
The time required for complex paper processes steals time from creative recruitment and ongoing contact with candidates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department publish a cost/benefit analysis comparing their current approach with that offered by integrated HR solutions. (F10, F11) Embrace Continual Improvement within Personnel Department
F12:
Despite the finding in F9, having leadership in Personnel Department positions filled by long-time employees that have spent most of their career in the department has led to limited acceptance of ideas that have worked elsewhere in hiring for difficult to fill positions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department develop a plan detailing how they will solicit and evaluate employee recommendations that could help reduce the backlog of difficult to fill positions. (F6, F12)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department publicly document how they have engaged external expertise which would likely improve hiring and promoting processes. (F6, F12) New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department published June 27, 2024 370 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Evaluate Peer Counties for Best Practices
F13:
The 8-county salary comparison in place since 2002 is no longer a useful benchmark for wages and salaries given the high cost of living in Santa Cruz County resulting in many vacancies.
F14:
To attract a wider pool of candidates for difficult to fill positions, pay needs to be at least 90% of what Santa Clara County offers.
F15:
The County Personnel Department was consistently unable to provide comprehensive hiring statistics. Without accurate data, Personnel and other departments cannot make sound judgements on how to measure improvements in the hiring process for difficult to fill positions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department post a public dashboard, based on real time data, to include time-to-hire and vacancy rates for difficult to fill positions in County departments. (F15, F16, F17)
F16:
The Personnel Department expects the department units themselves to track hiring and recruitment metrics and keep important data such as turnover statistics and vacancy rates. This leaves the Personnel Department and oversight bodies without a clear picture of the situation and depth of the problem.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department post a public dashboard, based on real time data, to include time-to-hire and vacancy rates for difficult to fill positions in County departments. (F15, F16, F17)
F17:
By not filling essential positions for months at a time, services for residents suffer harm when vacancies persist.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department post a public dashboard, based on real time data, to include time-to-hire and vacancy rates for difficult to fill positions in County departments. (F15, F16, F17)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, and annually thereafter, the Personnel Department conduct a salary comparison study based on nearby counties. It is recommended that this study include counties which have routinely recruited Santa Cruz County employees and residents. (F6, F13,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Since 2016, the lack of comprehensive Annual Reports with detailed metrics on rape, including the tracking of stranger rape, leaves the community less informed, more vulnerable, and less safe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Commission and the SCPD submit comprehensive annual reports as called for in Ordinance 81-29, using the 2005-07 reports as a model, with the 2024 Annual Report placed on the Commission's agenda by December 31, 2024 and future reports submitted on a consistent, annual basis. (F1)
F2:
By highlighting a generic national statistic on stranger rape, rather than assessing local metrics in the CPVAW 2023 Report, the City is minimizing stranger rape and misleading the public into a possible false sense of security.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the 2023 Report be amended to remove the national entry on stranger rape, replacing it with accurate data for the City of Santa Cruz by December 31, 2024. (F2)
F3:
The lack of attention to long-time Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network and the Bar Coaster program leaves residents and visitors without important resources for their personal safety.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council fund a dedicated staff person for the Commission with skills commensurate to the need for program and resource development, community outreach and visibility, data research and report writing and have such position advertised by December 31, 2024. (F5, F3) Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence published June 27, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 203
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the CPVAW update the status of the Safe Place Network and the Bar Coasters program. If the programs are to be discontinued, a public CPVAW meeting is advised for that decision. If the programs are to be continued, the date of January 31, 2025 is recommended for the full reinstatement of these programs. (F3)
F4:
The loss of the in-person self-defense program for boys and girls in Santa Cruz City Schools lessens students’ ability to prevent sexual assault and interpersonal violence, inconsistent with the mandate of Ordinance 81-29.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council begin evaluating options with the Santa Cruz City School District to reinstate the in-person self-defense program for middle and high school students of all genders by January 31, 2025. (F4)
F5:
The City’s replacement of a dedicated 20-hour per week Commission staff position with rotating staff with minimal hours has resulted in a loss of visibility for the prevention of rape and domestic violence, a loss of community connections, a lack of programs, inadequate resource distribution and less public awareness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council fund a dedicated staff person for the Commission with skills commensurate to the need for program and resource development, community outreach and visibility, data research and report writing and have such position advertised by December 31, 2024. (F5, F3) Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence published June 27, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 203
F6:
The City’s refusal to allow the Commission continued access to redacted police reports prevents the Commission from making recommendations for police training and evaluating community complaints as required by Ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council reevaluate the legal ability of CPVAW commissioners to access redacted police reports of rape as described in this investigation, and present the results of that research by December 31, 2024. (F6)
F7:
The SCPD’s decision to drop stranger rape alerts and case-by-case updates leaves the community unaware about this serious crime and therefore less safe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD reinstate community alerts for incidents of stranger rape, with case-by-case updates, by December 31, 2024. (F7)
F8:
The inconsistencies the Grand Jury found in SCPD’s rape numbers means the public, the CPVAW and the City have no accurate metrics about reported rape, leaving the community ill-informed and Annual Commission Reports unreliable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD update its website to include the detailed metrics on Rape Incidents submitted to NIBRS and CIBRS, ensuring all data entries are accurate and available at each meeting of the CPVAW, and have this in place by January 31, 2025. (F8, F9)
F9:
The SCPD and the Commission’s lack of a consistent definition of rape leads to public confusion and potential undercounting of rape crimes in the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD update its website to include the detailed metrics on Rape Incidents submitted to NIBRS and CIBRS, ensuring all data entries are accurate and available at each meeting of the CPVAW, and have this in place by January 31, 2025. (F8, F9)
F10:
The Five Year Strategic Plan’s failure to include the prevention of rape and domestic violence leaves the community less aware and less safe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that Focus Area 5, Public Safety of the 2023-28 Five Year Strategic Plan include an entry prioritizing the prevention of rape and domestic violence, as mandated by Ordinance 81-29, and published by February 28, 2025. (F10)
F11:
The City Manager’s Weekly Update to the community has not highlighted the work of the CPVAW for the past two years, effectively relegating the prevention of rape and domestic violence to a low priority, leaving the public uninformed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Manager increase the visibility of the CPVAW programs and events by publishing relevant information, at least quarterly, in the City Manager’s Weekly Update and that the first article be published by December 31, 2024. (F11)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R81-29:
to make the prevention of rape and domestic violence one of its highest priorities. In 2023, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted a Five Year Strategic Plan. The Plan makes no mention of rape and domestic violence. Over the past decade, the City’s Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women has failed to provide the City Council with solid Annual Reports that document City, community, and police efforts to prevent rape and domestic violence. Recent reports have either included no data or limited data. The 2023 CPVAW Joint Report has no metrics on important trends such as whether the City of Santa Cruz still has a higher than average rate of rapes by strangers. What areas of the city were the crimes committed in? Have there been arrests? Long-standing Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network of local businesses are currently idle. This year the Santa Cruz City Schools District canceled the Commission’s popular self-defense classes for middle and high school students. The in-person classes are being replaced with an online self-esteem video. The City has ended the Commission’s thirty five-year access to redacted police reports of rape and domestic violence. These reports enabled the Commission to evaluate police response, respond to complaints and recommend training if needed. The Grand Jury submits its findings and recommendations to bring the City of Santa Cruz into compliance with City Ordinance 81-29. The personal safety and well-being of the community is at stake. Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence published June 27, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 183
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F17:
By not filling essential positions for months at a time, services for residents suffer harm when vacancies persist. _X_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board Of Supervisors New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department Due by September 25, 2024 398 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department post a public dashboard, based on real time data, to include time- to-hire and vacancy rates for difficult to fill positions in County departments. (F15, F16, F17) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Personnel Department already tracks time-to-hire data, from the request to establish a list, and vacancy rates, which change each pay period and are available in a report format. However, these metrics are primarily internal and are not directly relevant to applicants. For applicants, the most important information is the real-time status of their recruitment, which is available on the Employment Opportunities Center website. This platform provides updates on individual recruitment stages, and applicants can also email or call for additional information at any time. The implementation of Workday will further enhance internal tracking capabilities. [Return to Table of Contents] 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 407 City Of Santa Cruz: Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Where’s The Priority?
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R81-29:
to make the prevention of rape and domestic violence one of its highest priorities. In 2023, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted a Five Year Strategic Plan. The Plan makes no mention of rape and domestic violence. Over the past decade, the City’s Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women has failed to provide the City Council with solid Annual Reports that document City, community, and police efforts to prevent rape and domestic violence. Recent reports have either included no data or limited data. The 2023 CPVAW Joint Report has no metrics on important trends such as whether the City of Santa Cruz still has a higher than average rate of rapes by strangers. What areas of the city were the crimes committed in? Have there been arrests? Long-standing Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network of local businesses are currently idle. This year the Santa Cruz City Schools District canceled the Commission’s popular self-defense classes for middle and high school students. The in-person classes are being replaced with an online self-esteem video. The City has ended the Commission’s thirty five-year access to redacted police reports of rape and domestic violence. These reports enabled the Commission to evaluate police response, respond to complaints and recommend training if needed. The Grand Jury submits its findings and recommendations to bring the City of Santa Cruz into compliance with City Ordinance 81-29. The personal safety and well-being of the community is at stake. Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence published June 27, 2024
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Since 2016, the lack of comprehensive Annual Reports with detailed metrics on rape, including the tracking of stranger rape, leaves the community less informed, more vulnerable, and less safe. __ AGREE __x PARTIALLY DISAGREE DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Commission partially agrees with the assertion that the community is "less informed" due to the Annual Report lacking detailed metrics on known and stranger rape. The Commission disagrees that the lack of detailed metrics leaves the community more vulnerable and less safe as a result, due to the fact that there are no known data on what kinds of reporting create community safety, per se. We want the Annual report to consistently include both current and historical data on rape and domestic violence and anticipate being able to reach this goal with the support of our new part time staff. Ordinance No. 81-29, Section 5. (d), requires the Commission to “…submit annually, and the City Council review and act upon a report documenting, in detail, City, community, and police efforts to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.” The Annual Reports historically included more detailed metrics on Rape and Domestic Violence. While we concur that no reports were prepared during the 2017-2019 years, the 2023 Report provided a full recovery of the available data for those years The 2023 Report includes data from FBI Uniform Crime Report for Rape and data from 2010-2023 on the following California Penal Code Sections relating to Rape: 220 Attempted Rape; 261/262 Rape; 286 Sodomy; 387/288 Oral Copulation and 289 Penetration with a foreign object. Additionally, the 2023 report also includes domestic violence statistics from 2015 to 2023 The Commission partially agrees with the Grand Jury’s claim that a lack of detailed metrics leaves the community more vulnerable and less safe. FBI Uniformed Crime Report shows a 26% reduction in rape from 2022 to 2023, along with a 34% decrease in Domestic Violence cases by from 2020 to 2021 and a decline of 14% between 2022 and 2023. Due to reporting timeline issues, a recent seeming uptick in rape numbers for 2024 is likewise not the full picture until we see the aggregate for the year. In its efforts to determine a more informative set of metrics for assessing community risk types for reporting, the Commission voted in November 2023 to accept a revised reporting format for rape and domestic violence statistics to include all FBI UCR Data, and various California Penal Code Sections on Rape and Domestic Violence. If the Commission chooses to reassess the metrics requested from SCPD, including stranger rape data, the SCPD has indicated it is prepared to provide that information. The Commission is still gathering information to determine what metrics are most informative to its work in relation to prevention and education. Understanding how SCPD reports NIBRS/CIBRS is a work in progress. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 475 Given the complexities of sorting rape data, The Commission continues to focus on enhanced outreach to the community by collaborating with other Community Based Organizations to raise awareness about prevention and available services for survivors. This includes co-sponsoring with Monarch Services the “Stronger Together” Fun Run/5K Race in September 2023 & 2024, partnering for the past two years in both the Dyke and Pride Parades, the 2024 March to End Homelessness, and the She is Beautiful race. The production of a 30-minute film, “How to start difficult conversations on rape” which is being shown in local schools. Additionally, the Commission partnered with Monarch Services and approved allocation of $6,000 to support their efforts to end domestic violence and to provide assistance to all survivors of sexual assault.
F2:
By highlighting a generic national statistic on stranger rape, rather than assessing local metrics in the CPVAW 2023 Report, the City is minimizing stranger rape and misleading the public into a possible false sense of security. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _ _ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Commission partially disagrees with the assertion that presented data leads to a false sense of security. The CPVAW 2023 Annual Report includes, as approved by the Commission on November 1, 2023, data from the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Report on Rape which is data specific to the City of Santa Cruz. The Annual Report also includes specific data on 5 penal code categories of Sexual Assault violations which together reveal accurate rape statistics of crimes committed in the City of Santa Cruz. It is correct that this data does not distinguish between a stranger and an acquaintance. While this type of distinction is useful, there is no data supporting that this is misleading the public into a false sense of security. However, we do agree that publishing stranger rape alerts to our community would increase capacity for safety. The data cited in the Annual Report is from a nationally recognized association; Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network (RAINN) and is consistent with previous data analysis as reported in the 2005-07 Annual Report. Invited Response from the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 476 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury The data showed that the City was safer in 2023 than in previous years. The Uniform Crime Report showed a decrease in rape by 26% from 2022 to 2023, and a decrease in Domestic Violence cases by 34% from 2020 to 2021 and a decrease of 14% between 2022 and 2023. We may be well served to adopt the FBI NIBRS data as the county and the City of Scotts Valley utilize and publish these data. This merits a further discussion with SCPD. Again, the Commission is reviewing its effective range of data for evaluation and appreciates SCPD cooperation in providing such data as is determined to be most informative to our efforts to realize the intent of the Ordinance.
F3:
The lack of attention to long-time Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network and the Bar Coaster program leaves residents and visitors without important resources for their personal safety. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Commission is currently (see budget FY 24 and 25) leveraging their funds to partner with community-based organizations who specialize in providing victims of domestic violence and rape with much needed financial support to continue their successful programs and services. These organizations provide tangible resources that the Commission could not provide nor have the expertise to provide. In 2024 the Commission provided the following sponsorships to support local non-profit organizations: $2,000 Walnut Ave Women’s Center, a non-profit organization based in Santa Cruz that provides direct services to survivors of domestic violence including prevention and education and $6,000 to Monarch Services, another local non-profit that offers immediate crisis response to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 477 The Commission supported new programs to promote personal safety. For example, the Commission created PSAs aired on local channels to promote local safety; in 2023 the Commission partnered with the Santa Cruz City School district to provide high school students with an on-line course through Vector Solutions. This program offered targeted courses for grades 6-8 and 9-12, which would reach approximately 2,000 students. This mandatory program would enable the school to extend its reach, empowering more students to make informed choices, resist peer pressure, and foster health relationships. Topics included: Dealing with Stress and Anxiety; Self-Harm Awareness and Resolving Disagreements. Additional content included Mental Health and Wellbeing, Healthy Relationships & Inclusion, Personal & Community Safety and Student Safety and Wellness. The Commission funds self-defense programming each year. The City is the only local agency to have a Victim Advocate on staff in the Police Department. This important resource provides victims with information pamphlets outlining their rights, needed resources and advocate support through the legal system; and makes referrals to local agencies. The Advocate works with survivors to ensure they are treated with fairness and respect. With regards to the Bar Coaster Program, the Commission has continued this program in FY 23 and 24. It is budgeted again in FY25. As of July 1st, State Law requires all bars that do not provide food to provide drug testing kits to customers. The Commission supports this new law. In June of 2024 the Commission purchased an additional 500 drug testing coasters to distribute to bars located in the City of Santa Cruz. These have been distributed into the community and we would welcome the opportunity do more, as our budget is allocated for it. The Commission had a program entitled Safe Place Network which is no longer active. The program began over 25 years ago by providing a window sticker to businesses stating they were a “Safe Place”, however there was very little to no training provided for businesses and their staff. The program also lacked a comprehensive marketing and outreach plan to inform visitors and the community of its existence. There are no metrics or data to substantiate the claim that not having this program has left residents and visitors without important resources for their personal safety. However, the Commission could consider re-establishing the program if they should choose to do so in the future. Of further note, the Commission requested and was awarded for FY 25 a half time staff person dedicated to Commission business. This will greatly enhance our efficacy in general and with sustaining event and distribution protocols, budget management, program development and implementation, and is a strong indicator of City Council recognition of the critical work the Commission produces for community safety. Getting resources out to the community requires coordination and support from staffing. We anticipate great improvement. Invited Response from the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
It is hard to contact the relevant people in CPS to get information since there is no organizational chart published on the website. People don’t know who they can contact for specific issues. Report on Child Protective Services published June 17, 2024 260 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish an organizational chart by October 31, 2024. (F1)
F2:
The lack of readily available CPS data metrics accessible on the Santa Cruz County website can lead to perceptions based on individual experiences. Perception becomes reality if data is not provided which can lead to public distrust of the system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6)
F3:
Lots of data is available on the California Welfare Indicators Project maintained by University of California for the whole state of California for each county. It is hard to sift through and find relevant data for Santa Cruz County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6)
F4:
There is no formal complaint process. You can lodge a complaint only with your social worker. When the complainant is not happy with the resolution, complaints are lodged with the Grand Jury. This is ineffective and results in a lack of accountability or follow up on the complaint.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS create and publish the complaint process. This published process should include a supervisor not vested in the outcome who can review the complaints. This process and the accompanying metrics like number of complaints and resolution times should be made available to the public by December 31, 2024. (F4)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a Child Welfare Oversight board and an Inspector General similar to what the 2002-2003 Grand Jury recommended. This could help resolve bias, impropriety and undue influence complaints and will help provide transparency and increase trust in the CPS process. The Grand Jury recommends that the planning for this should start by December 31, 2024, with the board fully implemented six months after the planning is finished. (F4, F5)
F5:
Child Family Team members often dispute the accuracy of "official" meeting notes taken by the attending CPS Social Workers, leading to lack of trust between team members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a Child Welfare Oversight board and an Inspector General similar to what the 2002-2003 Grand Jury recommended. This could help resolve bias, impropriety and undue influence complaints and will help provide transparency and increase trust in the CPS process. The Grand Jury recommends that the planning for this should start by December 31, 2024, with the board fully implemented six months after the planning is finished. (F4, F5)
F6:
With regard to the City Manager’s response to Recommendation R8, the City’s FY 2024 Annual Budget does not provide a detailed plan and accounting of how homeless funds have been used. The City’s response only partially fulfilled its commitment to make related budget figures available. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Annual Budget as presented by the City of Santa Cruz provides an overview of General Fund revenues and expenditures and Capital Investment Program for the City. The budget document provides information about total expenditures by department and is not intended to be a detailed expenditure plan for a specific program as recommended by the Grand Jury. An Annual Budget is a financial plan, policy document, operations guide and a communication device. The specific request relates to funds received in December 2022 in the amount of $14M from a grant from the State of California, and $4.7M from the American Recovery Act. Both sources of funds were one-time in nature and utilized over two Fiscal Years, FY23 and FY24. A detailed accounting of those funds was presented to the City Council during the FY24 Budget Hearing’s and was attached to the City Council Report which is publicly available on the City’s website located here: FY24 Budget Hearings Homelessness Response. The report details the FY23 expenditures and the planned expenditures for FY24 on of the power point presentation. The recently adopted FY25 budget provides an overview of the expenditures for homelessness response programs that occurred in FY24 and the budget for FY25. These expenditures are contained in three City Departments: City Manager, Public Works and Police Department under the Activity Code 6105. While the expenditures are not broken out into expenses by detail, they are reported categorically as is consistent with all of the city program budgets and consistent with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) accounting and financial reporting standards. The FY25 budget is publicly available on the City’s web site. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6)
R5:
Within 90 days the City Manager should publish the figures that their initial response indicated were available for prior for years. (F6) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) X__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: On May 23, 2023, during the budget presentation for the FY24 budget, staff provided a power point presentation which includes detailed expenditures for the $14M State of California Grant and the $4.7M ARPA funds on of the presentation. The FY24 expenditures for the homelessness response program are presented in three departments: City Manager’s Office, Public Works and the Police Department. This document is available on-line on the city’s website located here: FY24 Budget Hearings Homelessness Response. The recently adopted Three Year Homelessness Response Strategic Plan (Plan) requires an annual update to the City Council on the progress made on the Plan. This update will be provided to the City Council in June of 2025. Included in this update will be a fiscal analysis of the past year’s activities. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 245
R6:
Within 90 days the City should publish the summary of expenditures as presented to the City Council in May 2023 that expand on the figures provided in the FY 2024 Annual Budget. (F6) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: On May 23, 2023, during the budget presentation for the FY24 budget, staff provided a power point presentation which includes detailed expenditures for the $14M State of California Grant and the $4.7M ARPA funds on of the presentation located here: FY24 Budget Hearings Homelessness Response. The FY24 expenditures for the homelessness response program are presented in three departments: City Manager’s Office, Public Works and the Police Department. This document is available on-line on the city’s website. The recently adopted Three Year Homeless Response Strategic Plan (Plan) requires an annual update to the City Council on the progress made on the Plan. This update will be provided to the City Council in June of 2025. Included in this update will be a fiscal analysis of the past year’s activities. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Grand Jury City of Santa Cruz Response to Grand Jury Lisa Murphy Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 4:50 PM To: "[email protected]" Cc: Santa Cruz Grand Jury , Gina Liebig Good Afternoon, Please find attached is the City of Santa Cruz, City Manager response to “Honoring Commitments to the Public, Review of 2020-21 Grand Jury Report Responses”. Lisa Murphy Deputy City Manager City of Santa Cruz 809 Center St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Phone: 831-420-5365 Email: [email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com 2024-2dI_Continuity_SantaCruzCM Invited Response Request_City Manager.pdf 261K 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 247 The 2023–2024 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Invites the Santa Cruz City Manager to Respond by September 16, 2024 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Honoring Commitments to the Public Review of 2020-21 Grand Jury Report Responses Responses are invited from appointed agency and department heads, appointed committees, and non-profit agencies contracted to the county which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are not required to respond by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). If you choose to respond, please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Instructions for Respondents Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations. Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05: 1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why. 2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable. 3. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Request as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Katherine Hansen, Grand Jury Supervising Judge [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this request form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 249
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The inability of local fire departments to coordinate (communicate) with CAL FIRE during their initial response to the CZU Fire caused many fire victims to unnecessarily lose their homes and possibly contributed to the loss of a life.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish an organizational chart by October 31, 2024. (F1) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X_ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This is currently under development and will be implemented by the Grand Jury’s timeline. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 276 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F2:
The Long-term Recovery Group which assisted CZU fire and other disaster victims with case management and food and housing support serves as a model for the future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This recommendation will not be implemented because much of the suggested metrics are already publicly available on the UC Berkeley CCWIP website, including reunification rates, re-entry rates (failed reunifications), and the types of placements youth in care are experiencing (i.e. Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program or STRTPs, RFA homes, etc). Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 277
F3:
Lots of data is available on the California Welfare Indicators Project maintained by University of California for the whole state of California for each county. It is hard to sift through and find relevant data for Santa Cruz County. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): HSD disagrees with this assertion. The data on the UC Berkeley website is as comprehensive as it needs to be, given the utility of the site by multiple stakeholders. Technical assistance is available to the public for navigation through the website, to assist interested parties in finding the exact data for the localities they seek. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 272 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This recommendation will not be implemented because much of the suggested metrics are already publicly available on the UC Berkeley CCWIP website, including reunification rates, re-entry rates (failed reunifications), and the types of placements youth in care are experiencing (i.e. Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program or STRTPs, RFA homes, etc). Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 277
F4:
There is no formal complaint process. You can lodge a complaint only with your social worker. When the complainant is not happy with the resolution, complaints are lodged with the Grand Jury. This is ineffective and results in a lack of accountability or follow up on the complaint. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): HSD disagrees with this assertion but understands that the child welfare system is complex, so it is not always clear as to what avenue is available to express concerns about a situation formally. FCS Division staff are strongly committed to providing the best possible services to our community, and we are generally regarded as a system that is open to hearing and addressing any concerns or complaints from parents, family members and foster parents of the children we serve. It is the goal of FCS to resolve complaints at the lowest possible level, and most situations are resolved this way. Complainants are encouraged to utilize the chain of command (social worker, supervisor, program manager) to allow for fullest participation of those individuals closest to the situation. Most complaints can be satisfactorily resolved at the supervisory or management level. However, when resolution cannot be achieved through this method, complainants may submit their concerns in writing for further review by the division director. FCS staff are trained on a methodology for handling complaints and grievances in order to ensure that staff respond with fairness and sensitivity to all concerns expressed by parents, family members and foster parents. It is the policy of FCS that staff will make every effort to resolve complaints or grievances in a responsive, sensitive and timely fashion that is consistent with state regulations and departmental policy and procedures. Complaints are fully heard, treated seriously and responded to fairly. Additionally, complaints and concerns can also be lodged with the State Ombudsperson of CDSS and/or brought to the attention of the judge during any court hearing held for an open case. As stated, with HSD broadly in the process of updating its public facing website, the FCS division will use this opportunity, and this specific Grand Jury complaint, as an opportunity to endeavor to make clearer in writing the avenues available to register a complaint if informal processes are not satisfactory. This information will be placed on the public facing website, and so that parties can lodge complaints directly. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 273
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS create and publish the complaint process. This published process should include a supervisor not vested in the outcome who can review the complaints. This process and the accompanying metrics like number of complaints and resolution times should be made available to the public by December 31, 2024. (F4) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _X_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: A compliant process exists as outlined in Finding 4. With HSD’s updating of its public facing website, the process to register a formal complaint if informal processes are not satisfactory, will be made clearer. This website update is anticipated to be completed by the Grand Jury’s timeline. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 278 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a Child Welfare Oversight board and an Inspector General similar to what the 2002-2003 Grand Jury recommended. This could help resolve bias, impropriety and undue influence complaints and will help provide transparency and increase trust in the CPS process. The Grand Jury recommends that the planning for this should start by December 31, 2024, with the board fully implemented six months after the planning is finished. (F4, F5) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This recommendation will not be implemented because there are currently several oversight provisions in federal and state law for the administration of child welfare. As required under the Welfare and Institutions Code, all open child welfare cases are supervised by a Juvenile Court Judge, who receives a substantive report from FCS with updates on open child welfare cases and the families involved in open child welfare cases, at least every 6 months. At these hearings, both parents and children are appointed their own counsel who represent their interests. Resource families are also given notice of the hearings and provided the opportunity to be heard both in person and through the Caregiver Information Form (JV-290). Moreover, child welfare agencies must adhere with significant reporting requirements to CDSS and the federal government, which carefully review and audit County child welfare programs and operations on a regular basis. The State has also already established the Office of the Foster Care Ombudsperson, which is a neutral and independent office to help solve problems and complaints about care, placement, and services related to children and youth in foster care. Finally, under WIC section 827, only certain individuals and agencies have access to confidential child welfare records and information. Any locally established oversight board and/or Inspector General are not included in this statute, and therefore would not have legal access to any confidential child welfare information. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 279
F5:
Child Family Team members often dispute the accuracy of "official" meeting notes taken by the attending CPS Social Workers, leading to lack of trust between team members. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _x_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): HSD disagrees with this assertion. Child and Family Team (CFT) meetings are facilitated by professional staff who are trained and skilled in using inclusive and strength-based approaches to identify the needs and services to support a child and/or family. The assigned Child Protective Services (CPS) social workers are not the record keepers of CFT meetings, nor are they responsible for official meeting notes. CFT facilitators lead the group discussions and keep the official CFT record. These are not “process notes” nor are they transcriptions of the CFT meetings and are not designed to capture the complete record of what was discussed. At the beginning of each CFT meeting, each team establishes “ground rules” to make sure there is safe, honest, and confidential communications during the CFT process, as well as clearly stated goals and outcomes for each meeting. Each team member has an opportunity to share their perspective, brainstorm options, recommend action steps, and to accept to take on specific tasks and responsibilities. The CFT facilitators are trained in addressing differently challenging situations that may arise, and they will work with everyone involved to resolve issues in the best interests of the child. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 274 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a Child Welfare Oversight board and an Inspector General similar to what the 2002-2003 Grand Jury recommended. This could help resolve bias, impropriety and undue influence complaints and will help provide transparency and increase trust in the CPS process. The Grand Jury recommends that the planning for this should start by December 31, 2024, with the board fully implemented six months after the planning is finished. (F4, F5) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This recommendation will not be implemented because there are currently several oversight provisions in federal and state law for the administration of child welfare. As required under the Welfare and Institutions Code, all open child welfare cases are supervised by a Juvenile Court Judge, who receives a substantive report from FCS with updates on open child welfare cases and the families involved in open child welfare cases, at least every 6 months. At these hearings, both parents and children are appointed their own counsel who represent their interests. Resource families are also given notice of the hearings and provided the opportunity to be heard both in person and through the Caregiver Information Form (JV-290). Moreover, child welfare agencies must adhere with significant reporting requirements to CDSS and the federal government, which carefully review and audit County child welfare programs and operations on a regular basis. The State has also already established the Office of the Foster Care Ombudsperson, which is a neutral and independent office to help solve problems and complaints about care, placement, and services related to children and youth in foster care. Finally, under WIC section 827, only certain individuals and agencies have access to confidential child welfare records and information. Any locally established oversight board and/or Inspector General are not included in this statute, and therefore would not have legal access to any confidential child welfare information. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 279
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the CPS department begin to record the Child Family Team meetings by the end of December 31, 2024. (F5) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This recommendation will not be implemented, as doing so would constitute a violation of several laws. Under California WIC sections 10850 and 827, and Calif. Rule of Court 5.530, all child welfare proceedings, records, and information are confidential and only accessible to certain persons and entities. Although resource parents are entitled to attend and participate in hearings and meetings, they do not have full access to all child welfare records or information. CFT meetings are confidential meetings protected under these laws. Additionally, under Calif. Penal Code 632, recording a confidential proceeding or meeting is a criminal violation. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 280 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury [This page intentionally left blank.] [Return to Table of Contents] 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 281 Victims of the CZU Wildfire – Four Years Later The Flame Still Burns “And the flame still burns From a glimmer back then it lights up again in my life" Mick Jones
F6:
The lack of data makes it difficult to determine whether bias is present either to Resource Families or Birth Families to the detriment of the child. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): HSD disagrees with this assertion, as it is unclear what data is believed to be definitive in determining whether bias is present to either Resource Families or to Birth Families to the detriment of any child. There are many complicating factors related to a child’s experience in foster care and a child’s return to their home of origin. Child welfare is charged with being a safety net for the most vulnerable populations and to consider the best interest of each individual child while doing so. The HSD FCS Division always strives to put the best interest of the child at the forefront of its social work practice. Additionally, as outlined in California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) section 202 et seq., the child welfare system is legally mandated with three clearly outlined goals: 1) Provide for the protection, safety, physical and emotional well-being of children who have been or are at-risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment; 2) Preserve and strengthen a child’s families ties whenever possible. A court may only order the removal of a child from the custody of a parent when necessary for the safety and welfare of the child. If a child is removed, a juvenile court must order family reunification as the primary objective followed by family maintenance. 3) Provide a stable, permanent home for children in a timely manner. Foster care is intended to be temporary care, and a Resource Family home serves as a “concurrent plan” in the event that the juvenile court makes a legal determination that a parent is legally unable or unwilling to reunify with their child during the allotted time period. Making a “Bypass” recommendation to the Juvenile Court is an extremely serious and complex legal position akin to a “Third Strike” in the criminal realm. It requires the child welfare agency to present specific facts and circumstances during a contested trial to meet the higher “clear and convincing” standard that reunification is not in the child’s best interest. Each child and each parent are represented by an attorney during these proceedings, and only a Juvenile Court judge can make this final Bypass determination. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 275
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This recommendation will not be implemented because much of the suggested metrics are already publicly available on the UC Berkeley CCWIP website, including reunification rates, re-entry rates (failed reunifications), and the types of placements youth in care are experiencing (i.e. Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program or STRTPs, RFA homes, etc). Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 277
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F3:
Zip code data can pinpoint areas of “High Need,” which can direct data- driven funding for better health outcomes and give a better “Return on Investment.” __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Zip code data can pinpoint areas of “High Need,” which can direct data-driven funding for better health outcomes and give a better “Return on Investment”, The BHD is responsible for the administration of the Specialty Mental Health and Drug Medi-Cal Health Plans and the provision of care to Medi-Cal beneficiaries who meet health criteria, based on individual need, under these health plans. Often, these beneficiaries are living with life-long diagnoses and improvement is measured by maintenance or improvement in functioning and self-reported metrics. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024 192 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, in collaboration with the Chief Administrative Office Staff (CAO), provide a plan to report program performance on County websites. This plan should include data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of each behavioral health program, including outcome-based metrics, patient feedback for each program, number of patients served, and financial details like budgeted expenses and revenue sources by program. This plan should be published by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F3) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County Health Services Agency and its Behavioral Health Division (BHD) publish the External Quality Review Organization (EQRO) Reports for the Mental Health Plan and Drug Medi-Cal Plan’s quality performance on the Behavioral Health website (Medi-Cal Specialty Behavioral Health External Quality Review- MHP and Medi-Cal Specialty Behavioral Health External Quality Review- DMC-ODS). This is a state- administered network adequacy and quality audit of County BHD that is conducted by an external organization, independent of the County of Santa Cruz and BHD. The County budget website links expenditure and revenue appropriations to each service. A service is defined as an operational unit within a department aimed at accomplishing a major governmental purpose or supporting the Operational Plan. The Behavioral Health Division of the Health Services Agency has seven services that can be explored at this link (Health Services Agency Proposed 2024-25 Budget). Beginning in Fall 2024 through Spring 2025, a Public Health Division-led Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) will be developed using a community engagement framework (MAPP 2.0), based on the CHA findings. If the community engaged process finds 95076 zip code and associated indicators to be a priority to include in the CHIP, elements of this recommendation may appear in the CHIP in mid-2025. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 197
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X_ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Enhanced Care Management (ECM) is a Medi-Cal entitlement that is the responsibility of the Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (MCPs) and administered through the MCPs. In Santa Cruz County there are two Medi-Cal MCPs – Central California Alliance for Health (CCAH) and Kaiser Permanente. Those organizations are responsible for the ECM programs, not the County. The County Health Services Agency is merely one of many contractors to CCAH to provide the ECM program to some Medi-Cal beneficiaries. The Behavioral Health Division will begin offering ECM services to all Adult Specialty Mental Health beneficiaries regardless of zip code, through HSA's ECM contract with the Central California Alliance for Health, by December 2024. The County BHD will offer ECM to all Specialty Mental Health beneficiaries based on the population priorities outlined by ECM requirements, as such staff will ensure an equity lens is at the forefront of the work. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024
F4:
The 95076 zip code has an extraordinarily high number of patient transfers to outside the county compared to other zip codes of Santa Cruz county. This indicates a major lack of healthcare facilities and services to serve the community. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County is committed to retaining the existing health care facilities and services that support all County residents, including 95076 zip code residents, and has committed to expanding the availability of facilities and services. The County has made significant investments with its community partners to purchase and keep open Watsonville Community Hospital and has recently purchased a building to establish an in-County youth crisis stabilization facility. In addition, the County relocated services at Westridge, increasing accessibility to South County. If the finding is only related to Behavioral Health transfers, then the data referenced in the Grand Jury report is too broad, as that data appears to include all patient transfers for any health need, not only behavioral health, regardless of insurance provider. The County is responsible for the payment of hospital services only for patient transfers for inpatient psychiatry for Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Due to Federal legislation, inpatient psychiatric facilities that are not attached to an acute care hospital are capped at 16 beds. As a result, Santa Cruz County has only one inpatient psychiatric health facility (also known as the PHF) of 16 beds located at 2250 Soquel Ave, Santa Cruz. The County Specialty Mental Health Plan contracts with Telecare to deliver the health services in that facility. If this finding is regarding lack of healthcare facilities and services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries, the responsibility and the data is held by the Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (MCPs). In Santa Cruz County, the MCPs are the Central California Alliance for Health (CCAH) and Kaiser Permanente, which are accountable to the State of California’s Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) for maintaining network adequacy requirements. If this finding is regarding lack of healthcare facilities and services to private insurance members, the responsibility and the data is held by the Managed Care Plans (MCPs). There are many MCPs that provide health care coverage for Santa Cruz County residents, such as Anthem, Blue Shield, Kaiser Permanente, and others. The non-Medi-Cal MCPs are accountable to the State of California’s Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) for maintaining network adequacy requirements. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 193
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X_ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Enhanced Care Management (ECM) is a Medi-Cal entitlement that is the responsibility of the Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (MCPs) and administered through the MCPs. In Santa Cruz County there are two Medi-Cal MCPs – Central California Alliance for Health (CCAH) and Kaiser Permanente. Those organizations are responsible for the ECM programs, not the County. The County Health Services Agency is merely one of many contractors to CCAH to provide the ECM program to some Medi-Cal beneficiaries. The Behavioral Health Division will begin offering ECM services to all Adult Specialty Mental Health beneficiaries regardless of zip code, through HSA's ECM contract with the Central California Alliance for Health, by December 2024. The County BHD will offer ECM to all Specialty Mental Health beneficiaries based on the population priorities outlined by ECM requirements, as such staff will ensure an equity lens is at the forefront of the work. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024
F5:
A study of socioeconomic indicators of the 95076 zip code, compared to other zip codes of Santa Cruz county, reveal a dire need to improve the following: Homelessness Low Preschool Enrollment Poor Health Care Access Unemployment Support for Single Parent Households _X_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Santa Cruz County’s DataShareSCC provides dozens of indicators related to community health and well-being. https://www.datasharescc.org/ The data shows similar findings. The Public Health Division-led Community Health Assessment (CHA) will be published in August 2024, and preliminary results also show findings that concur. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024 194 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X_ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Enhanced Care Management (ECM) is a Medi-Cal entitlement that is the responsibility of the Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (MCPs) and administered through the MCPs. In Santa Cruz County there are two Medi-Cal MCPs – Central California Alliance for Health (CCAH) and Kaiser Permanente. Those organizations are responsible for the ECM programs, not the County. The County Health Services Agency is merely one of many contractors to CCAH to provide the ECM program to some Medi-Cal beneficiaries. The Behavioral Health Division will begin offering ECM services to all Adult Specialty Mental Health beneficiaries regardless of zip code, through HSA's ECM contract with the Central California Alliance for Health, by December 2024. The County BHD will offer ECM to all Specialty Mental Health beneficiaries based on the population priorities outlined by ECM requirements, as such staff will ensure an equity lens is at the forefront of the work. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024
F6:
The ECM programs are currently at capacity and have waiting lists. More providers are needed to expand the program further to transition more residents to independent living. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County does not have data on waiting lists or patient need for the Enhanced Care Management (ECM) program. The Enhanced Care Management is a Medi-Cal entitlement that is the responsibility of the Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (MCPs) and administered through the MCPs. In Santa Cruz County, there are two Medi-Cal MCPs – Central California Alliance for Health (CCAH) and Kaiser Permanente. Those organizations are responsible for the ECM programs, not the County. The County Health Services Agency is merely one of many contractors to CCAH to provide the ECM program to some Medi-Cal beneficiaries. The waitlist information would be the responsibility of the MCPs. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 195
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X_ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Enhanced Care Management (ECM) is a Medi-Cal entitlement that is the responsibility of the Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (MCPs) and administered through the MCPs. In Santa Cruz County there are two Medi-Cal MCPs – Central California Alliance for Health (CCAH) and Kaiser Permanente. Those organizations are responsible for the ECM programs, not the County. The County Health Services Agency is merely one of many contractors to CCAH to provide the ECM program to some Medi-Cal beneficiaries. The Behavioral Health Division will begin offering ECM services to all Adult Specialty Mental Health beneficiaries regardless of zip code, through HSA's ECM contract with the Central California Alliance for Health, by December 2024. The County BHD will offer ECM to all Specialty Mental Health beneficiaries based on the population priorities outlined by ECM requirements, as such staff will ensure an equity lens is at the forefront of the work. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024
F7:
Though there is evidence that managed care programs like ECM are effective, lack of data leaves doubt in the public’s mind. Data supporting the success rate of ECM programs would ensure stronger public support. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County does not have data on the effectiveness of the Enhanced Care Management (ECM) program at this time. The Enhanced Care Management is a Medi-Cal entitlement that is the responsibility of the Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (MCPs) and administered through the MCPs. In Santa Cruz County there are two Medi-Cal MCPs – Central California Alliance for Health (CCAH) and Kaiser Permanente. Those organizations are responsible for the ECM programs, not the County. The County Health Services Agency is merely one of many contractors to CCAH to provide the ECM program to some Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Effectiveness information would be the responsibility of the MCPs. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024 196 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X_ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Enhanced Care Management (ECM) is a Medi-Cal entitlement that is the responsibility of the Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans (MCPs) and administered through the MCPs. In Santa Cruz County there are two Medi-Cal MCPs – Central California Alliance for Health (CCAH) and Kaiser Permanente. Those organizations are responsible for the ECM programs, not the County. The County Health Services Agency is merely one of many contractors to CCAH to provide the ECM program to some Medi-Cal beneficiaries. The Behavioral Health Division will begin offering ECM services to all Adult Specialty Mental Health beneficiaries regardless of zip code, through HSA's ECM contract with the Central California Alliance for Health, by December 2024. The County BHD will offer ECM to all Specialty Mental Health beneficiaries based on the population priorities outlined by ECM requirements, as such staff will ensure an equity lens is at the forefront of the work. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County Behavioral Health Services Due by September 9, 2024
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Underfunding the road and culvert maintenance work on the 586 miles of County roads in unincorporated Santa Cruz County for more than four decades has created a backlog of deferred maintenance currently exceeding ¾ of a billion dollars which creates a hazard for residents. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County has many demands on its limited resources. The County of Santa Cruz is systematically underfunded compared to county peers and statewide county averages. These funds are allocated to the County based on systems outside of the County’s control, such as nearly five decades of property tax regulations and recent State decisions to send online sales tax from local purchases to where warehouses are located. These circumstances restrict the County’s ability to provide services including road and culvert maintenance. Santa Cruz County has particularly difficult geography making it challenging to maintain local roads. The County was recently named the 15th most vulnerable county in the Country to landslides by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The County also faces vulnerabilities due to sea-level rise, as seen in damages from recent federal disasters where high tides and storm surge caused millions of dollars of damage to county infrastructure. Many local roads were originally not built for long-term public use, such as roads used for the logging industry. These roads, many built along waterways that make them more vulnerable, were under engineered and are susceptible to continued damage that further stresses the County’s resources. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024 28 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F2:
Due to the large shortfall in funding, Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works adheres to the accepted practice promoted by the Federal Highway Administration and RTC of prioritizing pavement preservation over pavement restoration. Much of the public lacks awareness of this practice in the absence of a formally documented policy which impacts voter choices. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County Department of Public Works uses industry-wide pavement management practices that results in the most efficient use of scarce resources. Information regarding pavement work is available on the County website (see Transportation & Roads (santacruzcountyca.gov), Completed County Resurfacing Projects 2018-2023 and Current Paving Projects). The Board of Supervisors is also regularly informed of pavement practices including annual proposals on how to spend Measure D funding. The most recent Measure D Plan was approved June 25th, 2024 (Measure D 5-Year Plan for Fiscal Year 2024-25). Additional information can be found within the Community Development and Infrastructure department budget (see Community Development and Infrastructure 2024-25 Proposed Budget). Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 29
F3:
The County road maintenance strategy differs by Supervisorial District leading to inconsistent road repair expectations among districts. This lack of a coordinated strategy leaves residents frustrated and with a sense of unfair treatment. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): General road maintenance consisting of vegetation management, surface patching, ditch cleaning and drainage maintenance is prescribed independent of political boundaries. County-wide pavement management funding is programed based on the percentage of road miles within each district. Some districts include cities with roads that fall outside of the County’s responsibility. The pavement maintenance strategy follows industry-wide best management practices consistently. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024 30 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F4:
Storms of 2017 and 2023 caused significant road failures. Contributing factors were inadequate culvert, drainage ditch, and road surface maintenance which led to culvert failures and full road washouts leaving residents stranded or incurring significant delay. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): While it is agreed that the condition of county transportation infrastructure was a contributing factor to the damage caused by the storms of 2017 and 2023, this report has failed to adequately attribute factors such as age and the increasing pressure of climate change-driven disasters on the County’s transportation network. Since 2017, Santa Cruz County has experienced seven federally declared disasters that have caused hundreds of millions in damages to County infrastructure. This magnitude and frequency of disasters is unmatched in the County’s history. The 2017 and 2023 storm seasons each produced nearly seven times as much damage (measured by both estimated costs and number of sites) of an average storm season. This scale of impact is anticipated to continue, compromising the County’s ability to maintain its infrastructure. Asserting a causal connection between the County’s road maintenance program and the catastrophic failure of entire hillsides or overwhelmed culverts during unprecedented storms is baseless and wholly irresponsible. The failure of the Bates Creek culvert under Main Street in Soquel, for example, was not a maintenance issue but the result of a storm cell that stalled upriver of the culvert, sending a surge of water and debris that was without precedent through a system that was never designed for it in the first place. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 31
F5:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to ask unincorporated County voters to increase the funding of the Special District 9D (1-3) road assessment fee since its inception in 1998, which has resulted in a drastic loss of revenue for maintaining County roads. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County has explored the possibility of asking voters for a Special District CSA 9D several times in the past and is currently making a more serious inquiry into to voters’ appetite for a proposed increase. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024 32 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F6:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to perform resurfacing maintenance on many of the smaller unincorporated local roads, resulting in higher failure rates and at least a 10 times increased maintenance cost when and if those roads are resurfaced. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County utilizes an industry-wide best management practice that results in the most cost-effective method of maintaining the County road network within existing resources. As illustrated in this Completed County Resurfacing Projects report on the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure website, 85.5 miles of roads, many smaller local roads, were resurfaced between 2018 and 2023. The County resurfaced nearly one-sixth of its road network between 2018 and 2023. While there is more work to be done, the assertion that it has failed to perform this work on unincorporated local roads is entirely without merit. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 33
F7:
Santa Cruz County's neglect of unincorporated local roads for many decades has led to an average Pavement Condition Index of less than 48 (as of 2019) which is 17 points below the statewide average. With the current funding level, it is projected to be 38 in 2024, and it is further projected to drop to 33 by 2028 which will leave the County in a position to experience higher catastrophic road failures. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County has not neglected unincorporated local roads, as evidenced by $350 million spent on roads in the last seven fiscal years. This figure represents $580,000 per road mile, and is greater than the Sheriff’s Office’s entire operating budget for three years, would fund County Parks 20 times over, and is five times larger than the Measure S library bond. However, Santa Cruz County has unique challenges to improving our Pavement Condition Index, including: - Difficult geography with unstable land in the mountains and low-lying roads on the coast and south that are vulnerable to coastal flooding. - Roads in use that were originally not built for long-term public use, such as roads originally built by the logging industry. These roads were under- engineered and are vulnerable to damage. - Many roads were built adjacent to waterways, and are more suspectable to increased pressures from extreme weather and coastal flooding. - Systematic underfunding due to reasons beyond the County’s control including property tax and sales tax allocation regulations. - Already scarce funding being allocated to support priority emergency repair projects, including those that restore access to residential neighborhoods or the ability of public safety personnel to respond to critical life/safety incidents. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024 34 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 35
F8:
The County prioritizes preventive maintenance of roads in fair to good condition over road repair and reconstruction due to limited discretionary funds. As a result, many residents in local road areas will have to contend with very poor/failed roads into the foreseeable future. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Santa Cruz County Community Development & Infrastructure uses a pavement management industry-wide best management practice that results in the most efficient use of scarce resources to address road treatment. As stated above, the County made significant progress on local road maintenance including road resurfacing thanks to new sources of funding such as Measure D, and is studying whether residents would support additional road funding through CSA 9D. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
March 23, 2024. “Laurel Road-Pavement Condition Index 10.” Juror supplied photo. Accessed April 10, 2024.
R2:
March 24, 2024. “Santa Cruz County Government.” Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce. Accessed March 24, 3034. https://www.santacruzchamber.org/santa-cruz-county-governments.html#:~:text= Santa%20Cruz%20County%20is%20atypical,unincorporated%20areas%20of%2 0the%20County.
R3:
November 1, 2019. Department of Public Works. Pavement Management Program Update Final Report, p. 11. Accessed December 12, 2023. https://dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/19/pdfs/Newsletters%20DPW/January%2 020.pdf
R4:
August 30, 2023. Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector. Final Tax Rate Book 2023-2024, p. 190. Accessed March 24, 2024. https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/Portals/0/County/auditor/Final%20Tax%20Ra te%20Book%202023-24.pdf
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The County budget website lacks HSA Financial data visible to the public to ensure transparency of programs and funding efficacy.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, in collaboration with the Chief Administrative Office Staff (CAO), provide a plan to report program performance on County websites. This plan should include data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of each behavioral health program, including outcome-based metrics, patient feedback for each program, number of patients served, and financial details like budgeted expenses and revenue sources by program. This plan should be published by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F3)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the CAO to implement performance budgeting of Behavioral Health Services over the next two-year budget cycle. This was also recommended by the 2017-2018 Grand Jury. The BoS should take this action by December 31, 2024. (F1)
F2:
The County has limited staff to analyze the data for identifying trends which would allow focusing resources more effectively. Findings on Out-of-County Transfers and 95076 Zip Code
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, in collaboration with the Chief Administrative Office Staff (CAO), provide a plan to report program performance on County websites. This plan should include data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of each behavioral health program, including outcome-based metrics, patient feedback for each program, number of patients served, and financial details like budgeted expenses and revenue sources by program. This plan should be published by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F3)
F3:
Zip code data can pinpoint areas of “High Need,” which can direct data-driven funding for better health outcomes and give a better “Return on Investment.”
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, in collaboration with the Chief Administrative Office Staff (CAO), provide a plan to report program performance on County websites. This plan should include data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of each behavioral health program, including outcome-based metrics, patient feedback for each program, number of patients served, and financial details like budgeted expenses and revenue sources by program. This plan should be published by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F3)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, County Office of Education, and the Board of Supervisors develop and publish a plan, with measurable outcomes, that focuses on improving socioeconomic indicators in the 95076 zip code by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5)
F4:
The 95076 zip code has an extraordinarily high number of patient transfers to outside the county compared to other zip codes of Santa Cruz county. This indicates a major lack of healthcare facilities and services to serve the community.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, County Office of Education, and the Board of Supervisors develop and publish a plan, with measurable outcomes, that focuses on improving socioeconomic indicators in the 95076 zip code by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5)
F5:
A study of socioeconomic indicators of the 95076 zip code, compared to other zip codes of Santa Cruz county, reveal a dire need to improve the following: ● Homelessness ● Low Preschool Enrollment ● Poor Health Care Access ● Unemployment ● Support for Single Parent Households County Behavioral Health Services published June 11, 2024 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 177 Findings about Case Management
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, County Office of Education, and the Board of Supervisors develop and publish a plan, with measurable outcomes, that focuses on improving socioeconomic indicators in the 95076 zip code by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5)
F6:
The ECM programs are currently at capacity and have waiting lists. More providers are needed to expand the program further to transition more residents to independent living.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
F7:
Though there is evidence that managed care programs like ECM are effective, lack of data leaves doubt in the public’s mind. Data supporting the success rate of ECM programs would ensure stronger public support.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R5:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff train staff on how to transfer suicidal inmates to an LPS facility for mental health care. (F7) _X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Sheriff’s Office disagreed with the supporting finding for this recommendation. The Sheriff’s Office operates within our policy and within guidelines provided by BSCC. We will continue to provide training for our staff that is rooted in law and best practice. The Sheriff’s Office was found compliant with this in our recent Title 15 Medical/Mental Health inspection conducted by Dr. Lee. Invited Response from the Chief Deputy, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office We Can Do Better with Our Jails! Due by August 12, 2024 156 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Underfunding the road and culvert maintenance work on the 586 miles of County roads in unincorporated Santa Cruz County for more than four decades has created a backlog of deferred maintenance currently exceeding ¾ of a billion dollars which creates a hazard for residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by December 31, 2024 which shows the prioritization of culvert and drainage ditch maintenance in order to help prevent road washouts that are more costly to repair. (F1, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
F2:
Due to the large shortfall in funding, Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works adheres to the accepted practice promoted by the Federal Highway Administration and RTC of prioritizing pavement preservation over pavement restoration. Much of the public lacks awareness of this practice in the absence of a formally documented policy which impacts voter choices.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F3:
The County road maintenance strategy differs by Supervisorial District leading to inconsistent road repair expectations among districts. This lack of a coordinated strategy leaves residents frustrated and with a sense of unfair treatment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F4:
Storms of 2017 and 2023 caused significant road failures. Contributing factors were inadequate culvert, drainage ditch, and road surface maintenance which led to culvert failures and full road washouts leaving residents stranded or incurring significant delay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F5:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to ask unincorporated County voters to increase the funding of the Special District 9D (1-3) road assessment fee since its inception in 1988, which has resulted in a drastic loss of revenue for maintaining County roads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by December 31, 2024 which shows the prioritization of culvert and drainage ditch maintenance in order to help prevent road washouts that are more costly to repair. (F1, F5)
F6:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to perform resurfacing maintenance on many of the smaller unincorporated local roads, resulting in higher failure rates and at least a 10 times increased maintenance cost when and if those roads are resurfaced.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO detailing expenditures in each of the three zones of CSA 9D for the years 2020-2023 by October 31, 2024. (F6, F10)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area 9 Service and Sphere of Influence Review incorporating detailed data of expenditures for each 9D zone by March 15, 2025. (F6, F10)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors should begin the process necessary to increase the funding in CSA 9D to an amount in line with what is needed to reduce the backlog of very poor and failed road repairs by December 31, 2024. (F6)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors take steps necessary to add a consumer price index increase to CSA 9D, as allowed by law, by December 31, 2024. (F6)
F7:
Santa Cruz County's neglect of unincorporated local roads for many decades has led to an average Pavement Condition Index of less than 48 (as of 2019) which is 17 points below the statewide average. With the current funding level, it is projected to be 38 in 2024, and it is further projected to drop to 33 by 2028 which will leave the County in a position to experience higher catastrophic road failures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F8:
The County prioritizes preventive maintenance of roads in fair to good condition over road repair and reconstruction due to limited discretionary funds. As a result, many residents in local road areas will have to contend with very poor/failed roads into the foreseeable future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
F9:
The most recent LAFCO and County reports fail to provide detailed accounting of how 9D funds are being spent. The result is that taxpayers lack the information to ensure that generated funds are being used appropriately.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9) Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 16 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F10:
Minor progress has been made in seeking and securing additional funding sources. The additional funding is far short of what is needed to maintain and repair the road network. Santa Cruz County Local Roads published June 5, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 15
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO detailing expenditures in each of the three zones of CSA 9D for the years 2020-2023 by October 31, 2024. (F6, F10)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area 9 Service and Sphere of Influence Review incorporating detailed data of expenditures for each 9D zone by March 15, 2025. (F6, F10)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11)
F11:
Measure K funds go directly into the General Fund and road maintenance funding expenditures are only recommended. This may allow the funding to go to other needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The failure of Wellpath, the medical provider contracted by the Sheriff to provide data from required Health Service Audits, has adversely affected inmate health and resulted in poor health care and lack of pharmaceutical services for inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to begin the Health Service Audits. (F1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F2:
The failure of Wellpath to implement a comprehensive discharge plan causes inmates to be released without community connection to medical treatment and medication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F3:
The failure of the Sheriff”s jail staff to properly address inmates' mental illness crises has caused mentally disabled inmates to be held in Safety Cells for excessively long periods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F4:
The improper use of Safety Cells by the Sheriff’s jail staff to isolate inmates who are greatly in need of mental health care and/or have made suicidal statements causes a violation of required procedure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F5:
The use of Safety Cells for punishment has resulted in violations of Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s Policy and Procedures Manual policy 516.2. This may expose the Sheriff’s department to lawsuits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F6:
The practice of excluding mentally ill patients from 5150 hold and transfer until discharge results in a violation of both Title 15 and Sheriff’s Policies and Procedures manual policy 516.2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff with the proper use of a 5150 hold and the transfer of inmates to a mental health facility according to Title 15 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F6) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 45
F7:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer inmates with suicidal ideation or in a mental health crisis to an out-of-county LPS facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff train staff on how to transfer suicidal inmates to an LPS facility for mental health care. (F7)
F8:
The failure of the Crisis Intervention Team to issue a 5150 hold and transfer before an inmate is discharged adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff direct the CIT team to not withhold a 5150 hold and make a transfer until release because this is not proper or best practice for inmates in need of mental health care. (F8)
F9:
The practice of placement in Administrative Separation (solitary confinement) causes inmates to suffer mental health problems including, but not limited to, anxiety, insomnia, paranoia, aggression, and depression.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F10:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer Inmates who are suffering from mental health crises symptoms to an LPS Facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F11:
Opening the closed unit at Rountree and increasing the number of re-entry programs would result in better conditions for inmates and less stress for the correctional officers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff reopen closed units and move all qualified inmates to Rountree Medium Security and the Minimum Security Rehabilitation and Reentry unit. (F11)
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice to prepare for reentry would show positive improvement to public safety and a reduction in recidivism for reentering inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a comprehensive plan to increase the number of programs that steer inmates towards reentry into the community with new job skills development, education, work release and transitional programs. (F12) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 46 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-20:
hours a day. According to answers given by Wellpath on 02/13/2024 in a Request for Proposal - Vendor Report to the County, many staffing positions are currently vacant including:[26] ● One Mental Health Coordinator ● Two full time Mental Health Clinicians ● Three full time Registered Nurses ● Four full time Licensed Vocational Nurses Some notable numbers from the report: ● Average daily # of detox patients - 12 ● Average daily # of combined segregation inmates - 25-30 ● Percentage of inmate population on medication - 65 ● Percentage of inmate population on psych medication - 68 ● Percentage of inmate population who are Severely Mentally Ill - 12 The Grand Jury is concerned with these crisis-level numbers. The workload appears to be a problem, given the vacancies of medical and mental health staff. Reducing staffing level caseloads is not the whole answer, but it is a crucial element to the question of whether inmates with mental illness are being provided with the required level of care. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Since 2016, the lack of comprehensive Annual Reports with detailed metrics on rape, including the tracking of stranger rape, leaves the community less informed, more vulnerable, and less safe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Commission and the SCPD submit comprehensive annual reports as called for in Ordinance 81-29, using the 2005-07 reports as a model, with the 2024 Annual Report placed on the Commission's agenda by December 31, 2024 and future reports submitted on a consistent, annual basis. (F1)
F2:
By highlighting a generic national statistic on stranger rape, rather than assessing local metrics in the CPVAW 2023 Report, the City is minimizing stranger rape and misleading the public into a possible false sense of security.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the 2023 Report be amended to remove the national entry on stranger rape, replacing it with accurate data for the City of Santa Cruz by December 31, 2024. (F2)
F3:
The lack of attention to long-time Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network and the Bar Coaster program leaves residents and visitors without important resources for their personal safety.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council fund a dedicated staff person for the Commission with skills commensurate to the need for program and resource development, community outreach and visibility, data research and report writing and have such position advertised by December 31, 2024. (F5, F3)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the CPVAW update the status of the Safe Place Network and the Bar Coasters program. If the programs are to be discontinued, a public CPVAW meeting is advised for that decision. If the programs are to be continued, the date of January 31, 2025 is recommended for the full reinstatement of these programs. (F3)
F4:
The loss of the in-person self-defense program for boys and girls in Santa Cruz City Schools lessens students’ ability to prevent sexual assault and interpersonal violence, inconsistent with the mandate of Ordinance 81-29.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council begin evaluating options with the Santa Cruz City School District to reinstate the in-person self-defense program for middle and high school students of all genders by January 31, 2025. (F4)
F5:
The City’s replacement of a dedicated 20-hour per week Commission staff position with rotating staff with minimal hours has resulted in a loss of visibility for the prevention of rape and domestic violence, a loss of community connections, a lack of programs, inadequate resource distribution and less public awareness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council fund a dedicated staff person for the Commission with skills commensurate to the need for program and resource development, community outreach and visibility, data research and report writing and have such position advertised by December 31, 2024. (F5, F3)
F6:
The City’s refusal to allow the Commission continued access to redacted police reports prevents the Commission from making recommendations for police training and evaluating community complaints as required by Ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council reevaluate the legal ability of CPVAW commissioners to access redacted police reports of rape as described in this investigation, and present the results of that research by December 31, 2024. (F6)
F7:
The SCPD’s decision to drop stranger rape alerts and case-by-case updates leaves the community unaware about this serious crime and therefore less safe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD reinstate community alerts for incidents of stranger rape, with case-by-case updates, by December 31, 2024. (F7)
F8:
The inconsistencies the Grand Jury found in SCPD’s rape numbers means the public, the CPVAW and the City have no accurate metrics about reported rape, leaving the community ill-informed and Annual Commission Reports unreliable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD update its website to include the detailed metrics on Rape Incidents submitted to NIBRS and CIBRS, ensuring all data entries are accurate and available at each meeting of the CPVAW, and have this in place by January 31, 2025. (F8, F9)
F9:
The SCPD and the Commission’s lack of a consistent definition of rape leads to public confusion and potential undercounting of rape crimes in the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD update its website to include the detailed metrics on Rape Incidents submitted to NIBRS and CIBRS, ensuring all data entries are accurate and available at each meeting of the CPVAW, and have this in place by January 31, 2025. (F8, F9)
F10:
The Five Year Strategic Plan’s failure to include the prevention of rape and domestic violence leaves the community less aware and less safe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that Focus Area 5, Public Safety of the 2023-28 Five Year Strategic Plan include an entry prioritizing the prevention of rape and domestic violence, as mandated by Ordinance 81-29, and published by February 28, 2025. (F10)
F11:
The City Manager’s Weekly Update to the community has not highlighted the work of the CPVAW for the past two years, effectively relegating the prevention of rape and domestic violence to a low priority, leaving the public uninformed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Manager increase the visibility of the CPVAW programs and events by publishing relevant information, at least quarterly, in the City Manager’s Weekly Update and that the first article be published by December 31, 2024. (F11)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R81-29:
to make the prevention of rape and domestic violence one of its highest priorities. In 2023, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted a Five Year Strategic Plan. The Plan makes no mention of rape and domestic violence. Over the past decade, the City’s Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women has failed to provide the City Council with solid Annual Reports that document City, community, and police efforts to prevent rape and domestic violence. Recent reports have either included no data or limited data. The 2023 CPVAW Joint Report has no metrics on important trends such as whether the City of Santa Cruz still has a higher than average rate of rapes by strangers. What areas of the city were the crimes committed in? Have there been arrests? Long-standing Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network of local businesses are currently idle. This year the Santa Cruz City Schools District canceled the Commission’s popular self-defense classes for middle and high school students. The in-person classes are being replaced with an online self-esteem video. The City has ended the Commission’s thirty five-year access to redacted police reports of rape and domestic violence. These reports enabled the Commission to evaluate police response, respond to complaints and recommend training if needed. The Grand Jury submits its findings and recommendations to bring the City of Santa Cruz into compliance with City Ordinance 81-29. The personal safety and well-being of the community is at stake. Table of Contents Summary 1 Table of Contents 2 Background 3 Scope and Methodology 3 Investigation 4 History Of Commission Work 4 Decline in Report Quality and Frequency 5 Metrics On Reported Rape in the City 6 Commission Programs and Resources 8 Self-Defense 9 Cuts to Self-Defense 9 Safe Place Network 10 Bar Coasters 11 Banners 12 Measuring the City’s Support 13 Not In the City Five Year Strategic Plan 13 Decline In Dedicated Staffing 13 Ongoing Budget Reductions 14 Loss Of Visible Location 14 Frequency Of Meetings 15 SCPD And The Commission 15 High Incidence of Stranger Rape 15 Defining Rape 16 FBI And Revised Rape Definition 17 SCPD, CPVAW and the Definition of Rape 17 Commission Access to Redacted Police Reports on Rape 20 Conclusion 20 Findings 21 Recommendations 21 Required Responses 22 Invited Responses 23 Definitions 23 Sources 23 References 23
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The County budget website lacks HSA Financial data visible to the public to ensure transparency of programs and funding efficacy.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, in collaboration with the Chief Administrative Office Staff (CAO), provide a plan to report program performance on County websites. This plan should include data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of each behavioral health program, including outcome-based metrics, patient feedback for each program, number of patients served, and financial details like budgeted expenses and revenue sources by program. This plan should be published by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F3)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the CAO to implement performance budgeting of Behavioral Health Services over the next two-year budget cycle. This was also recommended by the 2017-2018 Grand Jury. The BoS should take this action by December 31, 2024. (F1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services and the Board of Supervisors include an outcome-based evaluation of contracted services through a summary report that is publicly available. This should be done for all new and renewed contracts by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F4, F5, F7)
F2:
The County has limited staff to analyze the data for identifying trends which would allow focusing resources more effectively. Findings on Out-of-County Transfers and 95076 Zip Code
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, in collaboration with the Chief Administrative Office Staff (CAO), provide a plan to report program performance on County websites. This plan should include data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of each behavioral health program, including outcome-based metrics, patient feedback for each program, number of patients served, and financial details like budgeted expenses and revenue sources by program. This plan should be published by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F3)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services and the Board of Supervisors include an outcome-based evaluation of contracted services through a summary report that is publicly available. This should be done for all new and renewed contracts by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F4, F5, F7)
F3:
Zip code data can pinpoint areas of “High Need,” which can direct data-driven funding for better health outcomes and give a better “Return on Investment.”
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, in collaboration with the Chief Administrative Office Staff (CAO), provide a plan to report program performance on County websites. This plan should include data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of each behavioral health program, including outcome-based metrics, patient feedback for each program, number of patients served, and financial details like budgeted expenses and revenue sources by program. This plan should be published by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F3)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, County Office of Education, and the Board of Supervisors develop and publish a plan, with measurable outcomes, that focuses on improving socioeconomic indicators in the 95076 zip code by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5)
F4:
The 95076 zip code has an extraordinarily high number of patient transfers to outside the county compared to other zip codes of Santa Cruz county. This indicates a major lack of healthcare facilities and services to serve the community.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, County Office of Education, and the Board of Supervisors develop and publish a plan, with measurable outcomes, that focuses on improving socioeconomic indicators in the 95076 zip code by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services and the Board of Supervisors include an outcome-based evaluation of contracted services through a summary report that is publicly available. This should be done for all new and renewed contracts by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F4, F5, F7)
F5:
A study of socioeconomic indicators of the 95076 zip code, compared to other zip codes of Santa Cruz county, reveal a dire need to improve the following: ● Homelessness ● Low Preschool Enrollment ● Poor Health Care Access ● Unemployment ● Support for Single Parent Households County Behavioral Health Services published June 11, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 81 Findings about Case Management
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, County Office of Education, and the Board of Supervisors develop and publish a plan, with measurable outcomes, that focuses on improving socioeconomic indicators in the 95076 zip code by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services and the Board of Supervisors include an outcome-based evaluation of contracted services through a summary report that is publicly available. This should be done for all new and renewed contracts by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F4, F5, F7)
F6:
The ECM programs are currently at capacity and have waiting lists. More providers are needed to expand the program further to transition more residents to independent living.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
F7:
Though there is evidence that managed care programs like ECM are effective, lack of data leaves doubt in the public’s mind. Data supporting the success rate of ECM programs would ensure stronger public support.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of most need, Behavioral Health Division’s Enhanced Care Management programs should focus efforts on identifying and case managing clients in this area by December 31, 2024. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services and the Board of Supervisors include an outcome-based evaluation of contracted services through a summary report that is publicly available. This should be done for all new and renewed contracts by December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F4, F5, F7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
It is hard to contact the relevant people in CPS to get information since there is no organizational chart published on the website. People don’t know who they can contact for specific issues. Report on Child Protective Services published June 17, 2024 110 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish an organizational chart by October 31, 2024. (F1)
F2:
The lack of readily available CPS data metrics accessible on the Santa Cruz County website can lead to perceptions based on individual experiences. Perception becomes reality if data is not provided which can lead to public distrust of the system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6)
F3:
Lots of data is available on the California Welfare Indicators Project maintained by University of California for the whole state of California for each county. It is hard to sift through and find relevant data for Santa Cruz County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6)
F4:
There is no formal complaint process. You can lodge a complaint only with your social worker. When the complainant is not happy with the resolution, complaints are lodged with the Grand Jury. This is ineffective and results in a lack of accountability or follow up on the complaint.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS create and publish the complaint process. This published process should include a supervisor not vested in the outcome who can review the complaints. This process and the accompanying metrics like number of complaints and resolution times should be made available to the public by December 31, 2024. (F4)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a Child Welfare Oversight board and an Inspector General similar to what the 2002-2003 Grand Jury recommended. This could help resolve bias, impropriety and undue influence complaints and will help provide transparency and increase trust in the CPS process. The Grand Jury recommends that the planning for this should start by December 31, 2024, with the board fully implemented six months after the planning is finished. (F4, F5)
F5:
Child Family Team members often dispute the accuracy of "official" meeting notes taken by the attending CPS Social Workers, leading to lack of trust between team members.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a Child Welfare Oversight board and an Inspector General similar to what the 2002-2003 Grand Jury recommended. This could help resolve bias, impropriety and undue influence complaints and will help provide transparency and increase trust in the CPS process. The Grand Jury recommends that the planning for this should start by December 31, 2024, with the board fully implemented six months after the planning is finished. (F4, F5)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the CPS department begin to record the Child Family Team meetings by the end of December 31, 2024. (F5) Report on Child Protective Services published June 17, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 111
F6:
The lack of data makes it difficult to determine whether bias is present either to Resource Families or Birth Families to the detriment of the child.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Requiring candidates for difficult to fill positions coordinate with Personnel rather than directly with hiring managers in departments slows the hiring process and reduces candidate interest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, in order to reduce the backlog of difficult to fill positions, the Personnel Department creates dedicated recruiter positions for the HSA, HSD and Public Works departments. (F1–F5) Improve Marketing to Candidates
F2:
The Personnel Department recruiter training does not provide recruiter skills to the hiring managers necessary in today’s job market.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, in order to reduce the backlog of difficult to fill positions, the Personnel Department creates dedicated recruiter positions for the HSA, HSD and Public Works departments. (F1–F5) Improve Marketing to Candidates
F3:
Outdated personnel “candidate pool” rules and Civil Service recruiting policies inadvertently force long term vacancies for supervisory and credentialed positions.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, in order to reduce the backlog of difficult to fill positions, the Personnel Department creates dedicated recruiter positions for the HSA, HSD and Public Works departments. (F1–F5) Improve Marketing to Candidates
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department update recruitment and hiring procedures. For example, requiring the updating of job postings on a regular basis in order to improve search engine visibility. (F3, F6, F7)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department begin publishing per-position candidate pool policies and hiring results on a semi-annual basis. (F3, F6, F7) New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department published June 27, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 175 Promote from Within
F4:
By not sending candidates for difficult to fill positions directly to hiring managers the chances of hiring well qualified candidates are reduced.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, in order to reduce the backlog of difficult to fill positions, the Personnel Department creates dedicated recruiter positions for the HSA, HSD and Public Works departments. (F1–F5) Improve Marketing to Candidates
F5:
Most county departments lack dedicated hiring managers leading to overloaded administrators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, in order to reduce the backlog of difficult to fill positions, the Personnel Department creates dedicated recruiter positions for the HSA, HSD and Public Works departments. (F1–F5) Improve Marketing to Candidates
F6:
The Personnel Department has not changed policies and procedures in the face of fewer candidates applying for County positions resulting in additional vacancies and slower recruitment and hiring processes.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department update recruitment and hiring procedures. For example, requiring the updating of job postings on a regular basis in order to improve search engine visibility. (F3, F6, F7)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department begin publishing per-position candidate pool policies and hiring results on a semi-annual basis. (F3, F6, F7) New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department published June 27, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 175 Promote from Within
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department develop a plan detailing how they will solicit and evaluate employee recommendations that could help reduce the backlog of difficult to fill positions. (F6, F12)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department publicly document how they have engaged external expertise which would likely improve hiring and promoting processes. (F6, F12) New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department published June 27, 2024 176 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Evaluate Peer Counties for Best Practices
F7:
The Personnel Department’s website advertising continuous open positions without regular updates makes it very difficult for candidates to find opportunities on search engines because the information is stale and not up to date.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department update recruitment and hiring procedures. For example, requiring the updating of job postings on a regular basis in order to improve search engine visibility. (F3, F6, F7)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department begin publishing per-position candidate pool policies and hiring results on a semi-annual basis. (F3, F6, F7) New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department published June 27, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 175 Promote from Within
F8:
Continuous improvement for promoting existing employees in departments with difficult to fill positions can help to maintain effective staffing levels.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department, in collaboration with HSA, HSD and Public Works, embrace continuous improvement and publish a skills and advancement plan to accelerate promotion from within, including budget requirements and goals. (F8, F9) Group 2: Improve Hiring and Recruitment Results Adopt Integrated HR System
F9:
Promoting employees within departments with many difficult to fill positions can limit the damage caused by attrition, especially at more senior levels.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department, in collaboration with HSA, HSD and Public Works, embrace continuous improvement and publish a skills and advancement plan to accelerate promotion from within, including budget requirements and goals. (F8, F9) Group 2: Improve Hiring and Recruitment Results Adopt Integrated HR System
F10:
The months-long hiring process is frustrating to candidates and jeopardizes the County’s chances of hiring good candidates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department publish a cost/benefit analysis comparing their current approach with that offered by integrated HR solutions. (F10, F11) Embrace Continual Improvement within Personnel Department
F11:
The time required for complex paper processes steals time from creative recruitment and ongoing contact with candidates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department publish a cost/benefit analysis comparing their current approach with that offered by integrated HR solutions. (F10, F11) Embrace Continual Improvement within Personnel Department
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Manager increase the visibility of the CPVAW programs and events by publishing relevant information, at least quarterly, in the City Manager’s Weekly Update and that the first article be published by December 31, 2024. (F11)
F12:
Despite the finding in F9, having leadership in Personnel Department positions filled by long-time employees that have spent most of their career in the department has led to limited acceptance of ideas that have worked elsewhere in hiring for difficult to fill positions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department develop a plan detailing how they will solicit and evaluate employee recommendations that could help reduce the backlog of difficult to fill positions. (F6, F12)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department publicly document how they have engaged external expertise which would likely improve hiring and promoting processes. (F6, F12) New Recruiting Ideas for the Personnel Department published June 27, 2024 176 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Evaluate Peer Counties for Best Practices
F13:
The 8-county salary comparison in place since 2002 is no longer a useful benchmark for wages and salaries given the high cost of living in Santa Cruz County resulting in many vacancies.
F14:
To attract a wider pool of candidates for difficult to fill positions, pay needs to be at least 90% of what Santa Clara County offers.
F15:
The County Personnel Department was consistently unable to provide comprehensive hiring statistics. Without accurate data, Personnel and other departments cannot make sound judgements on how to measure improvements in the hiring process for difficult to fill positions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department post a public dashboard, based on real time data, to include time-to-hire and vacancy rates for difficult to fill positions in County departments. (F15, F16, F17)
F16:
The Personnel Department expects the department units themselves to track hiring and recruitment metrics and keep important data such as turnover statistics and vacancy rates. This leaves the Personnel Department and oversight bodies without a clear picture of the situation and depth of the problem.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department post a public dashboard, based on real time data, to include time-to-hire and vacancy rates for difficult to fill positions in County departments. (F15, F16, F17)
F17:
By not filling essential positions for months at a time, services for residents suffer harm when vacancies persist.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel Department post a public dashboard, based on real time data, to include time-to-hire and vacancy rates for difficult to fill positions in County departments. (F15, F16, F17)
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, and annually thereafter, the Personnel Department conduct a salary comparison study based on nearby counties. It is recommended that this study include counties which have routinely recruited Santa Cruz County employees and residents. (F6, F13,
R81-29:
to make the prevention of rape and domestic violence one of its highest priorities. In 2023, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted a Five Year Strategic Plan. The Plan makes no mention of rape and domestic violence. Over the past decade, the City’s Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women has failed to provide the City Council with solid Annual Reports that document City, community, and police efforts to prevent rape and domestic violence. Recent reports have either included no data or limited data. The 2023 CPVAW Joint Report has no metrics on important trends such as whether the City of Santa Cruz still has a higher than average rate of rapes by strangers. What areas of the city were the crimes committed in? Have there been arrests? Long-standing Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network of local businesses are currently idle. This year the Santa Cruz City Schools District canceled the Commission’s popular self-defense classes for middle and high school students. The in-person classes are being replaced with an online self-esteem video. The City has ended the Commission’s thirty five-year access to redacted police reports of rape and domestic violence. These reports enabled the Commission to evaluate police response, respond to complaints and recommend training if needed. The Grand Jury submits its findings and recommendations to bring the City of Santa Cruz into compliance with City Ordinance 81-29. The personal safety and well-being of the community is at stake. Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence published June 27, 2024
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation is developing a new system of notification for agricultural pesticide applications statewide and the proof of concept shows promise of being a good solution for notifying the public of pesticide application information in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner communicate information to the public about the “Spray Days Now” notification system being developed by the state DPR, especially in areas impacted by pesticide use. This should be completed by October 15, 2024. (F1, F2, F3, F5) 2. Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz The Grand Jury of 2020-21 investigated the high risk probability of wildfires, especially in areas surrounding the City of Santa Cruz known as the Wildland Urban Interface Area (WUI). The Grand Jury wanted to know how the high risk of wildfires was being addressed and our level of preparedness. The 2020-21 report specifically addressed the issue of homeless encampments and how they contributed to wildfire risk in WUI areas of the city.[2] 2020-21 Grand Jury Report, Recommendation R2 In the next three months, the City Council needs to have more transparent and formal coordination with the county on management of homeless resources.[2] 2020-21 R2: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz City Council Has not yet been implemented but will be in the future. The 2x2 Committee, consisting of the City’s Mayor and Vice Mayor as well as the County Supervisors from Districts 3 & 5, meets every other week on homelessness issues. The Mayor and Vice Mayor provide a verbal report on those discussions at Council meetings on a monthly basis. County/City coordination through the Homeless Action Partnership has not been as transparent as it could be; however, the County has proposed a new charter to regional participants and it should increase transparency. It has been adopted by the HAP and is proceeding with consideration by cities and the county.[2] Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 96 -24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R2 The following is an excerpt from the Office of the City Manager of Santa Cruz in response to the Grand Jury’s request for their follow-up to recommendations made in the 2020-21 Grand Jury report Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz: City and County representatives began informally meeting in 2016. In January of 2018, both the City and the County formalized their respective agencies' participation and communication through a committee known as the 2x2. The 2x2 was composed of two members from the County Board of Supervisors and two members from the City Council to improve coordination between the agencies regarding homelessness issues. The goal was to form a regional response, in partnership with the County, to strengthen City efforts to improve how we respond to the homelessness crisis. In January of 2022, the Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership (H4HP) Policy Board was created to replace the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) oversight groups. The newly created H4HP serves as the federally designated Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) Board for Santa Cruz County and coordinates resources, programs, and services focused on preventing and ending homelessness.[10] [11] Prior to the creation of the H4HP Policy Board, the HAP CoC oversight groups included staff from the County's four cities, the County, a member of the health sector, members from various non-profits serving the homeless community, and those with lived experience. The HAP groups did not include elected officials. Subsequently, changes were made to the CoC governance structure to ensure broader and deeper engagement of City and County leaders in the CoC planning and decision-making process, with the additional option to include elected officials from the cities and the County on the Policy Board. The current Policy Board membership overlaps with individuals historically involved with the 2x2 and HAP. The City of Santa Cruz has two seats on the policy board, which may be filled by elected officials, government staff, or other citizens. Therefore, the 2X2 was eliminated, however staff continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis. to collaborate on projects of mutual interest related to homelessness.[12] [13] [14] Grand Jury research found that the Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership is in place. This group is a collaboration between the County’s Human Services Department and a coalition of partners and resources for the purpose of preventing and ending homelessness within our County. The partnership includes a wide variety of members from the community including Santa Cruz City Council members, Board Supervisors, agency representatives, and County senior-level employees. In March 2019 the Partnership began developing the Healthy Santa Cruz County Strategic Framework. The Framework contains steps aimed to reduce “unsheltered and overall homelessness countywide by January 2024.” The Framework outlines a detailed plan to accomplish this goal.[15] Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 97 With regard to the City Manager’s response to 2020-2021 Recommendation R2, the City has met its commitment to formally collaborate with the County for the purpose of managing homeless resources and reducing homelessness in our County. 2020-21 R8: Recommendation by Grand Jury In the next six months, the City Council should produce a detailed plan and accounting of how the federal and state homeless funds are used.[2] 2020-21 R8: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz City Council Has not yet been implemented but will be in the future. The City has detailed information on how all state and federal funds received to date have been spent. The City received additional, direct funding from the state as part of the current state budget, and the requirements for how that will be spent and what that will fund are still to be determined. Similarly, direct funding from the American Rescue Act will go towards homelessness, but specifics related to that spending and the associated limitations are still to be determined. City staff are working with a consultant to provide a consolidated report on various City expenditures, including prior and upcoming state and federal fund expenditures. 2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R8 The following is an excerpt from the Office of the City Manager of Santa Cruz in response to the Grand Jury’s request for their follow-up to recommendations made in the 2020-21 Grand Jury report Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz: A detailed plan for the use of funds was originally developed in March of 2022. The cost projections were revised in May of 2022. Further updates to the budget were presented to the City Council in December of 2022. During the budget presentations to the City Council for FY24, a summary of expenditures was presented to the City Council on May 23, 2023.[12] [16] The City’s response to the Grand Jury’s 2020-21 report states that the City has “detailed information on how all state and federal funds received to date have been spent.” Yet no such information appears to have been provided. The City’s FY 2024 Annual Budget attached to the May 23, 2023 City Council meeting contains only high level revenue and expenditure line items for Homeless Response Program Funds. Revenues of $14M in 2022 appear to be a lump sum to be spread over an unknown number of years. Overall expenditure figures for 2022 (actual), 2023 (adopted budget), and 2024 (adopted budget) total approximately $20M.
F2:
The Active and Passive modes of notification will allow access to members of the public in a manner of their choosing. Some people are comfortable signing up for notifications, others are not and would prefer to look up the information anonymously. This appears to provide most people the option to choose the method with which they are most comfortable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner communicate information to the public about the “Spray Days Now” notification system being developed by the state DPR, especially in areas impacted by pesticide use. This should be completed by October 15, 2024. (F1, F2, F3, F5) 2. Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz The Grand Jury of 2020-21 investigated the high risk probability of wildfires, especially in areas surrounding the City of Santa Cruz known as the Wildland Urban Interface Area (WUI). The Grand Jury wanted to know how the high risk of wildfires was being addressed and our level of preparedness. The 2020-21 report specifically addressed the issue of homeless encampments and how they contributed to wildfire risk in WUI areas of the city.[2] 2020-21 Grand Jury Report, Recommendation R2 In the next three months, the City Council needs to have more transparent and formal coordination with the county on management of homeless resources.[2] 2020-21 R2: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz City Council Has not yet been implemented but will be in the future. The 2x2 Committee, consisting of the City’s Mayor and Vice Mayor as well as the County Supervisors from Districts 3 & 5, meets every other week on homelessness issues. The Mayor and Vice Mayor provide a verbal report on those discussions at Council meetings on a monthly basis. County/City coordination through the Homeless Action Partnership has not been as transparent as it could be; however, the County has proposed a new charter to regional participants and it should increase transparency. It has been adopted by the HAP and is proceeding with consideration by cities and the county.[2] Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 96 -24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R2 The following is an excerpt from the Office of the City Manager of Santa Cruz in response to the Grand Jury’s request for their follow-up to recommendations made in the 2020-21 Grand Jury report Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz: City and County representatives began informally meeting in 2016. In January of 2018, both the City and the County formalized their respective agencies' participation and communication through a committee known as the 2x2. The 2x2 was composed of two members from the County Board of Supervisors and two members from the City Council to improve coordination between the agencies regarding homelessness issues. The goal was to form a regional response, in partnership with the County, to strengthen City efforts to improve how we respond to the homelessness crisis. In January of 2022, the Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership (H4HP) Policy Board was created to replace the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) oversight groups. The newly created H4HP serves as the federally designated Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) Board for Santa Cruz County and coordinates resources, programs, and services focused on preventing and ending homelessness.[10] [11] Prior to the creation of the H4HP Policy Board, the HAP CoC oversight groups included staff from the County's four cities, the County, a member of the health sector, members from various non-profits serving the homeless community, and those with lived experience. The HAP groups did not include elected officials. Subsequently, changes were made to the CoC governance structure to ensure broader and deeper engagement of City and County leaders in the CoC planning and decision-making process, with the additional option to include elected officials from the cities and the County on the Policy Board. The current Policy Board membership overlaps with individuals historically involved with the 2x2 and HAP. The City of Santa Cruz has two seats on the policy board, which may be filled by elected officials, government staff, or other citizens. Therefore, the 2X2 was eliminated, however staff continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis. to collaborate on projects of mutual interest related to homelessness.[12] [13] [14] Grand Jury research found that the Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership is in place. This group is a collaboration between the County’s Human Services Department and a coalition of partners and resources for the purpose of preventing and ending homelessness within our County. The partnership includes a wide variety of members from the community including Santa Cruz City Council members, Board Supervisors, agency representatives, and County senior-level employees. In March 2019 the Partnership began developing the Healthy Santa Cruz County Strategic Framework. The Framework contains steps aimed to reduce “unsheltered and overall homelessness countywide by January 2024.” The Framework outlines a detailed plan to accomplish this goal.[15] Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 97 With regard to the City Manager’s response to 2020-2021 Recommendation R2, the City has met its commitment to formally collaborate with the County for the purpose of managing homeless resources and reducing homelessness in our County. 2020-21 R8: Recommendation by Grand Jury In the next six months, the City Council should produce a detailed plan and accounting of how the federal and state homeless funds are used.[2] 2020-21 R8: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz City Council Has not yet been implemented but will be in the future. The City has detailed information on how all state and federal funds received to date have been spent. The City received additional, direct funding from the state as part of the current state budget, and the requirements for how that will be spent and what that will fund are still to be determined. Similarly, direct funding from the American Rescue Act will go towards homelessness, but specifics related to that spending and the associated limitations are still to be determined. City staff are working with a consultant to provide a consolidated report on various City expenditures, including prior and upcoming state and federal fund expenditures. 2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R8 The following is an excerpt from the Office of the City Manager of Santa Cruz in response to the Grand Jury’s request for their follow-up to recommendations made in the 2020-21 Grand Jury report Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz: A detailed plan for the use of funds was originally developed in March of 2022. The cost projections were revised in May of 2022. Further updates to the budget were presented to the City Council in December of 2022. During the budget presentations to the City Council for FY24, a summary of expenditures was presented to the City Council on May 23, 2023.[12] [16] The City’s response to the Grand Jury’s 2020-21 report states that the City has “detailed information on how all state and federal funds received to date have been spent.” Yet no such information appears to have been provided. The City’s FY 2024 Annual Budget attached to the May 23, 2023 City Council meeting contains only high level revenue and expenditure line items for Homeless Response Program Funds. Revenues of $14M in 2022 appear to be a lump sum to be spread over an unknown number of years. Overall expenditure figures for 2022 (actual), 2023 (adopted budget), and 2024 (adopted budget) total approximately $20M.
F3:
Because project delays have put off the release of the new system until the Spring of 2025, rather than 2024 as originally proposed, it is even more important that the public be made aware of what the new system will provide to them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner communicate information to the public about the “Spray Days Now” notification system being developed by the state DPR, especially in areas impacted by pesticide use. This should be completed by October 15, 2024. (F1, F2, F3, F5) 2. Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz The Grand Jury of 2020-21 investigated the high risk probability of wildfires, especially in areas surrounding the City of Santa Cruz known as the Wildland Urban Interface Area (WUI). The Grand Jury wanted to know how the high risk of wildfires was being addressed and our level of preparedness. The 2020-21 report specifically addressed the issue of homeless encampments and how they contributed to wildfire risk in WUI areas of the city.[2] 2020-21 Grand Jury Report, Recommendation R2 In the next three months, the City Council needs to have more transparent and formal coordination with the county on management of homeless resources.[2] 2020-21 R2: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz City Council Has not yet been implemented but will be in the future. The 2x2 Committee, consisting of the City’s Mayor and Vice Mayor as well as the County Supervisors from Districts 3 & 5, meets every other week on homelessness issues. The Mayor and Vice Mayor provide a verbal report on those discussions at Council meetings on a monthly basis. County/City coordination through the Homeless Action Partnership has not been as transparent as it could be; however, the County has proposed a new charter to regional participants and it should increase transparency. It has been adopted by the HAP and is proceeding with consideration by cities and the county.[2] Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 96 -24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R2 The following is an excerpt from the Office of the City Manager of Santa Cruz in response to the Grand Jury’s request for their follow-up to recommendations made in the 2020-21 Grand Jury report Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz: City and County representatives began informally meeting in 2016. In January of 2018, both the City and the County formalized their respective agencies' participation and communication through a committee known as the 2x2. The 2x2 was composed of two members from the County Board of Supervisors and two members from the City Council to improve coordination between the agencies regarding homelessness issues. The goal was to form a regional response, in partnership with the County, to strengthen City efforts to improve how we respond to the homelessness crisis. In January of 2022, the Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership (H4HP) Policy Board was created to replace the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) oversight groups. The newly created H4HP serves as the federally designated Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) Board for Santa Cruz County and coordinates resources, programs, and services focused on preventing and ending homelessness.[10] [11] Prior to the creation of the H4HP Policy Board, the HAP CoC oversight groups included staff from the County's four cities, the County, a member of the health sector, members from various non-profits serving the homeless community, and those with lived experience. The HAP groups did not include elected officials. Subsequently, changes were made to the CoC governance structure to ensure broader and deeper engagement of City and County leaders in the CoC planning and decision-making process, with the additional option to include elected officials from the cities and the County on the Policy Board. The current Policy Board membership overlaps with individuals historically involved with the 2x2 and HAP. The City of Santa Cruz has two seats on the policy board, which may be filled by elected officials, government staff, or other citizens. Therefore, the 2X2 was eliminated, however staff continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis. to collaborate on projects of mutual interest related to homelessness.[12] [13] [14] Grand Jury research found that the Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership is in place. This group is a collaboration between the County’s Human Services Department and a coalition of partners and resources for the purpose of preventing and ending homelessness within our County. The partnership includes a wide variety of members from the community including Santa Cruz City Council members, Board Supervisors, agency representatives, and County senior-level employees. In March 2019 the Partnership began developing the Healthy Santa Cruz County Strategic Framework. The Framework contains steps aimed to reduce “unsheltered and overall homelessness countywide by January 2024.” The Framework outlines a detailed plan to accomplish this goal.[15] Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 97 With regard to the City Manager’s response to 2020-2021 Recommendation R2, the City has met its commitment to formally collaborate with the County for the purpose of managing homeless resources and reducing homelessness in our County. 2020-21 R8: Recommendation by Grand Jury In the next six months, the City Council should produce a detailed plan and accounting of how the federal and state homeless funds are used.[2] 2020-21 R8: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz City Council Has not yet been implemented but will be in the future. The City has detailed information on how all state and federal funds received to date have been spent. The City received additional, direct funding from the state as part of the current state budget, and the requirements for how that will be spent and what that will fund are still to be determined. Similarly, direct funding from the American Rescue Act will go towards homelessness, but specifics related to that spending and the associated limitations are still to be determined. City staff are working with a consultant to provide a consolidated report on various City expenditures, including prior and upcoming state and federal fund expenditures. 2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R8 The following is an excerpt from the Office of the City Manager of Santa Cruz in response to the Grand Jury’s request for their follow-up to recommendations made in the 2020-21 Grand Jury report Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz: A detailed plan for the use of funds was originally developed in March of 2022. The cost projections were revised in May of 2022. Further updates to the budget were presented to the City Council in December of 2022. During the budget presentations to the City Council for FY24, a summary of expenditures was presented to the City Council on May 23, 2023.[12] [16] The City’s response to the Grand Jury’s 2020-21 report states that the City has “detailed information on how all state and federal funds received to date have been spent.” Yet no such information appears to have been provided. The City’s FY 2024 Annual Budget attached to the May 23, 2023 City Council meeting contains only high level revenue and expenditure line items for Homeless Response Program Funds. Revenues of $14M in 2022 appear to be a lump sum to be spread over an unknown number of years. Overall expenditure figures for 2022 (actual), 2023 (adopted budget), and 2024 (adopted budget) total approximately $20M.
F4:
As science progresses, less toxic pesticides are being developed and released regularly, and growers are finding acceptable alternatives to many pesticides. Less toxic pesticide use in Santa Cruz county is leading to lower risks to human and environmental health.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner makes known to City of Watsonville officials and various governmental agencies information about advances in agricultural pest control, including less toxic pesticides and alternative methods of pest eradication. This information should be shared by September 30, 2024. (F4, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner inform the public about advances in agricultural pest control, particularly to residents in areas commonly exposed to pesticide applications. This should be completed by October 15, 2024. (F4, F5)
F5:
Communication between the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and other south county officials concerning pesticide management is not adequate, leading to a higher risk to human health. Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 95
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner makes known to City of Watsonville officials and various governmental agencies information about advances in agricultural pest control, including less toxic pesticides and alternative methods of pest eradication. This information should be shared by September 30, 2024. (F4, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner inform the public about advances in agricultural pest control, particularly to residents in areas commonly exposed to pesticide applications. This should be completed by October 15, 2024. (F4, F5)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner communicate information to the public about the “Spray Days Now” notification system being developed by the state DPR, especially in areas impacted by pesticide use. This should be completed by October 15, 2024. (F1, F2, F3, F5) 2. Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz The Grand Jury of 2020-21 investigated the high risk probability of wildfires, especially in areas surrounding the City of Santa Cruz known as the Wildland Urban Interface Area (WUI). The Grand Jury wanted to know how the high risk of wildfires was being addressed and our level of preparedness. The 2020-21 report specifically addressed the issue of homeless encampments and how they contributed to wildfire risk in WUI areas of the city.[2] 2020-21 Grand Jury Report, Recommendation R2 In the next three months, the City Council needs to have more transparent and formal coordination with the county on management of homeless resources.[2] 2020-21 R2: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz City Council Has not yet been implemented but will be in the future. The 2x2 Committee, consisting of the City’s Mayor and Vice Mayor as well as the County Supervisors from Districts 3 & 5, meets every other week on homelessness issues. The Mayor and Vice Mayor provide a verbal report on those discussions at Council meetings on a monthly basis. County/City coordination through the Homeless Action Partnership has not been as transparent as it could be; however, the County has proposed a new charter to regional participants and it should increase transparency. It has been adopted by the HAP and is proceeding with consideration by cities and the county.[2] Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 96 -24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R2 The following is an excerpt from the Office of the City Manager of Santa Cruz in response to the Grand Jury’s request for their follow-up to recommendations made in the 2020-21 Grand Jury report Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz: City and County representatives began informally meeting in 2016. In January of 2018, both the City and the County formalized their respective agencies' participation and communication through a committee known as the 2x2. The 2x2 was composed of two members from the County Board of Supervisors and two members from the City Council to improve coordination between the agencies regarding homelessness issues. The goal was to form a regional response, in partnership with the County, to strengthen City efforts to improve how we respond to the homelessness crisis. In January of 2022, the Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership (H4HP) Policy Board was created to replace the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) oversight groups. The newly created H4HP serves as the federally designated Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) Board for Santa Cruz County and coordinates resources, programs, and services focused on preventing and ending homelessness.[10] [11] Prior to the creation of the H4HP Policy Board, the HAP CoC oversight groups included staff from the County's four cities, the County, a member of the health sector, members from various non-profits serving the homeless community, and those with lived experience. The HAP groups did not include elected officials. Subsequently, changes were made to the CoC governance structure to ensure broader and deeper engagement of City and County leaders in the CoC planning and decision-making process, with the additional option to include elected officials from the cities and the County on the Policy Board. The current Policy Board membership overlaps with individuals historically involved with the 2x2 and HAP. The City of Santa Cruz has two seats on the policy board, which may be filled by elected officials, government staff, or other citizens. Therefore, the 2X2 was eliminated, however staff continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis. to collaborate on projects of mutual interest related to homelessness.[12] [13] [14] Grand Jury research found that the Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership is in place. This group is a collaboration between the County’s Human Services Department and a coalition of partners and resources for the purpose of preventing and ending homelessness within our County. The partnership includes a wide variety of members from the community including Santa Cruz City Council members, Board Supervisors, agency representatives, and County senior-level employees. In March 2019 the Partnership began developing the Healthy Santa Cruz County Strategic Framework. The Framework contains steps aimed to reduce “unsheltered and overall homelessness countywide by January 2024.” The Framework outlines a detailed plan to accomplish this goal.[15] Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 97 With regard to the City Manager’s response to 2020-2021 Recommendation R2, the City has met its commitment to formally collaborate with the County for the purpose of managing homeless resources and reducing homelessness in our County. 2020-21 R8: Recommendation by Grand Jury In the next six months, the City Council should produce a detailed plan and accounting of how the federal and state homeless funds are used.[2] 2020-21 R8: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz City Council Has not yet been implemented but will be in the future. The City has detailed information on how all state and federal funds received to date have been spent. The City received additional, direct funding from the state as part of the current state budget, and the requirements for how that will be spent and what that will fund are still to be determined. Similarly, direct funding from the American Rescue Act will go towards homelessness, but specifics related to that spending and the associated limitations are still to be determined. City staff are working with a consultant to provide a consolidated report on various City expenditures, including prior and upcoming state and federal fund expenditures. 2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R8 The following is an excerpt from the Office of the City Manager of Santa Cruz in response to the Grand Jury’s request for their follow-up to recommendations made in the 2020-21 Grand Jury report Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz: A detailed plan for the use of funds was originally developed in March of 2022. The cost projections were revised in May of 2022. Further updates to the budget were presented to the City Council in December of 2022. During the budget presentations to the City Council for FY24, a summary of expenditures was presented to the City Council on May 23, 2023.[12] [16] The City’s response to the Grand Jury’s 2020-21 report states that the City has “detailed information on how all state and federal funds received to date have been spent.” Yet no such information appears to have been provided. The City’s FY 2024 Annual Budget attached to the May 23, 2023 City Council meeting contains only high level revenue and expenditure line items for Homeless Response Program Funds. Revenues of $14M in 2022 appear to be a lump sum to be spread over an unknown number of years. Overall expenditure figures for 2022 (actual), 2023 (adopted budget), and 2024 (adopted budget) total approximately $20M.
F6:
With regard to the City Manager’s response to Recommendation R8, the City’s FY 2024 Annual Budget does not provide a detailed plan and accounting of how homeless funds have been used. The City’s response only partially fulfilled its commitment to make related budget figures available. Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 98 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Within 90 days the City Manager should publish the figures that their initial response indicated were available for prior for years. (F6)
R6:
Within 90 days the City should publish the summary of expenditures as presented to the City Council in May 2023 that expand on the figures provided in the FY 2024 Annual Budget. (F6) 3. The CZU Lightning Complex Fire – Learn...or Burn? The CZU Lightning Complex fires of August 2020 were ignited by over three hundred lightning strikes in the counties of Santa Cruz and San Mateo. The fires burned for thirty seven days creating the largest wildfire in the history of Santa Cruz County. The 2020-21 Grand Jury wanted to know how the governmental response to the fire measured up and whether it could be deemed prepared for the next wildfire eventuality.[3] 2020-21 R3: Recommendation by Grand Jury Within the next six months, the Board of Supervisors should require that CAL FIRE produce timely after-action reports for all major incidents.[3] 2020-21 R3: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz County Board Of Supervisors Requires further analysis CAL FIRE, as County Fire has participated in County after action reviews and participates in monthly coordination meetings with law enforcement, CAO, and The County Fire Chiefs Association met to discuss lessons learned and continues to meet and work together. Substantive concerns at the State level are outside the local span of control to address. County Fire and its State CAL FIRE partners provided a professional response under considerable strain from the magnitude of this incident.[3] [17] 2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and Santa Cruz County Board Of Supervisors Response to R3 The following is the response from the Director of the Office of Response, Recovery and Resiliency (OR3), David Reid, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors 2023-24: CAL FIRE has and will participate in After Action Reviews conducted by the County Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience for all major incidents that impact the County. OR3 is coordinating closely with CAL FIRE as County Fire on Wildfire Prevention activities, the County of Santa Cruz Emergency Operations Plan update, and alert and warning practices.[17] [18] In addition to the above statement from the Office of Response, Recovery and Resiliency, the Grand Jury acquired a copy of a report titled 2020 CZU Lightning Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 99 Complex Fire: After-Action Report and Improvement Plan, published on December 7, 2021.[19] The purpose of the report was to provide an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Emergency Operation Center’s (EOC) core capabilities and identify improvement strategies. The County of Santa Cruz and coordinating response partners held feedback sessions in order to assess the successes and failures of the CZU response. CAL FIRE is listed in
F7:
The joint effort between CAL Fire and OR3, as well as many other partners listed in the report, to improve preparedness for future wildfires is well-documented in the above-mentioned After-Action Report and Improvement Plan. Furthermore, the Grand Jury’s recommendation that this undertaking commence within 6 months of the Grand Jury report publication did take place in the allotted time period. However, the Grand Jury did not find the original report or any published updates to the initial report that included progress towards the report’s stated objectives. Such publications would reassure the public that wildfire preparedness is a priority and is being addressed.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner makes known to City of Watsonville officials and various governmental agencies, information about the “Spray Days Now” notification system being developed by the state DPR. Information should be shared by September 30, 2024. (F1, F2,
R7:
The Grand Jury requests an update as to the progress to date of the objectives outlined in the December 2021 After-Action Report in
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The inability of local fire departments to coordinate (communicate) with CAL FIRE during their initial response to the CZU Fire caused many fire victims to unnecessarily lose their homes and possibly contributed to the loss of a life.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury further recommends that the Board of Supervisors work with CAL FIRE to develop clear collaboration between local firefighting agencies and CAL FIRE. The community at large should then be advised as to this line of command. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F1, F4)
F2:
The Long-term Recovery Group which assisted CZU fire and other disaster victims with case management and food and housing support serves as a model for the future.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience enter into a public-private partnership with the Long Term Recovery Group to provide continuing assistance and support for current and future disaster victims. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that OR3 provide a list of all victims of the CZU Lighting Complex Fire, as well as lists of victims of any future disasters, to the LTRG to simplify outreach to victims. This should be done by September 1, 2024. (F2, F3)
F3:
Because many CZU fire victims were unaware of LTRG disaster services, fire victims, to their detriment, did not make use of the services and/or available financial assistance.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience enter into a public-private partnership with the Long Term Recovery Group to provide continuing assistance and support for current and future disaster victims. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that OR3 provide a list of all victims of the CZU Lighting Complex Fire, as well as lists of victims of any future disasters, to the LTRG to simplify outreach to victims. This should be done by September 1, 2024. (F2, F3)
F4:
The failure of County agencies to have an effective disaster response plan in place prior to the CZU Fire caused many fire victims to incur unnecessary expense in the rebuilding process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury further recommends that the Board of Supervisors work with CAL FIRE to develop clear collaboration between local firefighting agencies and CAL FIRE. The community at large should then be advised as to this line of command. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F1, F4)
F5:
The failure of CDI and Environmental Health to provide timely guidance with respect to applying for and obtaining required permits after the CZU Fire caused many fire victims to expend unnecessary time and expense in the rebuild permitting process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that OR3, CDI, and Santa Cruz County Environmental Health collaborate in developing a plan for an expedited rebuild process for future disaster victims. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F5, F6)
F6:
The failure of the County Environmental Health department to fully inform CZU fire victims about new state septic system regulations (LAMP) resulted in many fire victims abandoning their plans to rebuild after realizing how high the cost of meeting the new standards would be. Victims of the CZU Wildfire - Four Years Later published June 21, 2024 128 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that OR3, CDI, and Santa Cruz County Environmental Health collaborate in developing a plan for an expedited rebuild process for future disaster victims. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F5, F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The contradictory entries on the City’s website and in the City’s legal documents on whether Inclusionary Housing is restricted to Low, Very Low and Extremely Low income levels or whether it includes the Moderate income level is a major discrepancy with consequences about who is eligible for and who obtains Inclusionary Housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council state exactly which HCD Income Levels are covered by the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Resolutions, and make that information public by December 31, 2024. (F1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council create an Inclusionary Housing public dashboard that covers the data called for in this report by February 28, 2025. (F1, F2, F3)
F2:
The City has no data on whether Inclusionary Housing is occupied by income-verified local residents and local workers. Both groups are given preference for housing as required by Ordinance. Without data, neither the City nor the community can be assured that such housing is meeting its intended purpose.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council develop an ongoing system to track, document and verify within 30 days of occupancy whether a unit is occupied by an income-verified local resident or local worker as required by the Ordinance, specifying which category the renter fulfills, and have such a system in place by January 31, 2025. (F2)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council create an Inclusionary Housing public dashboard that covers the data called for in this report by February 28, 2025. (F1, F2, F3)
F3:
The City has no data on the percentage of units in Inclusionary and 100% Affordable Housing projects that are rented to UCSC students. This leaves the City and the public unable to assess the impact of UCSC on the local affordable housing supply. Such data is important for the City’s ongoing negotiations with UCSC to build more on-campus housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council document the percentage of the City’s Inclusionary and 100% Affordable Housing units that are rented to UCSC students, making that data public by February 28, 2025 with annual updates. (F3)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council create an Inclusionary Housing public dashboard that covers the data called for in this report by February 28, 2025. (F1, F2, F3)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The inability of local fire departments to coordinate (communicate) with CAL FIRE during their initial response to the CZU Fire caused many fire victims to unnecessarily lose their homes and possibly contributed to the loss of a life.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury further recommends that the Board of Supervisors work with CAL FIRE to develop clear collaboration between local firefighting agencies and CAL FIRE. The community at large should then be advised as to this line of command. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F1, F4)
F2:
The Long-term Recovery Group which assisted CZU fire and other disaster victims with case management and food and housing support serves as a model for the future.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience enter into a public-private partnership with the Long Term Recovery Group to provide continuing assistance and support for current and future disaster victims. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that OR3 provide a list of all victims of the CZU Lighting Complex Fire, as well as lists of victims of any future disasters, to the LTRG to simplify outreach to victims. This should be done by September 1, 2024. (F2, F3)
F3:
Because many CZU fire victims were unaware of LTRG disaster services, fire victims, to their detriment, did not make use of the services and/or available financial assistance.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience enter into a public-private partnership with the Long Term Recovery Group to provide continuing assistance and support for current and future disaster victims. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that OR3 provide a list of all victims of the CZU Lighting Complex Fire, as well as lists of victims of any future disasters, to the LTRG to simplify outreach to victims. This should be done by September 1, 2024. (F2, F3)
F4:
The failure of County agencies to have an effective disaster response plan in place prior to the CZU Fire caused many fire victims to incur unnecessary expense in the rebuilding process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury further recommends that the Board of Supervisors work with CAL FIRE to develop clear collaboration between local firefighting agencies and CAL FIRE. The community at large should then be advised as to this line of command. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F1, F4)
F5:
The failure of CDI and Environmental Health to provide timely guidance with respect to applying for and obtaining required permits after the CZU Fire caused many fire victims to expend unnecessary time and expense in the rebuild permitting process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that OR3, CDI, and Santa Cruz County Environmental Health collaborate in developing a plan for an expedited rebuild process for future disaster victims. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F5, F6)
F6:
The failure of the County Environmental Health department to fully inform CZU fire victims about new state septic system regulations (LAMP) resulted in many fire victims abandoning their plans to rebuild after realizing how high the cost of meeting the new standards would be.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that OR3, CDI, and Santa Cruz County Environmental Health collaborate in developing a plan for an expedited rebuild process for future disaster victims. This should be done by December 31, 2024. (F5, F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
It is hard to contact the relevant people in CPS to get information since there is no organizational chart published on the website. People don’t know who they can contact for specific issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish an organizational chart by October 31, 2024. (F1)
F2:
The lack of readily available CPS data metrics accessible on the Santa Cruz County website can lead to perceptions based on individual experiences. Perception becomes reality if data is not provided which can lead to public distrust of the system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6)
F3:
Lots of data is available on the California Welfare Indicators Project maintained by University of California for the whole state of California for each county. It is hard to sift through and find relevant data for Santa Cruz County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6)
F4:
There is no formal complaint process. You can lodge a complaint only with your social worker. When the complainant is not happy with the resolution, complaints are lodged with the Grand Jury. This is ineffective and results in a lack of accountability or follow up on the complaint.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS create and publish the complaint process. This published process should include a supervisor not vested in the outcome who can review the complaints. This process and the accompanying metrics like number of complaints and resolution times should be made available to the public by December 31, 2024. (F4)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a Child Welfare Oversight board and an Inspector General similar to what the 2002-2003 Grand Jury recommended. This could help resolve bias, impropriety and undue influence complaints and will help provide transparency and increase trust in the CPS process. The Grand Jury recommends that the planning for this should start by December 31, 2024, with the board fully implemented six months after the planning is finished. (F4, F5)
F5:
Child Family Team members often dispute the accuracy of "official" meeting notes taken by the attending CPS Social Workers, leading to lack of trust between team members.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a Child Welfare Oversight board and an Inspector General similar to what the 2002-2003 Grand Jury recommended. This could help resolve bias, impropriety and undue influence complaints and will help provide transparency and increase trust in the CPS process. The Grand Jury recommends that the planning for this should start by December 31, 2024, with the board fully implemented six months after the planning is finished. (F4, F5)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the CPS department begin to record the Child Family Team meetings by the end of December 31, 2024. (F5)
F6:
The lack of data makes it difficult to determine whether bias is present either to Resource Families or Birth Families to the detriment of the child.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as number of children moved to Resource Families, number of Resource Families available in the County, number of successful and failed reunifications, and identify success metrics for children under care, on an annual basis on their website to improve transparency by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The failure of Wellpath, the medical provider contracted by the Sheriff to provide data from required Health Service Audits, has adversely affected inmate health and resulted in poor health care and lack of pharmaceutical services for inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to begin the Health Service Audits. (F1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F2:
The failure of Wellpath to implement a comprehensive discharge plan causes inmates to be released without community connection to medical treatment and medication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F3:
The failure of the Sheriff”s jail staff to properly address inmates' mental illness crises has caused mentally disabled inmates to be held in Safety Cells for excessively long periods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F4:
The improper use of Safety Cells by the Sheriff’s jail staff to isolate inmates who are greatly in need of mental health care and/or have made suicidal statements causes a violation of required procedure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F5:
The use of Safety Cells for punishment has resulted in violations of Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s Policy and Procedures Manual policy 516.2. This may expose the Sheriff’s department to lawsuits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F6:
The practice of excluding mentally ill patients from 5150 hold and transfer until discharge results in a violation of both Title 15 and Sheriff’s Policies and Procedures manual policy 516.2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff with the proper use of a 5150 hold and the transfer of inmates to a mental health facility according to Title 15 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F6) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024
F7:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer inmates with suicidal ideation or in a mental health crisis to an out-of-county LPS facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff train staff on how to transfer suicidal inmates to an LPS facility for mental health care. (F7)
F8:
The failure of the Crisis Intervention Team to issue a 5150 hold and transfer before an inmate is discharged adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff direct the CIT team to not withhold a 5150 hold and make a transfer until release because this is not proper or best practice for inmates in need of mental health care. (F8)
F9:
The practice of placement in Administrative Separation (solitary confinement) causes inmates to suffer mental health problems including, but not limited to, anxiety, insomnia, paranoia, aggression, and depression.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F10:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer Inmates who are suffering from mental health crises symptoms to an LPS Facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F11:
Opening the closed unit at Rountree and increasing the number of re-entry programs would result in better conditions for inmates and less stress for the correctional officers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff reopen closed units and move all qualified inmates to Rountree Medium Security and the Minimum Security Rehabilitation and Reentry unit. (F11)
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice to prepare for reentry would show positive improvement to public safety and a reduction in recidivism for reentering inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a comprehensive plan to increase the number of programs that steer inmates towards reentry into the community with new job skills development, education, work release and transitional programs. (F12) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-20:
hours a day. According to answers given by Wellpath on 02/13/2024 in a Request for Proposal - Vendor Report to the County, many staffing positions are currently vacant including:[26] ● One Mental Health Coordinator ● Two full time Mental Health Clinicians ● Three full time Registered Nurses ● Four full time Licensed Vocational Nurses Some notable numbers from the report: ● Average daily # of detox patients - 12 ● Average daily # of combined segregation inmates - 25-30 ● Percentage of inmate population on medication - 65 ● Percentage of inmate population on psych medication - 68 ● Percentage of inmate population who are Severely Mentally Ill - 12 The Grand Jury is concerned with these crisis-level numbers. The workload appears to be a problem, given the vacancies of medical and mental health staff. Reducing staffing level caseloads is not the whole answer, but it is a crucial element to the question of whether inmates with mental illness are being provided with the required level of care. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 A recent Santa Cruz Criminal Justice report, as well as statements by jail staff and the Health Inspector, have all expressed concerns about Wellpath‘s high turnover of staff and the fact that they only provide coverage for eighteen hours a day.[27] [31] While someone is always a call away, the overall effectiveness of mental health services by Wellpath is inadequate to the needs of inmates. This adversely affects inmates’ mental health treatment.[3] [31] While medical staff are away, the mental health needs of the inmates are in the care of correctional staff. Because they have very limited medical training it could lead to inappropriate mental health care decisions.[32] Solitary Confinement and Use of a Safety Cell ● Formerly known as Solitary confinement, “Administrative Separation” (AD-Sep) or Modified Schedule is the physical separation of an incarcerated person from the general jail population.[33] ● The Main Jail has three Safety Cells that are video monitored 24 hours a day with 15-minute visual checks by the correctional staff - not Wellpath. There are an average of 36 inmate/patients placed on suicide watch per month.[34] ● Incarcerated individuals in and out of AD-Sep are provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week.[35] ● Safety Cells are used in the Main Jail if a risk assessment deems the inmate is a danger to themselves or others, is making suicidal statements, as punishment for not following the rules, or is having a mental health crisis requiring a 5150 hold while waiting to transfer to a mental health facility.[22] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] ● On February 28, 2024 there were forty-three (43) inmates on a Modified Schedule and for all of 2022, 321 were separated from the rest of the inmate population.[49] [50] Medical and Mental Health Treatment in the Jail People in the criminal legal system often have a background of trauma and poverty as well as acute health needs. One-quarter have serious mental illness, many have multiple physical health conditions, and 60% of California incarcerated people have substance use disorders.[51] Through jail tours and interviews with staff, the Grand Jury learned that the Main Jail, while not a certified mental healthcare facility, houses many mentally ill inmates. The Grand Jury reviewed two years of reports that review medical health care in the Jail. The reports are conducted annually and are from the County Public Health officer to the Sheriff’s office. The inspections were conducted by an expert with over twenty (20) years experience in reviewing and assessing Title 15 state-mandated medical conditions within county jails.[52] The inspector noted that the jails were in good compliance with regulations except for several significant deficiencies identified in this report.[37] [38] [53] [54] [55] We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 Among the deficiencies noted were: ● Failure to prepare Health Service Audits ● Improper use of Safety Cells ● Lack of Mental Health Services and Transfer to Treatment Facilities ● Insufficient Informed Consent ● Over-prescription of Psychotropic Medications The following sections expand on the deficiencies noted above. Health Service Audits According to Title 15 the health authority shall develop and implement a written plan for annual statistical summaries of healthcare and pharmaceutical services that are provided by the Jail.[56] Based on information from these audits, the health authority shall provide the facility administrator with an annual written report on healthcare and pharmaceutical services delivered.[53] [57] Wellpath has not prepared Health Service Audits for several years. The absence of these reports, with essential data concerning the quality of care, is an obstacle to developing steps to increase inmate safety. It also hinders efforts to improve inmate health. The Jail Quality Improvement committee needs these audits to conduct valuable data analysis for data-driven medical care improvements. Also, when all jail medical staff are involved with data gathering, they can provide input and suggestions which in turn promote good morale.[54] Ad-Sep and the Improper Use of a Safety Cell Being incarcerated, even for those in good mental health, is associated with subsequent depression and bipolar disorder and has been documented that it can worsen mental health.[58] An incarcerated person may be isolated from the rest of the inmates in their own cell, or in some cases in a Safety Cell. Generally, Ad-Sep means spending 22 to 23 hours per day in a single cell, usually about the size of an elevator, and are only required to be provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 Figure 6: A sobering cell on the left and a safety cell on the right. Photo courtesy of Ashley Keehn.[59] [60] According to The health Inspection Report citing California Title 15 section 1209 regulations governing jails, as well as the Sheriff’s own policies and procedures state, “in no case shall the safety cell be used for punishment or as a substitute for Mental Health treatment.”[40] [61] The Grand Jury has learned through reviewing relevant reports and conducting interviews that inmates are put in Safety Cells for numerous reasons including, but not limited to: ● Breaking the rules[41] [43] ● Threatening to hurt themselves and others[38] [41] [62] ● Having a Mental Health Crisis[41] Documented evidence provided to the Grand Jury revealed that inmates were held in Safety Cells for days.[37] [38] [39] [39] [40] Do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for months or even years at a time? That is not going to make us safer. That’s not going to make us stronger. And if those individuals are ultimately released, how are they ever going to adapt? It’s not smart. Barack Obama, 2015[63] The number 5150 is the section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code that evaluates adults who are deemed to be a danger to others, himself or herself, or are gravely disabled. A 5150 hold allows an adult to be involuntarily detained for 72 hours in We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 a psychiatric hospital or clinic.[36] Santa Cruz has one (1) psychiatric clinic. Patients do not have to be treated in a psychiatric hospital, a clinic is sufficient. They also could be treated at the Emergency department at Dominican until transferred to an LPS facility. To meet a 5150 hold criteria in the jail, the inmate must display suicidal thoughts as determined by a jail medical provider or, absent that, by the correctional officer in charge. However, it has been the practice in our jails to only initiate a 5150 hold immediately prior to release from the jail. Once a 5150 hold is issued you must transfer the inmate to a mental health facility for care. Waiting until discharge to initiate a 5150 hold means inmates may be held in Safety Cells for long periods of time. Use of a 5150 hold by the Sheriff's office numbered more than twenty-six (26) per month in 2022 and there were 321 such holds in 2022, according to the Sheriff’s statistics.[50] In the report, the Health Inspector’s main concern was the use of Safety Cells, and they spoke directly to the mental health professional in charge to determine if correct Title 15 procedures were being followed. According to the report, medical and jail staff were not using correct procedures.[64] This deficiency is closely related to the misuse of giving required mental health care services. It also is related to the proper procedures for transferring inmates to a mental health facility. Mental health care is provided in what are called LPS treatment facilities and are explained below.[44] To read more Safety Cell information see
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The failure of Wellpath, the medical provider contracted by the Sheriff to provide data from required Health Service Audits, has adversely affected inmate health and resulted in poor health care and lack of pharmaceutical services for inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to begin the Health Service Audits. (F1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F2:
The failure of Wellpath to implement a comprehensive discharge plan causes inmates to be released without community connection to medical treatment and medication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F3:
The failure of the Sheriff”s jail staff to properly address inmates' mental illness crises has caused mentally disabled inmates to be held in Safety Cells for excessively long periods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F4:
The improper use of Safety Cells by the Sheriff’s jail staff to isolate inmates who are greatly in need of mental health care and/or have made suicidal statements causes a violation of required procedure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F5:
The use of Safety Cells for punishment has resulted in violations of Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s Policy and Procedures Manual policy 516.2. This may expose the Sheriff’s department to lawsuits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F6:
The practice of excluding mentally ill patients from 5150 hold and transfer until discharge results in a violation of both Title 15 and Sheriff’s Policies and Procedures manual policy 516.2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff with the proper use of a 5150 hold and the transfer of inmates to a mental health facility according to Title 15 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F6) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024
F7:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer inmates with suicidal ideation or in a mental health crisis to an out-of-county LPS facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff train staff on how to transfer suicidal inmates to an LPS facility for mental health care. (F7)
F8:
The failure of the Crisis Intervention Team to issue a 5150 hold and transfer before an inmate is discharged adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff direct the CIT team to not withhold a 5150 hold and make a transfer until release because this is not proper or best practice for inmates in need of mental health care. (F8)
F9:
The practice of placement in Administrative Separation (solitary confinement) causes inmates to suffer mental health problems including, but not limited to, anxiety, insomnia, paranoia, aggression, and depression.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F10:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer Inmates who are suffering from mental health crises symptoms to an LPS Facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F11:
Opening the closed unit at Rountree and increasing the number of re-entry programs would result in better conditions for inmates and less stress for the correctional officers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff reopen closed units and move all qualified inmates to Rountree Medium Security and the Minimum Security Rehabilitation and Reentry unit. (F11)
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice to prepare for reentry would show positive improvement to public safety and a reduction in recidivism for reentering inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a comprehensive plan to increase the number of programs that steer inmates towards reentry into the community with new job skills development, education, work release and transitional programs. (F12) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-20:
hours a day. According to answers given by Wellpath on 02/13/2024 in a Request for Proposal - Vendor Report to the County, many staffing positions are currently vacant including:[26] ● One Mental Health Coordinator ● Two full time Mental Health Clinicians ● Three full time Registered Nurses ● Four full time Licensed Vocational Nurses Some notable numbers from the report: ● Average daily # of detox patients - 12 ● Average daily # of combined segregation inmates - 25-30 ● Percentage of inmate population on medication - 65 ● Percentage of inmate population on psych medication - 68 ● Percentage of inmate population who are Severely Mentally Ill - 12 The Grand Jury is concerned with these crisis-level numbers. The workload appears to be a problem, given the vacancies of medical and mental health staff. Reducing staffing level caseloads is not the whole answer, but it is a crucial element to the question of whether inmates with mental illness are being provided with the required level of care. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 A recent Santa Cruz Criminal Justice report, as well as statements by jail staff and the Health Inspector, have all expressed concerns about Wellpath‘s high turnover of staff and the fact that they only provide coverage for eighteen hours a day.[27] [31] While someone is always a call away, the overall effectiveness of mental health services by Wellpath is inadequate to the needs of inmates. This adversely affects inmates’ mental health treatment.[3] [31] While medical staff are away, the mental health needs of the inmates are in the care of correctional staff. Because they have very limited medical training it could lead to inappropriate mental health care decisions.[32] Solitary Confinement and Use of a Safety Cell ● Formerly known as Solitary confinement, “Administrative Separation” (AD-Sep) or Modified Schedule is the physical separation of an incarcerated person from the general jail population.[33] ● The Main Jail has three Safety Cells that are video monitored 24 hours a day with 15-minute visual checks by the correctional staff - not Wellpath. There are an average of 36 inmate/patients placed on suicide watch per month.[34] ● Incarcerated individuals in and out of AD-Sep are provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week.[35] ● Safety Cells are used in the Main Jail if a risk assessment deems the inmate is a danger to themselves or others, is making suicidal statements, as punishment for not following the rules, or is having a mental health crisis requiring a 5150 hold while waiting to transfer to a mental health facility.[22] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] ● On February 28, 2024 there were forty-three (43) inmates on a Modified Schedule and for all of 2022, 321 were separated from the rest of the inmate population.[49] [50] Medical and Mental Health Treatment in the Jail People in the criminal legal system often have a background of trauma and poverty as well as acute health needs. One-quarter have serious mental illness, many have multiple physical health conditions, and 60% of California incarcerated people have substance use disorders.[51] Through jail tours and interviews with staff, the Grand Jury learned that the Main Jail, while not a certified mental healthcare facility, houses many mentally ill inmates. The Grand Jury reviewed two years of reports that review medical health care in the Jail. The reports are conducted annually and are from the County Public Health officer to the Sheriff’s office. The inspections were conducted by an expert with over twenty (20) years experience in reviewing and assessing Title 15 state-mandated medical conditions within county jails.[52] The inspector noted that the jails were in good compliance with regulations except for several significant deficiencies identified in this report.[37] [38] [53] [54] [55] We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 Among the deficiencies noted were: ● Failure to prepare Health Service Audits ● Improper use of Safety Cells ● Lack of Mental Health Services and Transfer to Treatment Facilities ● Insufficient Informed Consent ● Over-prescription of Psychotropic Medications The following sections expand on the deficiencies noted above. Health Service Audits According to Title 15 the health authority shall develop and implement a written plan for annual statistical summaries of healthcare and pharmaceutical services that are provided by the Jail.[56] Based on information from these audits, the health authority shall provide the facility administrator with an annual written report on healthcare and pharmaceutical services delivered.[53] [57] Wellpath has not prepared Health Service Audits for several years. The absence of these reports, with essential data concerning the quality of care, is an obstacle to developing steps to increase inmate safety. It also hinders efforts to improve inmate health. The Jail Quality Improvement committee needs these audits to conduct valuable data analysis for data-driven medical care improvements. Also, when all jail medical staff are involved with data gathering, they can provide input and suggestions which in turn promote good morale.[54] Ad-Sep and the Improper Use of a Safety Cell Being incarcerated, even for those in good mental health, is associated with subsequent depression and bipolar disorder and has been documented that it can worsen mental health.[58] An incarcerated person may be isolated from the rest of the inmates in their own cell, or in some cases in a Safety Cell. Generally, Ad-Sep means spending 22 to 23 hours per day in a single cell, usually about the size of an elevator, and are only required to be provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 Figure 6: A sobering cell on the left and a safety cell on the right. Photo courtesy of Ashley Keehn.[59] [60] According to The health Inspection Report citing California Title 15 section 1209 regulations governing jails, as well as the Sheriff’s own policies and procedures state, “in no case shall the safety cell be used for punishment or as a substitute for Mental Health treatment.”[40] [61] The Grand Jury has learned through reviewing relevant reports and conducting interviews that inmates are put in Safety Cells for numerous reasons including, but not limited to: ● Breaking the rules[41] [43] ● Threatening to hurt themselves and others[38] [41] [62] ● Having a Mental Health Crisis[41] Documented evidence provided to the Grand Jury revealed that inmates were held in Safety Cells for days.[37] [38] [39] [39] [40] Do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for months or even years at a time? That is not going to make us safer. That’s not going to make us stronger. And if those individuals are ultimately released, how are they ever going to adapt? It’s not smart. Barack Obama, 2015[63] The number 5150 is the section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code that evaluates adults who are deemed to be a danger to others, himself or herself, or are gravely disabled. A 5150 hold allows an adult to be involuntarily detained for 72 hours in We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 a psychiatric hospital or clinic.[36] Santa Cruz has one (1) psychiatric clinic. Patients do not have to be treated in a psychiatric hospital, a clinic is sufficient. They also could be treated at the Emergency department at Dominican until transferred to an LPS facility. To meet a 5150 hold criteria in the jail, the inmate must display suicidal thoughts as determined by a jail medical provider or, absent that, by the correctional officer in charge. However, it has been the practice in our jails to only initiate a 5150 hold immediately prior to release from the jail. Once a 5150 hold is issued you must transfer the inmate to a mental health facility for care. Waiting until discharge to initiate a 5150 hold means inmates may be held in Safety Cells for long periods of time. Use of a 5150 hold by the Sheriff's office numbered more than twenty-six (26) per month in 2022 and there were 321 such holds in 2022, according to the Sheriff’s statistics.[50] In the report, the Health Inspector’s main concern was the use of Safety Cells, and they spoke directly to the mental health professional in charge to determine if correct Title 15 procedures were being followed. According to the report, medical and jail staff were not using correct procedures.[64] This deficiency is closely related to the misuse of giving required mental health care services. It also is related to the proper procedures for transferring inmates to a mental health facility. Mental health care is provided in what are called LPS treatment facilities and are explained below.[44] To read more Safety Cell information see
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The failure of Wellpath, the medical provider contracted by the Sheriff to provide data from required Health Service Audits, has adversely affected inmate health and resulted in poor health care and lack of pharmaceutical services for inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to begin the Health Service Audits. (F1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F2:
The failure of Wellpath to implement a comprehensive discharge plan causes inmates to be released without community connection to medical treatment and medication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F3:
The failure of the Sheriff”s jail staff to properly address inmates' mental illness crises has caused mentally disabled inmates to be held in Safety Cells for excessively long periods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F4:
The improper use of Safety Cells by the Sheriff’s jail staff to isolate inmates who are greatly in need of mental health care and/or have made suicidal statements causes a violation of required procedure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F5:
The use of Safety Cells for punishment has resulted in violations of Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s Policy and Procedures Manual policy 516.2. This may expose the Sheriff’s department to lawsuits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F6:
The practice of excluding mentally ill patients from 5150 hold and transfer until discharge results in a violation of both Title 15 and Sheriff’s Policies and Procedures manual policy 516.2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff with the proper use of a 5150 hold and the transfer of inmates to a mental health facility according to Title 15 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F6) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024
F7:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer inmates with suicidal ideation or in a mental health crisis to an out-of-county LPS facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff train staff on how to transfer suicidal inmates to an LPS facility for mental health care. (F7)
F8:
The failure of the Crisis Intervention Team to issue a 5150 hold and transfer before an inmate is discharged adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff direct the CIT team to not withhold a 5150 hold and make a transfer until release because this is not proper or best practice for inmates in need of mental health care. (F8)
F9:
The practice of placement in Administrative Separation (solitary confinement) causes inmates to suffer mental health problems including, but not limited to, anxiety, insomnia, paranoia, aggression, and depression.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F10:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer Inmates who are suffering from mental health crises symptoms to an LPS Facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F11:
Opening the closed unit at Rountree and increasing the number of re-entry programs would result in better conditions for inmates and less stress for the correctional officers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff reopen closed units and move all qualified inmates to Rountree Medium Security and the Minimum Security Rehabilitation and Reentry unit. (F11)
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice to prepare for reentry would show positive improvement to public safety and a reduction in recidivism for reentering inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a comprehensive plan to increase the number of programs that steer inmates towards reentry into the community with new job skills development, education, work release and transitional programs. (F12) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-20:
hours a day. According to answers given by Wellpath on 02/13/2024 in a Request for Proposal - Vendor Report to the County, many staffing positions are currently vacant including:[26] ● One Mental Health Coordinator ● Two full time Mental Health Clinicians ● Three full time Registered Nurses ● Four full time Licensed Vocational Nurses Some notable numbers from the report: ● Average daily # of detox patients - 12 ● Average daily # of combined segregation inmates - 25-30 ● Percentage of inmate population on medication - 65 ● Percentage of inmate population on psych medication - 68 ● Percentage of inmate population who are Severely Mentally Ill - 12 The Grand Jury is concerned with these crisis-level numbers. The workload appears to be a problem, given the vacancies of medical and mental health staff. Reducing staffing level caseloads is not the whole answer, but it is a crucial element to the question of whether inmates with mental illness are being provided with the required level of care. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 A recent Santa Cruz Criminal Justice report, as well as statements by jail staff and the Health Inspector, have all expressed concerns about Wellpath‘s high turnover of staff and the fact that they only provide coverage for eighteen hours a day.[27] [31] While someone is always a call away, the overall effectiveness of mental health services by Wellpath is inadequate to the needs of inmates. This adversely affects inmates’ mental health treatment.[3] [31] While medical staff are away, the mental health needs of the inmates are in the care of correctional staff. Because they have very limited medical training it could lead to inappropriate mental health care decisions.[32] Solitary Confinement and Use of a Safety Cell ● Formerly known as Solitary confinement, “Administrative Separation” (AD-Sep) or Modified Schedule is the physical separation of an incarcerated person from the general jail population.[33] ● The Main Jail has three Safety Cells that are video monitored 24 hours a day with 15-minute visual checks by the correctional staff - not Wellpath. There are an average of 36 inmate/patients placed on suicide watch per month.[34] ● Incarcerated individuals in and out of AD-Sep are provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week.[35] ● Safety Cells are used in the Main Jail if a risk assessment deems the inmate is a danger to themselves or others, is making suicidal statements, as punishment for not following the rules, or is having a mental health crisis requiring a 5150 hold while waiting to transfer to a mental health facility.[22] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] ● On February 28, 2024 there were forty-three (43) inmates on a Modified Schedule and for all of 2022, 321 were separated from the rest of the inmate population.[49] [50] Medical and Mental Health Treatment in the Jail People in the criminal legal system often have a background of trauma and poverty as well as acute health needs. One-quarter have serious mental illness, many have multiple physical health conditions, and 60% of California incarcerated people have substance use disorders.[51] Through jail tours and interviews with staff, the Grand Jury learned that the Main Jail, while not a certified mental healthcare facility, houses many mentally ill inmates. The Grand Jury reviewed two years of reports that review medical health care in the Jail. The reports are conducted annually and are from the County Public Health officer to the Sheriff’s office. The inspections were conducted by an expert with over twenty (20) years experience in reviewing and assessing Title 15 state-mandated medical conditions within county jails.[52] The inspector noted that the jails were in good compliance with regulations except for several significant deficiencies identified in this report.[37] [38] [53] [54] [55] We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 Among the deficiencies noted were: ● Failure to prepare Health Service Audits ● Improper use of Safety Cells ● Lack of Mental Health Services and Transfer to Treatment Facilities ● Insufficient Informed Consent ● Over-prescription of Psychotropic Medications The following sections expand on the deficiencies noted above. Health Service Audits According to Title 15 the health authority shall develop and implement a written plan for annual statistical summaries of healthcare and pharmaceutical services that are provided by the Jail.[56] Based on information from these audits, the health authority shall provide the facility administrator with an annual written report on healthcare and pharmaceutical services delivered.[53] [57] Wellpath has not prepared Health Service Audits for several years. The absence of these reports, with essential data concerning the quality of care, is an obstacle to developing steps to increase inmate safety. It also hinders efforts to improve inmate health. The Jail Quality Improvement committee needs these audits to conduct valuable data analysis for data-driven medical care improvements. Also, when all jail medical staff are involved with data gathering, they can provide input and suggestions which in turn promote good morale.[54] Ad-Sep and the Improper Use of a Safety Cell Being incarcerated, even for those in good mental health, is associated with subsequent depression and bipolar disorder and has been documented that it can worsen mental health.[58] An incarcerated person may be isolated from the rest of the inmates in their own cell, or in some cases in a Safety Cell. Generally, Ad-Sep means spending 22 to 23 hours per day in a single cell, usually about the size of an elevator, and are only required to be provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 Figure 6: A sobering cell on the left and a safety cell on the right. Photo courtesy of Ashley Keehn.[59] [60] According to The health Inspection Report citing California Title 15 section 1209 regulations governing jails, as well as the Sheriff’s own policies and procedures state, “in no case shall the safety cell be used for punishment or as a substitute for Mental Health treatment.”[40] [61] The Grand Jury has learned through reviewing relevant reports and conducting interviews that inmates are put in Safety Cells for numerous reasons including, but not limited to: ● Breaking the rules[41] [43] ● Threatening to hurt themselves and others[38] [41] [62] ● Having a Mental Health Crisis[41] Documented evidence provided to the Grand Jury revealed that inmates were held in Safety Cells for days.[37] [38] [39] [39] [40] Do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for months or even years at a time? That is not going to make us safer. That’s not going to make us stronger. And if those individuals are ultimately released, how are they ever going to adapt? It’s not smart. Barack Obama, 2015[63] The number 5150 is the section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code that evaluates adults who are deemed to be a danger to others, himself or herself, or are gravely disabled. A 5150 hold allows an adult to be involuntarily detained for 72 hours in We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 a psychiatric hospital or clinic.[36] Santa Cruz has one (1) psychiatric clinic. Patients do not have to be treated in a psychiatric hospital, a clinic is sufficient. They also could be treated at the Emergency department at Dominican until transferred to an LPS facility. To meet a 5150 hold criteria in the jail, the inmate must display suicidal thoughts as determined by a jail medical provider or, absent that, by the correctional officer in charge. However, it has been the practice in our jails to only initiate a 5150 hold immediately prior to release from the jail. Once a 5150 hold is issued you must transfer the inmate to a mental health facility for care. Waiting until discharge to initiate a 5150 hold means inmates may be held in Safety Cells for long periods of time. Use of a 5150 hold by the Sheriff's office numbered more than twenty-six (26) per month in 2022 and there were 321 such holds in 2022, according to the Sheriff’s statistics.[50] In the report, the Health Inspector’s main concern was the use of Safety Cells, and they spoke directly to the mental health professional in charge to determine if correct Title 15 procedures were being followed. According to the report, medical and jail staff were not using correct procedures.[64] This deficiency is closely related to the misuse of giving required mental health care services. It also is related to the proper procedures for transferring inmates to a mental health facility. Mental health care is provided in what are called LPS treatment facilities and are explained below.[44] To read more Safety Cell information see
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The failure of Wellpath, the medical provider contracted by the Sheriff to provide data from required Health Service Audits, has adversely affected inmate health and resulted in poor health care and lack of pharmaceutical services for inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to begin the Health Service Audits. (F1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F2:
The failure of Wellpath to implement a comprehensive discharge plan causes inmates to be released without community connection to medical treatment and medication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F3:
The failure of the Sheriff”s jail staff to properly address inmates' mental illness crises has caused mentally disabled inmates to be held in Safety Cells for excessively long periods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F4:
The improper use of Safety Cells by the Sheriff’s jail staff to isolate inmates who are greatly in need of mental health care and/or have made suicidal statements causes a violation of required procedure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F5:
The use of Safety Cells for punishment has resulted in violations of Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s Policy and Procedures Manual policy 516.2. This may expose the Sheriff’s department to lawsuits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F6:
The practice of excluding mentally ill patients from 5150 hold and transfer until discharge results in a violation of both Title 15 and Sheriff’s Policies and Procedures manual policy 516.2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff with the proper use of a 5150 hold and the transfer of inmates to a mental health facility according to Title 15 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F6)
F7:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer inmates with suicidal ideation or in a mental health crisis to an out-of-county LPS facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff train staff on how to transfer suicidal inmates to an LPS facility for mental health care. (F7)
F8:
The failure of the Crisis Intervention Team to issue a 5150 hold and transfer before an inmate is discharged adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff direct the CIT team to not withhold a 5150 hold and make a transfer until release because this is not proper or best practice for inmates in need of mental health care. (F8)
F9:
The practice of placement in Administrative Separation (solitary confinement) causes inmates to suffer mental health problems including, but not limited to, anxiety, insomnia, paranoia, aggression, and depression.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F10:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer Inmates who are suffering from mental health crises symptoms to an LPS Facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F11:
Opening the closed unit at Rountree and increasing the number of re-entry programs would result in better conditions for inmates and less stress for the correctional officers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff reopen closed units and move all qualified inmates to Rountree Medium Security and the Minimum Security Rehabilitation and Reentry unit. (F11)
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice to prepare for reentry would show positive improvement to public safety and a reduction in recidivism for reentering inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a comprehensive plan to increase the number of programs that steer inmates towards reentry into the community with new job skills development, education, work release and transitional programs. (F12)
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-20:
hours a day. According to answers given by Wellpath on 02/13/2024 in a Request for Proposal - Vendor Report to the County, many staffing positions are currently vacant including:[26] ● One Mental Health Coordinator ● Two full time Mental Health Clinicians ● Three full time Registered Nurses ● Four full time Licensed Vocational Nurses Some notable numbers from the report: ● Average daily # of detox patients - 12 ● Average daily # of combined segregation inmates - 25-30 ● Percentage of inmate population on medication - 65 ● Percentage of inmate population on psych medication - 68 ● Percentage of inmate population who are Severely Mentally Ill - 12 The Grand Jury is concerned with these crisis-level numbers. The workload appears to be a problem, given the vacancies of medical and mental health staff. Reducing staffing level caseloads is not the whole answer, but it is a crucial element to the question of whether inmates with mental illness are being provided with the required level of care. A recent Santa Cruz Criminal Justice report, as well as statements by jail staff and the Health Inspector, have all expressed concerns about Wellpath‘s high turnover of staff and the fact that they only provide coverage for eighteen hours a day.[27] [31] While someone is always a call away, the overall effectiveness of mental health services by Wellpath is inadequate to the needs of inmates. This adversely affects inmates’ mental health treatment.[3] [31] While medical staff are away, the mental health needs of the inmates are in the care of correctional staff. Because they have very limited medical training it could lead to inappropriate mental health care decisions.[32] Solitary Confinement and Use of a Safety Cell ● Formerly known as Solitary confinement, “Administrative Separation” (AD-Sep) or Modified Schedule is the physical separation of an incarcerated person from the general jail population.[33] ● The Main Jail has three Safety Cells that are video monitored 24 hours a day with 15-minute visual checks by the correctional staff - not Wellpath. There are an average of 36 inmate/patients placed on suicide watch per month.[34] ● Incarcerated individuals in and out of AD-Sep are provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week.[35] ● Safety Cells are used in the Main Jail if a risk assessment deems the inmate is a danger to themselves or others, is making suicidal statements, as punishment for not following the rules, or is having a mental health crisis requiring a 5150 hold while waiting to transfer to a mental health facility.[22] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] ● On February 28, 2024 there were forty-three (43) inmates on a Modified Schedule and for all of 2022, 321 were separated from the rest of the inmate population.[49] [50] Medical and Mental Health Treatment in the Jail People in the criminal legal system often have a background of trauma and poverty as well as acute health needs. One-quarter have serious mental illness, many have multiple physical health conditions, and 60% of California incarcerated people have substance use disorders.[51] Through jail tours and interviews with staff, the Grand Jury learned that the Main Jail, while not a certified mental healthcare facility, houses many mentally ill inmates. The Grand Jury reviewed two years of reports that review medical health care in the Jail. The reports are conducted annually and are from the County Public Health officer to the Sheriff’s office. The inspections were conducted by an expert with over twenty (20) years experience in reviewing and assessing Title 15 state-mandated medical conditions within county jails.[52] The inspector noted that the jails were in good compliance with regulations except for several significant deficiencies identified in this report.[37] [38] [53] [54] [55] Among the deficiencies noted were: ● Failure to prepare Health Service Audits ● Improper use of Safety Cells ● Lack of Mental Health Services and Transfer to Treatment Facilities ● Insufficient Informed Consent ● Over-prescription of Psychotropic Medications The following sections expand on the deficiencies noted above. Health Service Audits According to Title 15 the health authority shall develop and implement a written plan for annual statistical summaries of healthcare and pharmaceutical services that are provided by the Jail.[56] Based on information from these audits, the health authority shall provide the facility administrator with an annual written report on healthcare and pharmaceutical services delivered.[53] [57] Wellpath has not prepared Health Service Audits for several years. The absence of these reports, with essential data concerning the quality of care, is an obstacle to developing steps to increase inmate safety. It also hinders efforts to improve inmate health. The Jail Quality Improvement committee needs these audits to conduct valuable data analysis for data-driven medical care improvements. Also, when all jail medical staff are involved with data gathering, they can provide input and suggestions which in turn promote good morale.[54] Ad-Sep and the Improper Use of a Safety Cell Being incarcerated, even for those in good mental health, is associated with subsequent depression and bipolar disorder and has been documented that it can worsen mental health.[58] An incarcerated person may be isolated from the rest of the inmates in their own cell, or in some cases in a Safety Cell. Generally, Ad-Sep means spending 22 to 23 hours per day in a single cell, usually about the size of an elevator, and are only required to be provided a minimum of three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation time per week. Figure 6: A sobering cell on the left and a safety cell on the right. Photo courtesy of Ashley Keehn.[59] [60] According to The health Inspection Report citing California Title 15 section 1209 regulations governing jails, as well as the Sheriff’s own policies and procedures state, “in no case shall the safety cell be used for punishment or as a substitute for Mental Health treatment.”[40] [61] The Grand Jury has learned through reviewing relevant reports and conducting interviews that inmates are put in Safety Cells for numerous reasons including, but not limited to: ● Breaking the rules[41] [43] ● Threatening to hurt themselves and others[38] [41] [62] ● Having a Mental Health Crisis[41] Documented evidence provided to the Grand Jury revealed that inmates were held in Safety Cells for days.[37] [38] [39] [39] [40] Do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for months or even years at a time? That is not going to make us safer. That’s not going to make us stronger. And if those individuals are ultimately released, how are they ever going to adapt? It’s not smart. Barack Obama, 2015[63] The number 5150 is the section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code that evaluates adults who are deemed to be a danger to others, himself or herself, or are gravely disabled. A 5150 hold allows an adult to be involuntarily detained for 72 hours in a psychiatric hospital or clinic.[36] Santa Cruz has one (1) psychiatric clinic. Patients do not have to be treated in a psychiatric hospital, a clinic is sufficient. They also could be treated at the Emergency department at Dominican until transferred to an LPS facility. To meet a 5150 hold criteria in the jail, the inmate must display suicidal thoughts as determined by a jail medical provider or, absent that, by the correctional officer in charge. However, it has been the practice in our jails to only initiate a 5150 hold immediately prior to release from the jail. Once a 5150 hold is issued you must transfer the inmate to a mental health facility for care. Waiting until discharge to initiate a 5150 hold means inmates may be held in Safety Cells for long periods of time. Use of a 5150 hold by the Sheriff's office numbered more than twenty-six (26) per month in 2022 and there were 321 such holds in 2022, according to the Sheriff’s statistics.[50] In the report, the Health Inspector’s main concern was the use of Safety Cells, and they spoke directly to the mental health professional in charge to determine if correct Title 15 procedures were being followed. According to the report, medical and jail staff were not using correct procedures.[64] This deficiency is closely related to the misuse of giving required mental health care services. It also is related to the proper procedures for transferring inmates to a mental health facility. Mental health care is provided in what are called LPS treatment facilities and are explained below.[44] To read more Safety Cell information see
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Underfunding the road and culvert maintenance work on the 586 miles of County roads in unincorporated Santa Cruz County for more than four decades has created a backlog of deferred maintenance currently exceeding ¾ of a billion dollars which creates a hazard for residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by December 31, 2024 which shows the prioritization of culvert and drainage ditch maintenance in order to help prevent road washouts that are more costly to repair. (F1, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
F2:
Due to the large shortfall in funding, Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works adheres to the accepted practice promoted by the Federal Highway Administration and RTC of prioritizing pavement preservation over pavement restoration. Much of the public lacks awareness of this practice in the absence of a formally documented policy which impacts voter choices.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9)
F3:
The County road maintenance strategy differs by Supervisorial District leading to inconsistent road repair expectations among districts. This lack of a coordinated strategy leaves residents frustrated and with a sense of unfair treatment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9)
F4:
Storms of 2017 and 2023 caused significant road failures. Contributing factors were inadequate culvert, drainage ditch, and road surface maintenance which led to culvert failures and full road washouts leaving residents stranded or incurring significant delay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9)
F5:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to ask unincorporated County voters to increase the funding of the Special District 9D (1-3) road assessment fee since its inception in 1988, which has resulted in a drastic loss of revenue for maintaining County roads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by December 31, 2024 which shows the prioritization of culvert and drainage ditch maintenance in order to help prevent road washouts that are more costly to repair. (F1, F5)
F6:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to perform resurfacing maintenance on many of the smaller unincorporated local roads, resulting in higher failure rates and at least a 10 times increased maintenance cost when and if those roads are resurfaced.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO detailing expenditures in each of the three zones of CSA 9D for the years 2020-2023 by October 31, 2024. (F6, F10)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area 9 Service and Sphere of Influence Review incorporating detailed data of expenditures for each 9D zone by March 15, 2025. (F6, F10)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors should begin the process necessary to increase the funding in CSA 9D to an amount in line with what is needed to reduce the backlog of very poor and failed road repairs by December 31, 2024. (F6)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors take steps necessary to add a consumer price index increase to CSA 9D, as allowed by law, by December 31, 2024. (F6)
F7:
Santa Cruz County's neglect of unincorporated local roads for many decades has led to an average Pavement Condition Index of less than 48 (as of 2019) which is 17 points below the statewide average. With the current funding level, it is projected to be 38 in 2024, and it is further projected to drop to 33 by 2028 which will leave the County in a position to experience higher catastrophic road failures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9)
F8:
The County prioritizes preventive maintenance of roads in fair to good condition over road repair and reconstruction due to limited discretionary funds. As a result, many residents in local road areas will have to contend with very poor/failed roads into the foreseeable future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
F9:
The most recent LAFCO and County reports fail to provide detailed accounting of how 9D funds are being spent. The result is that taxpayers lack the information to ensure that generated funds are being used appropriately.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual funding to the DPW to improve at least one local road segment with a PCI of less than 40 as listed in the Pavement Management report, in each Supervisorial district starting December 31, 2024. (F1, F2, F7, F8, F9)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning pavement restoration on very poor and failed Local roads into a publicly available document in order to inform affected property owners and prospective buyers by December 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4, F7, F9)
F10:
Minor progress has been made in seeking and securing additional funding sources. The additional funding is far short of what is needed to maintain and repair the road network.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO detailing expenditures in each of the three zones of CSA 9D for the years 2020-2023 by October 31, 2024. (F6, F10)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area 9 Service and Sphere of Influence Review incorporating detailed data of expenditures for each 9D zone by March 15, 2025. (F6, F10)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11)
F11:
Measure K funds go directly into the General Fund and road maintenance funding expenditures are only recommended. This may allow the funding to go to other needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The failure of Wellpath, the medical provider contracted by the Sheriff to provide data from required Health Service Audits, has adversely affected inmate health and resulted in poor health care and lack of pharmaceutical services for inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to begin the Health Service Audits. (F1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F2:
The failure of Wellpath to implement a comprehensive discharge plan causes inmates to be released without community connection to medical treatment and medication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff instruct Wellpath to improve the medical discharge processes for better continuity of care. (F1, F2)
F3:
The failure of the Sheriff”s jail staff to properly address inmates' mental illness crises has caused mentally disabled inmates to be held in Safety Cells for excessively long periods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F4:
The improper use of Safety Cells by the Sheriff’s jail staff to isolate inmates who are greatly in need of mental health care and/or have made suicidal statements causes a violation of required procedure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F5:
The use of Safety Cells for punishment has resulted in violations of Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s Policy and Procedures Manual policy 516.2. This may expose the Sheriff’s department to lawsuits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff about the proper use of Safety Cells according to Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F3, F4, F5)
F6:
The practice of excluding mentally ill patients from 5150 hold and transfer until discharge results in a violation of both Title 15 and Sheriff’s Policies and Procedures manual policy 516.2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain staff with the proper use of a 5150 hold and the transfer of inmates to a mental health facility according to Title 15 and the Sheriff’s policy and procedures manual. (F6) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 2023–2024 Consolidated Final Report 45
F7:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer inmates with suicidal ideation or in a mental health crisis to an out-of-county LPS facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff train staff on how to transfer suicidal inmates to an LPS facility for mental health care. (F7)
F8:
The failure of the Crisis Intervention Team to issue a 5150 hold and transfer before an inmate is discharged adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff direct the CIT team to not withhold a 5150 hold and make a transfer until release because this is not proper or best practice for inmates in need of mental health care. (F8)
F9:
The practice of placement in Administrative Separation (solitary confinement) causes inmates to suffer mental health problems including, but not limited to, anxiety, insomnia, paranoia, aggression, and depression.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F10:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer Inmates who are suffering from mental health crises symptoms to an LPS Facility adversely impacts inmate mental health care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to transfer all inmates in mental health crises to LPS facilities and budget the extra cost of transferring patients out of the county. (F9, F10) Group 2: Better Jail Conditions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Preparation
F11:
Opening the closed unit at Rountree and increasing the number of re-entry programs would result in better conditions for inmates and less stress for the correctional officers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff reopen closed units and move all qualified inmates to Rountree Medium Security and the Minimum Security Rehabilitation and Reentry unit. (F11)
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice to prepare for reentry would show positive improvement to public safety and a reduction in recidivism for reentering inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a comprehensive plan to increase the number of programs that steer inmates towards reentry into the community with new job skills development, education, work release and transitional programs. (F12) We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024 46 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based mental health care, reducing the number of mentally ill inmates in jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff develop a plan to implement more Jail diversion programs (like Stepping Up) that steer the Mentally Ill away from jail and to the help they need. (F13)
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an interval and may endanger inmates suffering from mentally illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff change the Reclassification examination of mentally ill inmates from a monthly basis to a weekly basis to prevent misclassified inmates from suffering needlessly. (F14)
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the overall effectiveness of the mental health services provided to inmates.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of Wellpath in regards to all mental health services of incarcerated persons. (F15)
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be directed to provide round-the-clock medical and mental health care availability to the Jails. (F15) Group 3: Access to Inmate Interviews and Rehabilitation Programs
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates serving sentences at the Rountree Rehabilitation and Reentry Facility as required by the Bureau of State Community and Corrections. Speaking to some inmates about their experiences and opinions of the programs would have greatly enhanced the Jail investigation and report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury interviews of inmates per Penal Code 916 including observing inmate classes and programs within 90 days. (F16)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-20:
hours a day. According to answers given by Wellpath on 02/13/2024 in a Request for Proposal - Vendor Report to the County, many staffing positions are currently vacant including:[26] ● One Mental Health Coordinator ● Two full time Mental Health Clinicians ● Three full time Registered Nurses ● Four full time Licensed Vocational Nurses Some notable numbers from the report: ● Average daily # of detox patients - 12 ● Average daily # of combined segregation inmates - 25-30 ● Percentage of inmate population on medication - 65 ● Percentage of inmate population on psych medication - 68 ● Percentage of inmate population who are Severely Mentally Ill - 12 The Grand Jury is concerned with these crisis-level numbers. The workload appears to be a problem, given the vacancies of medical and mental health staff. Reducing staffing level caseloads is not the whole answer, but it is a crucial element to the question of whether inmates with mental illness are being provided with the required level of care. We Can Do Better With Our Jails! published June 11, 2024
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F4:
The loss of the in-person self-defense program for boys and girls in Santa Cruz City Schools lessens students’ ability to prevent sexual assault and interpersonal violence, inconsistent with the mandate of Ordinance 81-29. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): When the in-person self-defense program was provided by the City, school principals fielded complaints from staff about the programming. Middle and high school teachers and other staff stated that there was a disconnect between the staff who came to train students and the students themselves. It was reported that while the trainers had knowledge and skills in self- defense, their lack of formal training negatively impacted students gaining the desired skills. Efforts were made to mitigate these issues, but at the same time that the City was evaluating the program, the District came to the conclusion that these offerings should be suspended and instead implemented a broader curriculum. The in-person self defense classes were only one part of a broader curriculum that the district uses to prevent sexual assault and interpersonal violence amongst our students. We have an articulated plan that utilizes credentialed science teachers, in-person speakers from Monarch Services, and interactive videos by Vector Solutions at every grade level and for every year from 6th to 12th grade. Middle school science teachers have attended and have been trained by staff who are contracted through the Santa Cruz County Office of Education and other community partners including the Cardea Training, an organizational development and research firm, to teach age-appropriate Sex Education. There are many components to these 6th through 8th grade units that address topics such as awareness, healthy relationships, teen dating violence, sexual harassment, active consent, bystander intervention, and more. These trained professionals use creative techniques that include role playing, student team presentations, expert videos, guest speakers from partners such as the Walnut Avenue Family and Women’s Resource Center, and more. The middle school science teachers meet and collaborate regularly to ensure clear grade level articulation and to share strategies. The entire Sexual Education Unit spreads across roughly one month of school each year. In each SCCS high school, all students take a semester-long Health Education Class in 9th grade. In these classes, students are taught lessons similar to middle school, and the lessons evolve in complexity as students mature. These trained and credentialed Health teachers also use their expertise to engage students in thought provoking and critical thinking activities that connect to students’ lives as they learn characteristics of healthy vs. unhealthy relationships. Teen dating violence, sexual harassment, human trafficking, and active consent are also covered. Invited Response from the Superintendent, Santa Cruz City Schools Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 492 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Each year, from 10th through 12th grade, students are taught these essential skills. Our high schools partner with Monarch Services to educate students on topics such as dating and domestic violence, healthy relationships, active consent, power dynamics, social media safety, and more. The presenters from Monarch Services bring a wealth of expertise from their agency, and classroom teachers reinforce these lessons by facilitating discussions with students before and after the presentations. This past year at Santa Cruz High, we piloted Vector Solutions for these lessons. The Vector courses are designed to be engaging and age-appropriate, featuring diverse peer presenters to help all students relate more easily to the content. The courses are customized for grades 6-8 and 9-12. Along with the videos, students took pre- and post-tests, which showed an increase in knowledge following the lessons. Topics for 10th through 12th graders included Dating Violence Awareness, Healthy Relationships, Resolving Disagreements, Stress and Anxiety, Youth Suicide Risk, and more. In addition to our programming for grades 6-12, we also teach personal safety, boundaries, problem-solving, and conflict resolution to our elementary students using the evidence-based Second Step Social and Emotional Learning curriculum. Furthermore, we’ve partnered with Kidpower International to support our TK-5th grade students. Kidpower uses an 8-point boundary framework to help prevent and address issues quickly and effectively, including stopping unwanted touch and attention. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 493
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council begin evaluating options with the Santa Cruz City School District to reinstate the in-person self-defense program for middle and high school students of all genders by January 31, 2025. (F4) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As addressed in our response to Finding #4, the Grand Jury appears to be unaware of the comprehensive programs and activities currently implemented by the Santa Cruz City School District for preventing sexual assault, interpersonal violence, and promoting personal safety. Our present curriculum and systems offer a significantly broader and more in-depth safety education compared to the in-person program previously provided in partnership with the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women (CPVAW). The former program did not adequately equip students with the necessary skills to navigate the complexities of domestic violence and sexual assault. Since then, our programs have evolved substantially. The advancements in data, technology, and educational techniques over the past several years have enabled us to develop a more relevant and effective approach to safety education. Unlike traditional self-defense courses that primarily focus on physical defense, our current programs emphasize the importance of understanding healthy relationships, addressing teen dating violence, and recognizing active consent. These areas are crucial, given that, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, in eight out of ten rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. Our programs, including Vector, which was funded by CPVAW in 2024, are designed to address these crucial aspects. It is regrettable that the Grand Jury did not consult the Santa Cruz City School District to gain a full understanding of our current curriculum before making its assessment and recommendations. We take great pride in our comprehensive programming, which spans all grade levels and focuses on personal safety and prevention of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and interpersonal violence. We continuously review and refine our safety and prevention programs, lessons, and partnerships to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes. We appreciate the ongoing support of CPVAW for the programs we have in place and look forward to continuing our collaborative efforts. Invited Response from the Superintendent, Santa Cruz City Schools Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 494 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury [This page intentionally left blank.]
F8:
The inconsistencies the Grand Jury found in SCPD’s rape numbers means the public, the CPVAW and the City have no accurate metrics about reported rape, leaving the community ill-informed and Annual Commission Reports unreliable. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): City of Santa Cruz Ordinance No. 81-29 establishes specific responsibilities and cooperation between SCPD and CPVAW: • Section 5(e): The Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women, in carrying out its duties shall have the authority to call upon members of the Police Department to present information which is not defined as confidential by State law. The Santa Cruz Police Department shall offer full and open cooperation to the Commission. • Section 6(b): The Police Department shall create a separate statistical report form to document and consolidate all domestic violence and women beating calls. This shall be compiled monthly. We are working with the SCPD to meet these requirements, and to access more accurate metrics and data to deliver to the community. Before the February 7, 2024, CPVAW meeting, where the SCPD’s statistical report (Appendix A – Figure 8 Full Table) was first presented, the SCPD had been producing a simplified statistical monthly report. This report included data on domestic violence calls, domestic violence cases, rape cases, sexual assaults, stalking cases, and intimate partner homicide cases. At the November 1, 2023, CPVAW meeting, the Commission approved a metrics change and sodomy and forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object, and forced oral copulation were separated from the generalized rape column, and assault to commit rape was added. In the following two meetings (February 1, 2024, and May 1, 2024), SCPD complied and continued to make improvements to provide an accurate and comprehensive statistical report. Improvements included updating all the monthly summary values to reflect the addition of any cold cases when they occurred, not when reported, and footnotes were added to provide clarifying language. This was to try and explain why the old numbers had changed from previous reports. CPVAW continues to develop our understanding of the available and appropriate metrics to support the work from the Ordinance mandate. We want to be collaborative with the SCPD and our community partners as well as the community in general to advocate for the best possible shared information and responses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD update its website to include the detailed metrics on Rape Incidents submitted to NIBRS and CIBRS, ensuring all data entries are accurate and available at each meeting of the CPVAW, and have this in place by January 31, 2025. (F8, F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Commission understands, and the SCPD webpage via the City of Santa Cruz portal, that the UCR reporting system is phased out and the CIBRS/NIBRS metrics and data collection are being implemented. We look forward to working with SCPD to align our understanding and reporting of data as of 2024 in the new systems. Invited Response from the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 480 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F11:
The City Manager’s Weekly Update to the community has not highlighted the work of the CPVAW for the past two years, effectively relegating the prevention of rape and domestic violence to a low priority, leaving the public uninformed. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): There is no evidence to suggest that the absence of CPVAW activities in the City Manager’s Weekly Updates has left the public uninformed or perceived as a low priority. The Weekly Update is a communication tool that shares relevant city activities and projects, drawing information from City Departments and highlighting key city council actions and significant projects. The Commission is encouraged to submit updates about its work to the City Manager’s office for inclusion. The Commission focuses on partnering with community-based organizations that specialize in supporting victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. In 2024, the Commission provided funding to local non-profits, including $2,000 to the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center, which offers direct services to survivors, and $8,000 to Monarch Services, which provides crisis response for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. These organizations have a broader reach than the City Manager’s Weekly Update, effectively disseminating more information to the public. Furthermore, the Commission has significantly increased its community presence by participating in events such as co-sponsoring the "Stronger Together" Fun Run/5K with Monarch Services in September 2023 and 2024, marching in the Dyke March and the 2024 Pride Parade, and taking part in the 2024 March to End Homelessness and the She is Beautiful race. These events enhance awareness and provide crucial information on preventing rape and domestic violence. Additionally, the Commission has launched a dedicated newsletter to highlight its events and activities, allocating funds for two publications in FY25. It also uses social media platforms to promote and inform the community about CPVAW initiatives. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Manager increase the visibility of the CPVAW programs and events by publishing relevant information, at least quarterly, in the City Manager’s Weekly Update and that the first article be published by December 31, 2024. (F11) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) X__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: There is no evidence to suggest that the absence of CPVAW activities in the City Manager’s Weekly Updates has left the public uninformed or perceived as a low priority. The Weekly Update is a communication tool that shares relevant city activities and projects, drawing information from City Departments and highlighting key city council actions and significant projects. The Commission is encouraged to submit updates about its work to the City Manager’s office for inclusion when appropriate. The Commission focuses on partnering with community-based organizations that specialize in supporting victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. In 2024, the Commission provided funding to local non-profits, including $2,000 to the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center, which offers direct services to survivors, and $8,000 to Monarch Services, which provides crisis response for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. These organizations have a broader reach than the City Manager’s Weekly Update, effectively disseminating more information to the public. Furthermore, the Commission has significantly increased its community presence by participating in events such as co-sponsoring the "Stronger Together" Fun Run/5K with Monarch Services in September 2023 and 2024, marching in the Dyke March and the 2024 Pride Parade, and taking part in the 2024 March to End Homelessness and the She is Beautiful race. These events enhance awareness and provide crucial information on preventing rape and domestic violence. Additionally, the Commission has launched a dedicated newsletter to highlight its events and activities, allocating funds for two publications in FY25. It also uses social media platforms to promote and inform the community about CPVAW initiatives. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 487 488 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Grand Jury Grand Jury Response Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:27 PM 'Kris Munro' via Santa Cruz Grand Jury Reply-To: Kris Munro To: [email protected], [email protected] Dear Honorable Judge Hansen and Members of the Grand Jury, Thank you all for your service to our community. Please see my requested response to the Grand Jury's findings attached to this email. Best regards, Kris -- Kris Munro Superintendent Santa Cruz City Schools 133 Mission Street, Suite 100 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 831-429-3410 x220 Engaging Students Hearts and Minds -- Every student, every day! 2024-9eI_RapeData_SantaCruzSS Invited Response Request.pdf 195K 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 489 The 2023–2024 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Invites the Superintendent, Santa Cruz City Schools to Respond by September 25, 2024 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled City Of Santa Cruz: Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Where’s The Priority? Responses are invited from appointed agency and department heads, appointed committees, and non-profit agencies contracted to the county which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are not required to respond by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). If you choose to respond, please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Published on June 27, 2024 490 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Instructions for Respondents Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations. Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05: 1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why. 2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable. 3. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Request as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Katherine Hansen, Grand Jury Supervising Judge [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this request form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 491
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why.
R2:
For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
– F8 R1 – R9 Sheriff August 21, 2023 Invited Responses Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By Santa Cruz County Public 90 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
As Ring installations become more widespread, the Sheriff’s Office should include statistics on Amazon Ring Neighbors Portal usage in its annual report to the public by March 30, 2024. (F1) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _x_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Sheriff’s Office views the Amazon Ring Neighbors Portal as another tool to help Deputies and Investigators provide public safety. The Ring Public Safety Portal allows law enforcement to share posts soliciting assistance from the public with locating video evidence related to criminal investigations and public safety emergencies. The Sheriff's Office does not have access to individual Ring users’ video cameras. No information regarding who owns these cameras or where they are installed, is accessed without the explicit consent of the user. Ring users who have opted into the program are provided with a description of the crime or event being investigated, as well as the time and location, along with a convenient way of uploading the evidence to a secure portal. Videos uploaded to the portal are transferred to the Sheriff's Office Digital Evidence System and retained pursuant to the same policies that govern all of our digital evidence. Cooperation with a law enforcement request through Ring is not required. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County Due by August 21, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 543
F2:
The Sheriff’s Office indicating no use of automated license plate readers updates the public with current information consistent with findings from the 2021 Criminal Justice Council Report. _x_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County Due by August 21, 2023 536 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Office should consider using its 2024 annual Military Equipment Inventory public meeting as its forum to inform the public of intent to acquire or use any Automated License Plate Reader equipment. (F2) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _x_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Currently the Sheriff’s Office has no intention of acquiring Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) equipment. The Sheriff’s Office firmly believes that the use of ALPRs does not fall within the purview or legislative intent of AB 481. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County Due by August 21, 2023 544 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should consider regular public reporting on the intended acquisition and ongoing use of surveillance technologies not already publicly reported as required under state or county law. The Sheriff’s Office should consider using portions of the Military Equipment Inventory as a template for providing the public with pertinent information on any surveillance equipment proposed, or acquired through federal grants, or other funding rather than creating yet another reporting format by December 31, 2023. (F2, F4)
F3:
Conflicting information on records retention within Policy 423 (Body Worn Cameras), as well as between Policies 422 (Portable Audio/Video Recorders) and 423, creates confusion and doubt for the public, and may present lack of certainty on proper records retention and disposal for Sheriff’s Office personnel. _x_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The two referenced policies and policy 606 (Unmanned Aerial System Operations) were reviewed, and the necessary changes were made to create clarity within the Lexipol Policy on retention. The policy has been posted for public view. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County Due by August 21, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 537
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual should review and propose potential revisions specific to confusing language in Policies 422 (Portable Audio/Video Recorders) and 423 (Body Worn Cameras) by December 31, 2023. (F3)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F4:
The Sheriff’s Office’s lack of documentation specific to the Cellebrite Mobile Device Forensics Tool leaves the public without critical information on how this tool will be used, and more importantly, when it will not be used. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _x_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Sheriff’s Office’s use of the Cellebrite Mobile Device adheres to SB 178. As outlined in SB 178, this tool may be used pursuant to a warrant, consent, or emergences defined under the law. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County Due by August 21, 2023 538 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The Sheriff’s Office should inform the public on whether Mobile Device Forensic Tools are used for consent searches specifically, and define and announce disposal dates for non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F4)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should consider regular public reporting on the intended acquisition and ongoing use of surveillance technologies not already publicly reported as required under state or county law. The Sheriff’s Office should consider using portions of the Military Equipment Inventory as a template for providing the public with pertinent information on any surveillance equipment proposed, or acquired through federal grants, or other funding rather than creating yet another reporting format by December 31, 2023. (F2, F4)
F5:
The Sheriff’s Office first annual Military Equipment Inventory for the surveillance tools reviewed by the Grand Jury lacks details such as impact cost and specific linkages to Sheriff’s Office policy as required under California AB-481. This lack of detail leaves the public without clarity on aspects of cost and accountability measures. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _x_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Sheriff’s Office made internal changes to improve overall reporting for military equipment leading up to and following the release of the 2022 annual report. The Sheriff’s Office is confident that the requirements of AB 481 have been fulfilled and this was supported by the Santa Cruz Board Of Supervisors with the approval of the report in May. The Sheriff’s Office provides a user-friendly method for community members to file questions or complaints via our website. Our Lexipol policy 706.9 provides community members with a direct number to the Sheriff’s Professional Standards and Conduct Unit for questions or concerns. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County Due by August 21, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 539
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
R8:
The Sheriff’s Office should review its Military Equipment Inventory to ensure compliance with AB-481. Where documentation is missing, the Sheriff’s Office should draft clarifying text either to share with the public for review, or for inclusion in the annual update by May 31, 2024. (F5)
F6:
R5 Administrative Officer September 18, 2023 Definitions ● Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR): Include both mobile and fixed cameras that photograph license plates and assemble the data into a searchable database. ● Military Equipment in Assembly Bill 481 includes: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. Command and control vehicles. (6) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (7) Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses. (8) Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. (9) Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. (10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons. (11) Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. (12) “Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls.” (13) Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). (14) The 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons. (15) Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight. ● Mobile Device Forensic Tools (MDFTs): A technology allowing law enforcement to extract a full copy of data from a smartphone — all emails, texts, photos, location, contact, app data, location data, timestamps, etc., which can be programmatically searched and analyzed. ● Neighbors Public Safety Service (NPSS): An Amazon Ring platform on which participating agencies can request recorded video footage from Ring users. ● Surveillance Technology/Tool: Encompasses any digital device, software or system that gathers information on an individuals' activities or communications. Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 525 ● Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI): This Homeland Security Federal Grant program assists high-threat, high-density Urban Areas in efforts to build and sustain the capabilities necessary to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. The UASI program provides financial assistance to address the unique multi-discipline planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density Urban Areas, and to assist these areas in building and sustaining capabilities to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from threats or acts of terrorism using the Whole Community approach. Sources References 1. Santa Cruz County Criminal Justice Council. Criminal Justice Council Report 2021. Accessed October 25, 2022. https://santacruzcjc.org/meetingdocs/CJC_FINAL_111821.pdf 2. County of San Francisco. June 14, 2019. Code Library American Legal. 107-19 Chapter 19B. “Chapter 19B: Acquisition of Surveillance Technology.” Accessed May 6, 2023. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_admin/0-0-0-47320 3. David Hernandez. August 4, 2022. “San Diego City Council Approves Surveillance Tech Ordinance.” The San Diego Union-Tribune. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/san-diego-city-council-approves-surveillan ce-tech-ordinance 4. Office of the Sheriff - County of Santa Clara. SO Policies & Procedures. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://countysheriff.sccgov.org/about-us/so-policies-procedures 5. Auditor of The State of California. February 13, 2020. State of California. Automated License Plate Readers. Accessed May 6, 2023. https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/summary.html 6. Kathy Rondon. 2022. “We The People,” 98. Technics publications 7. California State Association of Counties. County Structure & Powers. Accessed May 6, 2023. https://www.counties.org/general-information/county-structure-0 8. Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.. July 13, 2022. Website. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markeys-probe-into -amazon-ring-reveals-new-privacy-problems Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 526 . “Ring Camera Network FAQ.” Amazon Ring Website. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://support.ring.com/hc/en-us/articles/360031595491-How-Law-Enforcement- Uses-the-Neighbors-App 10. Confidential Grand Jury document. 11. Confidential Grand Jury interview. 12. State of California. October 06, 2015. California Legislative website. SB-34. “SB-34 Automated license plate recognition systems: use of data.(2015-2016).” Accessed May 10, 2023. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB3 4 13. Confidential Grand Jury document. 14. Michael Todd. January 25, 2017. “Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office Completes Bodycam Training.” Santa Cruz Sentinel. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2017/01/25/santa-cruz-county-sheriffs-office-c ompletes-bodycam-training/ 15. Sheriff's Office. January 20, 2017. “Press Release.” Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office Website. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2017/01/25/santa-cruz-county-sheriffs-office-c ompletes-bodycam-training/ 16. Morgan C. Williams Jr. Nathan Weil Elizabeth A. Rasich Jens Ludwig Hye Chang Sophia Egrari. March 30, 2021. “BODY-WORN CAMERAS IN POLICING: BENEFITS AND COSTS.” University of Chicago Website. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BFI_WP_2021-38.pdf 17. Confidential Grand Jury document. 18. California Legislative website. California Code, Government Code - GOV § 26202.6. “Government of Counties.” Accessed May 8, 2023. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum= 26202.6.&lawCode=GOV 19. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. December 13, 2022. “Meeting Agenda.” Accessed May 14, 2023. http://santacruzcountyca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=1570&I nline=True#page=14 20. “Homeland Security Grants.” UASI website. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.homelandsecuritygrants.info/GrantDetails.aspx?gid=22126 21. Logan Koepke, Emma Weil, Urmila Janardan, Tinuola Dada and Harlan Yu. October 20, 2020. Mass Extraction. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.upturn.org/work/mass-extraction/ Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 527 22. April 7, 2021. Mobile Fact Sheet. Accessed May 7, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/ 23. United States Supreme Court. June 25, 2014. United States Supreme Court. Riley v. California - 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014). Accessed May 14, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/573BV.pdf#page=416 24. Dimitri Gorin. July 1, 2022. When Can Police Search Your Cellphone in California?. Accessed May 7, 2023. https://www.egattorneys.com/cellphone-searches-in-california#:~:text=You%20mi ght%20be%20surprised%20to,your%20cell%20phone%20in%20California. 25. Cellebrite. “Cellebrite UFED.” Cellebrite website. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://enterprise.cellebrite.com/cellebrite-ufed/ 26. September 30, 2021. California State Assembly Casetext Website. AB-481. “AB-481 Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use.” Accessed May 6, 2023. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB4 81 27. March 3, 2022. Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. SCSO Policy Manual. Accessed December 6, 2022. https://www.scsheriff.com/Portals/1/County/sheriff/SCSO%20Policy%20Manual% 203_4_22.pdf#page=702 28. Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. Annual Report 2021. Accessed October 25, 2022. https://www.scsheriff.com/Portals/1/County/sheriff/2021_Annual_Report_Online.p df 29. Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. December 31, 2022. Unmanned Aerial System Annual Report. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.scsheriff.com/Portals/1/County/sheriff/press_releases/UAS%20ANN UAL%20REPORT%202022.pdf 30. December 31, 2021. Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. Unmanned Aerial System Annual Report. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.scsheriff.com/Portals/1/County/sheriff/press_releases/UAS%20ANN UAL%20REPORT%202021.pdf 31. January 5, 2021. Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. Unmanned Aerial System Annual Report. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.scsheriff.com/Portals/1/UAS%20TEAM%202020%20REPORT%20M EDIA%20RELEASE%20.pdf 32. February 12, 2020. Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. Unmanned Aerial System Annual Report. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.scsheriff.com/Portals/1/UAS%20TEAM%202019%20REPORT%20P RESS%20RELEASE.pdf Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 528 . Confidential Grand Jury document. 34. “Contact Us.” Central Square Solutions website. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.centralsquare.com/contact-us 35. Confidential Grand Jury document. 36. Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. 2021 Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office Annual Report. Accessed May 10, 2023. https://www.scsheriff.com/Portals/1/County/sheriff/2021_Annual_Report_Online.p df#page= 37. “Smart Communications.” Smart Communications Website. Accessed May 8, 2023. http://www.smartcommunications.us/ 38. Confidential Grand Jury interview. 39. Confidential Grand Jury interview. 40. “Inmate Visiting & Information.” Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office Website. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.scsheriff.com/Home/InmateVisitingInformation/SantaCruzMainJail.as px 41. March 9, 2023. A.B.O. Comix v. County of San Mateo complaint. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.eff.org/document/abo-comix-v-county-san-mateo-complaint 42. Confidential Grand Jury document. 43. Confidential Grand Jury document. 44. Curtis Driscoll. September 12, 2022. “Complaint Filed for County Jail Communications Issues.” San Mateo Daily Journal. Accessed May 12, 2023. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/complaint-filed-for-county-jail-commu nications-issues/article_e199c2de-3271-11ed-81ae-b39001192c01.html 45. Confidential Grand Jury interview. 46. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury. May 2023. Envisioning the Future of our Jails. Accessed May 25, 2023. https://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2023_final/2023- 5_Jails_Report.pdf 47. December 13, 2022. “Ordinance Adding Chapter 2.17 to the Santa Cruz County Code to Establish the Office of the Inspector General.” Accessed May 10, 2023. http://santacruzcountyca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=13729 48. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. March 14, 2023. “Meeting Minutes.” Accessed May 9, 2023. http://santacruzcountyca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2109&I nline=True#page=7 Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 529 49. Michael Gennaco, Stephen Connolly, Teresa Magula,. August 4, 2022. OIR Group. UPDATE re Draft Sheriff General Order #10.08. Accessed May 23, 2023. https://www.oirgroup.com/_files/ugd/c0d762_f8f2a43c18c34d2eb270a39d34f9d4 c6.pdf 50. Christopher Neely. May 8, 2023. “In the Public Interest: The Civil Grand Jury and The Complexities of The Public Process.” Lookout Santa Cruz. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://lookout.co/santacruz/civic-life/story/2023-05-08/civil-grand-jury-and-compl exities-of-public-process?vgo_ee=VRKeoulrz94Tmn%2FO%2B9liIgmAYvUauNN b%2BM61tN%2FfIuk%3D Site Visits Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office Santa Cruz County Main Jail Santa Cruz County Rountree Detention Facility Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 530 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Appendix A. Office of Inspector General Contract The OIG contract was awarded to OIR Group of Playa Del Ray, CA at the December 9, 2022 Board meeting, with the contract period beginning in March, 2023 (Contract #23C4696).[48] One example of the type of work OIR Group completed with potential benefit to oversight in Santa Cruz County is providing Santa Clara County with an assessment of their Sheriff’s Office Military Equipment Inventory in compliance with California AB-481. For example, the completed assessment suggests consideration of policy language which explicitly states that the Sheriff’s Office operationally directs and manages the use of military equipment in mutual aid scenarios, while also requiring that other agencies adhere to their own policies.[49] The newly created Inspector General will have similar investigatory powers to the Grand Jury, such as the power of subpoena, but with both significant differences and additional advantages: ● It will not cease to exist, and need to start fresh with a new group of citizens. ● It may act as an advocate for the Sheriff’s needs for resources before the Board of Supervisors. ● It may issue periodic reports calling attention to issues of public interest concerning the operation of the Sheriff’s Office, such as surveillance. ● It may provide the public with greater transparency of the Sheriff’s Office operations.[50] Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 531 Grand Jury Required response to Grand Jury report is past due Chris Clark Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 2:06 PM To: "[email protected]" Cc: "[email protected]" Hi Judge Cogliati and Kim, My apologies. We completed this a few weeks ago, and I thought it had been submitted. Please see attached. Please let me know if you are missing any other responses from our Office. [Quoted text hidden] 2023-7aR_Surveillance_Sheriff_Packet.pdf 256K 532 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Santa Cruz County Sheriff to Respond by August 21, 2023 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County Who surveils those who surveil us? Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are required to respond and to make your response available to the public by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report. Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County Published on June 20, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 533 Instructions for Respondents Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations. Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05: 1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why. 2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable. 3. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County Due by August 21, 2023 534 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Findings
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Sheriff’s Office may wish to recommend to the County Administration Office that clarifying language be added to the False Alarm and Administration online registration. (F6)
F7:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections’ lack of clear documentation specific to inmate tablet use leaves the public without critical information on how the information collected is used, how this information is retained, and more importantly, when disposal occurs for non-evidentiary records. _x_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Sheriff’s Office created Policy #522 – Electronic Tablets that will address tablet usage, retention of data, and other tablet related matters. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County Due by August 21, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 541
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
R9:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections should consider a documented process for handling the inadvertent recording of privileged communications, including inmate tablet use by September 30, 2023. (F7, F8) Commendation C1. The Sheriff’s Office Annual Report is easy to read, well organized, and provides useful information to the public. This publication offers thoughtful views of equipment, events, and Sheriff’s Office personnel. Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 524 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F8:
R9 Defender September 18, 2023 Santa Cruz County 90 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections should consider a documented process for handling the inadvertent recording of privileged communications, including inmate tablet use by September 30, 2023. (F7, F8) Commendation C1. The Sheriff’s Office Annual Report is easy to read, well organized, and provides useful information to the public. This publication offers thoughtful views of equipment, events, and Sheriff’s Office personnel. Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 524 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
Funds are focused on improving conditions of well-being for community members experiencing the greatest challenges and barriers in the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County should prepare and implement a Cybersecurity Plan by the end of 2023, ensuring that city officials and all staff are well aware of the plan details, their responsibilities, and associated policies. (F1)
F2:
A hybrid approach is administered to support both broad-based service programs and smaller “Targeted Impact” models.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By the end of 2023, the county should revise and expand its Incident Response Plan to clearly delineate the steps it will take in response to a cyber attack, the responsibilities of identified officials, and the coordination required with state and federal officials for each type and level of cyber attack. A detailed plan is a requirement for continuity of county operations in a cyber incident. (F2)
F3:
There is good diversity of eligible applicants: Non-profit 501(c)(3) agencies, federally recognized tribal entities, and public education agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County’s information sharing efforts should be expanded to ensure fulsome information sharing across all government entities in the county, specifically Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Scotts Valley, and Capitola, by the end of 2023. A simple schedule of monthly meetings would permit regular sharing of possible threats, TTPs seen across the county, and information learned from outside organizations such as the Cal-CSIC. (F3) Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 42 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F4:
The program is well coordinated, with County and City staff partnering to review and award for all tiers. The City focused their funding on programs serving primarily City residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City of Santa Cruz should prioritize filling its vacant IT department positions by Fall 2023. The IT Department and the Human Resources (HR) Department should revise its position requirements, compensation packages, and recruiting priorities to enable the City to attract qualified personnel to these positions. (F4)
F5:
A clear outline of the RFP is available to the applicants, with an understanding of the awards process and the tier level they fall under.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By Fall 2023, Santa Cruz should identify and implement creative approaches to hiring and retention so they can maintain a fully staffed IT Department despite the competition with surrounding counties. The City should investigate potential partnerships with one or more of the 18 California colleges and universities with National Centers of Academic Excellence in Cybersecurity. (F5)
F6:
The County and City provides a comprehensive review of the process which allows the applicants an opportunity to ask questions of clarity if needed. Commendations C1. The CORE program is commended for being unbiased. Applicants for Small, Medium, and Large tiers are asked to select an “equity dimension” (i.e., race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) that best describes how equity is defined in the proposed project or program. Since the Targeted Impact tier is focused on racial equity, a question is included in that specific application on any additional equity dimensions the proposal will address. It is not required to focus on an additional dimension, and it will not be scored. This aspect provides a very even playing field for all applicants applying and there is no room for any bias in the process. C2. The CORE program is commended for accommodating applicants of diverse size equitably. All applicants are encouraged to be as specific as possible when articulating their activities, populations served, and program outcomes. Details on activities (strategies) are relevant in the Small tier while higher tier applications are to emphasize outcomes. This allows inclusion no matter what size your organization and focuses on the central objective of helping the broader community with the most impactful services. C3. Since funding is awarded at the same amount for each year of the 3-year grant term, applicants are able to consider how this may impact the services throughout the 3-year term. CORE does a good job of ensuring that the services being funded remain intact and the impacted communities receive the needed support throughout the duration of the funded programs. We could not find any evidence of mishandling of the funds or programs being removed within this 3-year period. CORE published May 18, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 7 Invited Responses Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By Director of Human Services 90 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By Fall 2023, the City of Santa Cruz should assign one individual responsible for cybersecurity. Adoption of a managed service provider arrangement will boost its security posture, although it does not eliminate the need for a dedicated security lead within the City’s IT Department. (F6)
F7:
The City of Santa Cruz does not have a Cybersecurity Policy, suggesting that preparations to mitigate a cyber attack are inadequate and not widely shared.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of 2023 or sooner, the City of Santa Cruz should develop and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that encompasses all aspects of information security. (F7)
F8:
The City of Santa Cruz does not have an Incident Response Plan, and this absence indicates that the City will be challenged in responding to a cyber attack, especially a ransomware attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of 2023 or sooner, the City should complete an Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail for city officials to use as a step-by-step guide in the event of a cyber incident. (F8) Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 43
F9:
Santa Cruz participates in some information sharing organizations such as the California Municipal Information Services Association (MISAC), yet it has minimal collaboration within the county and the other cities, forfeiting opportunities to share best practices and understand threats.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Once the IT Department has adequate staffing and by the end of 2023, it should expand its participation in local and state information sharing groups to maintain current knowledge of the threat environment and emerging technologies. (F9)
F10:
After recently expanding its IT Department, the City of Watsonville has improved its IT functions although it does not yet allocate sufficient resources to cybersecurity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Watsonville should conduct an evaluation of its recently expanded IT Department, critical IT upgrades, and the status of cybersecurity measures by the end of 2023. Based on this assessment, the City should allocate existing or newly identified resources to ensure cybersecurity is adequately addressed going forward. (F10)
F11:
The City does not have an individual whose primary responsibility is cybersecurity for the city networks, leaving cybersecurity oversight to the IT Director–along with a multitude of other IT responsibilities–and lowering the priority for cybersecurity measures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Given the size of Watsonville, the City should have a dedicated position for cybersecurity by the end of 2023, to ensure adherence to best practices, mitigation of potential threats, and education of city staff and leadership. (F11)
F12:
Watsonville does not have a Cybersecurity Plan that defines security policies, procedures, and controls required to protect its networks and devices, a situation that increases the risks of vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
By early 2024 or sooner, Watsonville should prepare and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that addresses all of the best practices for strong cyber hygiene. (F12)
F13:
Watsonville does not have an Incident Response Plan that provides detailed information on how to respond to an attack, suggesting the City would not be able to respond rapidly and effectively to a cyber attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
By early 2024 or sooner, Watsonville should prepare and implement an Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail to serve as a guide in the event of a cyber attack. (F13)
F14:
Watsonville participates in some regional information sharing forums, but it does not have the resources to expand its participation or tap into state-level information sharing, thus forfeiting valuable best practices and cyber threat information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
Upon completion of IT structural upgrades and a higher level of cyber maturity, and by the end of 2023, Watsonville should participate in local, regional, and state information sharing initiatives. (F14) Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 44 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F15:
Although Scotts Valley’s managed service provider is very knowledgeable and capable of providing cybersecurity services, there is no single city official with cybersecurity oversight, potentially leading to a poor understanding of the threats and an inadequate response to a cyber attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
By mid-2023, Scotts Valley should assign a city official as the lead for cybersecurity for the city. This individual should oversee the contractor’s performance in cybersecurity and ensure city leaders are well informed on emerging threats, cybersecurity challenges, and information provided from regional and state entities. (F15)
F16:
Scotts Valley does not have a current Cybersecurity Plan that defines security policies, procedures, and controls required to protect its networks and devices, potentially increasing the risks of vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
Working with its IT contractor, by Fall 2023, Scotts Valley should write and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that is shared with all city officials to demonstrate comprehensive security measures and executive-level cyber threat awareness. (F16)
F17:
Scotts Valley does not have a current Incident Response Plan, which could exacerbate the effects of a cyber incident such as increase the time a network is unavailable or raise the potential financial costs of a resolution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
By Fall 2023, Scotts Valley should write an Incident Response Plan that clearly delineates the steps it will take in response to a cyber attack, the responsibilities of identified officials, and the coordination required with state and federal officials for each type and level of cyber attack. (F17)
F18:
Scotts Valley does not participate in any cybersecurity information sharing groups to enhance best practices, rather they depend on their contractor to stay informed, which makes the City last to know of critical cyber threats.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
Scotts Valley should participate in local, regional, and state cybersecurity organizations for information sharing by the end of 2023. (F18)
F19:
With one individual responsible for IT services, Capitola does not allocate sufficient resources to cybersecurity, a status that could lead to poor cyber knowledge and unnecessary vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R19:
By Fall 2023, Capitola should hire a full-time IT Director to replace the IT Director who departed in mid-2022. The IT Director should oversee and expand IT services, including those of the consulting company, and lead cybersecurity initiatives. (F19)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F20:
The City of Capitola does not have a robust cybersecurity training program, nor does it conduct phishing tests or routinely remind employees to adhere to cybersecurity measures during potential periods of increased threats. Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 45
Related Recommendations (2)
R20:
The City should develop a more robust cybersecurity training and phishing testing program for all employees by Fall 2023 or earlier. (F20)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F21:
The City of Capitola does not have a Cybersecurity Plan to address cybersecurity measures city wide, suggesting the city is not adequately mitigating the potential impact of cyber incidents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R21:
Capitola should establish and implement a Cybersecurity Plan by the end of 2023. Several resources exist to provide a foundation or templates for these plans including NIST Guidelines, CISA resources, and Cal-CSIC guidance. (F21)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F22:
The City of Capitola does not have an Incident Response Plan, which could exacerbate the effects of a cyber incident such as increase the time a network is unavailable or raise the potential financial costs of a resolution.
Related Recommendations (2)
R22:
By Fall 2023 Capitola should prepare an Incident Response Plan that provides detailed guidance for a city response to a cyber attack. (F22)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F23:
Capitola does not participate in any cyber-focused information sharing groups, nor does it take advantage of state and federal resources designed to assist small cities with mitigating cyber attacks, thereby forfeiting opportunities to learn best practices and raise their cyber awareness.
Related Recommendations (2)
R23:
When appropriately resourced to monitor cyber threats, and by the end of 2023, Capitola should participate in regional cybersecurity information sharing groups, to gain valuable information to best protect the City. (F23)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
Funds are focused on improving conditions of well-being for community members experiencing the greatest challenges and barriers in the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County should prepare and implement a Cybersecurity Plan by the end of 2023, ensuring that city officials and all staff are well aware of the plan details, their responsibilities, and associated policies. (F1)
F2:
A hybrid approach is administered to support both broad-based service programs and smaller “Targeted Impact” models.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By the end of 2023, the county should revise and expand its Incident Response Plan to clearly delineate the steps it will take in response to a cyber attack, the responsibilities of identified officials, and the coordination required with state and federal officials for each type and level of cyber attack. A detailed plan is a requirement for continuity of county operations in a cyber incident. (F2)
F3:
There is good diversity of eligible applicants: Non-profit 501(c)(3) agencies, federally recognized tribal entities, and public education agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County’s information sharing efforts should be expanded to ensure fulsome information sharing across all government entities in the county, specifically Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Scotts Valley, and Capitola, by the end of 2023. A simple schedule of monthly meetings would permit regular sharing of possible threats, TTPs seen across the county, and information learned from outside organizations such as the Cal-CSIC. (F3) Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 42 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F4:
The program is well coordinated, with County and City staff partnering to review and award for all tiers. The City focused their funding on programs serving primarily City residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City of Santa Cruz should prioritize filling its vacant IT department positions by Fall 2023. The IT Department and the Human Resources (HR) Department should revise its position requirements, compensation packages, and recruiting priorities to enable the City to attract qualified personnel to these positions. (F4)
F5:
A clear outline of the RFP is available to the applicants, with an understanding of the awards process and the tier level they fall under.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By Fall 2023, Santa Cruz should identify and implement creative approaches to hiring and retention so they can maintain a fully staffed IT Department despite the competition with surrounding counties. The City should investigate potential partnerships with one or more of the 18 California colleges and universities with National Centers of Academic Excellence in Cybersecurity. (F5)
F6:
The County and City provides a comprehensive review of the process which allows the applicants an opportunity to ask questions of clarity if needed. Commendations C1. The CORE program is commended for being unbiased. Applicants for Small, Medium, and Large tiers are asked to select an “equity dimension” (i.e., race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) that best describes how equity is defined in the proposed project or program. Since the Targeted Impact tier is focused on racial equity, a question is included in that specific application on any additional equity dimensions the proposal will address. It is not required to focus on an additional dimension, and it will not be scored. This aspect provides a very even playing field for all applicants applying and there is no room for any bias in the process. C2. The CORE program is commended for accommodating applicants of diverse size equitably. All applicants are encouraged to be as specific as possible when articulating their activities, populations served, and program outcomes. Details on activities (strategies) are relevant in the Small tier while higher tier applications are to emphasize outcomes. This allows inclusion no matter what size your organization and focuses on the central objective of helping the broader community with the most impactful services. C3. Since funding is awarded at the same amount for each year of the 3-year grant term, applicants are able to consider how this may impact the services throughout the 3-year term. CORE does a good job of ensuring that the services being funded remain intact and the impacted communities receive the needed support throughout the duration of the funded programs. We could not find any evidence of mishandling of the funds or programs being removed within this 3-year period. CORE published May 18, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 7 Invited Responses Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By Director of Human Services 90 Days
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By Fall 2023, the City of Santa Cruz should assign one individual responsible for cybersecurity. Adoption of a managed service provider arrangement will boost its security posture, although it does not eliminate the need for a dedicated security lead within the City’s IT Department. (F6)
F7:
The City of Santa Cruz does not have a Cybersecurity Policy, suggesting that preparations to mitigate a cyber attack are inadequate and not widely shared.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of 2023 or sooner, the City of Santa Cruz should develop and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that encompasses all aspects of information security. (F7)
F8:
The City of Santa Cruz does not have an Incident Response Plan, and this absence indicates that the City will be challenged in responding to a cyber attack, especially a ransomware attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of 2023 or sooner, the City should complete an Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail for city officials to use as a step-by-step guide in the event of a cyber incident. (F8) Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 43
F9:
Santa Cruz participates in some information sharing organizations such as the California Municipal Information Services Association (MISAC), yet it has minimal collaboration within the county and the other cities, forfeiting opportunities to share best practices and understand threats.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Once the IT Department has adequate staffing and by the end of 2023, it should expand its participation in local and state information sharing groups to maintain current knowledge of the threat environment and emerging technologies. (F9)
F10:
After recently expanding its IT Department, the City of Watsonville has improved its IT functions although it does not yet allocate sufficient resources to cybersecurity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Watsonville should conduct an evaluation of its recently expanded IT Department, critical IT upgrades, and the status of cybersecurity measures by the end of 2023. Based on this assessment, the City should allocate existing or newly identified resources to ensure cybersecurity is adequately addressed going forward. (F10)
F11:
The City does not have an individual whose primary responsibility is cybersecurity for the city networks, leaving cybersecurity oversight to the IT Director–along with a multitude of other IT responsibilities–and lowering the priority for cybersecurity measures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Given the size of Watsonville, the City should have a dedicated position for cybersecurity by the end of 2023, to ensure adherence to best practices, mitigation of potential threats, and education of city staff and leadership. (F11)
F12:
Watsonville does not have a Cybersecurity Plan that defines security policies, procedures, and controls required to protect its networks and devices, a situation that increases the risks of vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
By early 2024 or sooner, Watsonville should prepare and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that addresses all of the best practices for strong cyber hygiene. (F12)
F13:
Watsonville does not have an Incident Response Plan that provides detailed information on how to respond to an attack, suggesting the City would not be able to respond rapidly and effectively to a cyber attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
By early 2024 or sooner, Watsonville should prepare and implement an Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail to serve as a guide in the event of a cyber attack. (F13)
F14:
Watsonville participates in some regional information sharing forums, but it does not have the resources to expand its participation or tap into state-level information sharing, thus forfeiting valuable best practices and cyber threat information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
Upon completion of IT structural upgrades and a higher level of cyber maturity, and by the end of 2023, Watsonville should participate in local, regional, and state information sharing initiatives. (F14) Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 44 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F15:
Although Scotts Valley’s managed service provider is very knowledgeable and capable of providing cybersecurity services, there is no single city official with cybersecurity oversight, potentially leading to a poor understanding of the threats and an inadequate response to a cyber attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
By mid-2023, Scotts Valley should assign a city official as the lead for cybersecurity for the city. This individual should oversee the contractor’s performance in cybersecurity and ensure city leaders are well informed on emerging threats, cybersecurity challenges, and information provided from regional and state entities. (F15)
F16:
Scotts Valley does not have a current Cybersecurity Plan that defines security policies, procedures, and controls required to protect its networks and devices, potentially increasing the risks of vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
Working with its IT contractor, by Fall 2023, Scotts Valley should write and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that is shared with all city officials to demonstrate comprehensive security measures and executive-level cyber threat awareness. (F16)
F17:
Scotts Valley does not have a current Incident Response Plan, which could exacerbate the effects of a cyber incident such as increase the time a network is unavailable or raise the potential financial costs of a resolution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
By Fall 2023, Scotts Valley should write an Incident Response Plan that clearly delineates the steps it will take in response to a cyber attack, the responsibilities of identified officials, and the coordination required with state and federal officials for each type and level of cyber attack. (F17)
F18:
Scotts Valley does not participate in any cybersecurity information sharing groups to enhance best practices, rather they depend on their contractor to stay informed, which makes the City last to know of critical cyber threats.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
Scotts Valley should participate in local, regional, and state cybersecurity organizations for information sharing by the end of 2023. (F18)
F19:
With one individual responsible for IT services, Capitola does not allocate sufficient resources to cybersecurity, a status that could lead to poor cyber knowledge and unnecessary vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R19:
By Fall 2023, Capitola should hire a full-time IT Director to replace the IT Director who departed in mid-2022. The IT Director should oversee and expand IT services, including those of the consulting company, and lead cybersecurity initiatives. (F19)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F20:
The City of Capitola does not have a robust cybersecurity training program, nor does it conduct phishing tests or routinely remind employees to adhere to cybersecurity measures during potential periods of increased threats. Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 45
Related Recommendations (2)
R20:
The City should develop a more robust cybersecurity training and phishing testing program for all employees by Fall 2023 or earlier. (F20)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F21:
The City of Capitola does not have a Cybersecurity Plan to address cybersecurity measures city wide, suggesting the city is not adequately mitigating the potential impact of cyber incidents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R21:
Capitola should establish and implement a Cybersecurity Plan by the end of 2023. Several resources exist to provide a foundation or templates for these plans including NIST Guidelines, CISA resources, and Cal-CSIC guidance. (F21)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F22:
The City of Capitola does not have an Incident Response Plan, which could exacerbate the effects of a cyber incident such as increase the time a network is unavailable or raise the potential financial costs of a resolution.
Related Recommendations (2)
R22:
By Fall 2023 Capitola should prepare an Incident Response Plan that provides detailed guidance for a city response to a cyber attack. (F22)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F23:
Capitola does not participate in any cyber-focused information sharing groups, nor does it take advantage of state and federal resources designed to assist small cities with mitigating cyber attacks, thereby forfeiting opportunities to learn best practices and raise their cyber awareness.
Related Recommendations (2)
R23:
When appropriately resourced to monitor cyber threats, and by the end of 2023, Capitola should participate in regional cybersecurity information sharing groups, to gain valuable information to best protect the City. (F23)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F4:
The safe and secure operation of the County Jail remains vulnerable during an unexpected power outage. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _x_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Main Jail is capable of safely functioning in the event of a power outage. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 355
F5:
The adoption of multi-year plans by both the City and County of Santa Cruz offer the public some assurance that locations can be found within the County where homeless services will be provided. _x_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): 356 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F9:
Data security is an important issue, including the security of voter registration data and it is unknown if measures have been taken in this area. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Board of Supervisors partially disagrees because of the way this finding is worded. We agree that data security – including voter registration data – is an important issue, one that the County Clerk/Elections Department takes seriously. Measures have been taken to strengthen the security of data within the County Clerk/Elections Department. Since 2020, the department has put into place the following: • Two factor authentication for all workstations in the office as well as out at the voting locations. • More security controls for both election servers – the one hosting the voter file and the one for election operations (ballot creation, tabulation, etc.) • Working with partners such as the California Secretary of State (statewide voter registration database), the election management system vendor, the election voting system vendor, Santa Cruz County Information Services Department, election officers, and department staff, to ensure security policies and procedures are in place and adhered to. • Training for those who work with election data – employees, election officers and end users. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 357
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F2:
The evident coordination of responses from agencies leaves the public without independent contributions across agencies. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Scotts Valley City Council independently reviews Grand Jury reports and drafts responses to specific findings or recommendations as accurately as we can. Depending on the topic, coordination improves the response we are able to provide. In addition, the City Council approves responses at a public meeting where the public can weigh in on the City’s responses if they so choose to. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
All agencies should provide their own independent responses to findings and recommendations instead of referring to the response of another agency. (F2) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: There are topics that it may be appropriate for the City to refer to other agencies where another agency has responsibility regarding the topic. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 411
R2:
We continue to recommend that all organizations create and regularly update formal records of the actions they take to address Grand Jury recommendations, and to share those records with the public, in accordance with CA Penal Code Section 933(c). (F1, F2) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The actions the City takes are already public records. The City’s responses are provided to the public within the timelines as required by the cited Penal Code. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F6:
Although the Cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville agreed that there appear to be unused or underutilized parcels of land that could possibly be used for homeless services, it is not clear how this could be done. _X_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 409
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
As recommended in the 2022 “Homelessness Action Plan,” the Cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should collaborate with leaders from the County of Santa Cruz and the City of Santa Cruz to identify 20 new locations for shelters across the county. These cities should report on the status of this recommendation no later than December 31, 2023. (F6) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The 2022 Homeless Action Plan is not a Scotts Valley adopted plan, however the City is willing to collaborate and assist where possible. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 413
R6:
The County of Santa Cruz and the four cities should plan to provide services for homeless persons at the sites identified in their plans, including but not limited to supportive housing, case management, and medical services. The County of Santa Cruz and the four cities should report to the Grand Jury on the status of providing homeless services at the sites identified no later than December 31, 2023. (F5, F6) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City of Scotts Valley does not have a homeless services plan. However, the City’s draft housing element includes a variety of action to address the needs of persons experiencing homelessness, or at risk for homelessness in Program H-3.9 Emergency Shelters. These programs are proposed to be implemented by January 2026. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F8:
Staffing shortages made automating the process for updating the website of the City of Santa Cruz and redesigning the website of the City of Scotts Valley more difficult. _X_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): 410 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The City of Scotts Valley should verify that their commitment to redesign their website to afford transparency, accessibility, and ease of use to all stakeholders has been completed by October 31, 2023. (F8) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __ HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe __ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The launch of the redesigned website occurred on March 14, 2023. This redesign modernized the website layout and reorganized the homepage for transparency, accessibility, and ease of use for all stakeholders. Additionally, on May 17, 2023, a new agenda management platform was added to the website which offers significant improvements to the online processes of streamlining the meetings, agenda management, agenda publication and recording minutes. The new platform ensures transparency for residents and other stakeholders and ensures that all documents are ADA accessible.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
– F7 R1 – R12 Board of Supervisors September 21, 2023 Invited Responses Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By Santa Cruz County 90 Days
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Planning Department should fill vacant code compliance positions by the end of the calendar year 2023. (F1) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _x_ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The new Code Compliance Manager position was filled provisionally in June 2023 and permanently in August 2023. The Code Compliance Investigator position for short- term rentals will be filled in September 2023. With filling the Code Compliance Manager position, the Planning Division is currently recruiting for an additional investigator. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 593
R2:
The Personnel Department should reclassify the job description and requirements for the Code Compliance Supervisor to allow the de-facto supervisor to become the department supervisor by the end of this calendar year 2023. (F1) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _x_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Personnel Department created a new position of Code Compliance Manager that was approved by the Board of Supervisors, taking the place of the current Principal Planner role as manager of that section. The “de-facto supervisor” was a Code Compliance Investigator IV, who is also responsible for code compliance for south county. This position will continue in this lead role. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R3:
The Planning Department should, by the end of 2023, determine what steps and staff are needed to close out the backlog of code compliance cases within a two-year time frame. (Consider including the County Auditing Department to assist with this process.) (F1) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _x_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: While a high percentage of cases would benefit from more dedicated staff time to work toward resolution, and from more abatement funds to address cases where a property owner cannot be compelled to comply, the goal of closing out all backlogged cases within two years is not feasible based on the judicial system and due process, the limited authority vested in the Code Compliance Section, and the cost of abatement. Unlimited discretionary funds and sufficient dedicated staff would be required to reduce the backlog by as much as 90% over 10 years. It would also require the County to mitigate several hundred cases through public expenditures with limited ability to recover costs through the tax bill and would result in the displacement of hundreds of individuals and families from unpermitted structures. The compliance process begins with notification of a complaint and potential violation, and an effort to resolve a confirmed violation without penalty in most cases. If a property owner refuses to comply, Code Compliance staff seek an order from a hearing officer. This order may be appealed through the Santa Cruz Superior Court up to the California Supreme Court, which can and has taken more than a decade. If the property owner does not appeal, and still refuses to comply, staff can refer the case to County Counsel, which can take the case to Superior Court, again with all appeal rights. Even when a judgment is found against the homeowner, and more significant penalties are levied beyond the $10,000 limit the hearing officer is bound by, the property owner may not comply, potentially facing jail time and liens. In addition, permit fees may be doubled in some cases where unpermitted construction was stopped until permits could be obtained. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 595 The County may obtain an order to abate a nuisance and can seek to recover the costs of abatement on a tax lien. Properties that have accumulated dozens to hundreds of vehicles, materials and trash can cost several hundred thousand dollars to clean up and resolve a violation. If the property has value, the court can appoint a receiver to take control of the parcel and clear violations. If it does not, the cost is borne by the public. If the concern expressed in this report is for the perception by the public of the Planning Division and Code Compliance Section, the effort to resolve violations where housing was built without permits and where it cannot be made legal would be counter-productive, as the resolution would entail removing occupied housing and putting families in an unhoused situation. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F2:
The Code Compliance Department and the Planning Department do not routinely revise and update their departmental procedures and policies, which leads to lack of accountability to the public and inconsistent implementation and interpretation of findings in investigations. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): While the Code Compliance Section of the Community Development and Infrastructure Department does not routinely update procedures and policies, it does have standard methodology implemented set forth by the County Code to ensure all individuals have access to due process. Code Compliance has policies and procedures associated with intake and processing of complaints, timeframes for addressing complaints based upon prioritization of the types of complaints, methods for obtaining inspection warrants, preparation of case packets, and notification procedures have been consistently implemented. In addition, current Code Compliance investigators have a collective 50+ years between the three investigators in this section. Regarding written procedures in the Code Compliance Section, the Code Compliance Process Handout was last updated in 2016 and includes milestones at 20-days, 90- days, 120-days, 180-days, and 200-days. The Development Review and Building Sections’ permit intake and public counter related procedures are up to date, which has been challenging in that the department has been subjected to a variety of emergency related events over the course of the past three years, including the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 CZU lightning complex fires, and 2022-2023 atmospheric river storms. These events required the department to rework the permitting and project review procedures to include a new electronic submittal system and remote counter consultations via email and telephone. Other procedures, such as those that address the Recovery Permit Center operations and interdepartmental coordination with various divisions and departments are in process. Further, through the establishment of the Unified Permit Center, customer service and permitting procedures will continue to be updated to reflect the department’s goal of streamlining the permitting process and providing consistently excellent customer service. The Board of Supervisors, Planning Division and Code Compliance Section recognize some procedures need updating; however, Planning’s implementation of the code investigation, permit submittal, and permit review procedures has not been inconsistent. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 587
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The policies and procedures manuals for the Planning Department and Code Compliance Department should be completely reviewed, updated as prescribed in the policy and procedures manual, and digitized. Each section should be dated, and all future revisions should include date markings for any changes. This process should be completed by the end of 2023. (F2)
R7:
The Code Compliance Department should institute monthly staff meetings by October 1, 2023. Meetings should include relevant educational materials, data regarding monthly activity, new challenges such as policy changes, and resolution of or issues regarding active complaints about the department. (F2)
R8:
The Code Compliance Department should formalize training and staff development requirements of Code Compliance Investigators through CACEO, use staff meetings to encourage cross training and continuing education, document staff development in employee files, and formalize it in the employee evaluation protocol by October 1, 2023. (F2)
F3:
The Code Compliance Department of the Planning Department does not have quality assurance systems in place to evaluate their own performance and effectiveness, which contributes to lack of accountability and lack of credibility and public confidence. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Code Compliance Section tracks complaints by type, and on an annual basis presents each Board member with a summary of the number and type of complaints that have come in, how many were found valid, how many were resolved without citation or posting a notice of violation, how many were posted with a notice of violation, and how many were brought to hearing. The success of the Code Compliance Section does not only rely on quantitative and qualitative measures of effectiveness to build credibility and confidence in the program. Code Compliance success relies on the engagement of the property owner in teaming to take corrective action. Property owners often have barriers that form barriers to their own success. Good code enforcement starts with education, building enabling relationships, and being accountable to the community. Code Compliance staff prioritize initial response time for new complaints based upon established response goals for low, medium, and high priority determinations for various types of violations. These priorities are implemented based on public health, life safety, and environmental degradation. Code Compliance staff are evaluated on an annual basis by the section manager through a review of their overall caseload, the number of cases brought into compliance, the number of cases brought to hearing, the number of service requests resolved without a formal citation, and an evaluation of an investigator’s response to that final category. The annual review also includes discussions of any interpersonal conflicts that may come up between staff and with members of the public and is documented in the confidential annual evaluation. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Code Compliance Department should create a log system that ensures that all Planning Department and Code Compliance desk interactions, phone calls, emails, text messages,complaints, and any other interactions with the public are entered into a searchable database by the end of 2023. (F3)
R6:
Data regarding public complaints about Code Compliance Investigators actions should be discussed at staff meetings. Data collected by the log system should be reviewed by Code Compliance Department management no less than quarterly. This should be instituted by October 1, 2023. (F3)
F4:
At the present time the Planning Department has limited access for the public. It is frustrating to the public to be unable to readily communicate with the staff required to assist in dealings with building, planning, and code compliance matters. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Planning Division is open weekdays from 8 AM to 5 PM, with the public counter open to the public by appointment Monday through Thursday mornings from 8 AM until noon. To optimize customer service, appointments are available in-person, by video, or by phone. While customers are encouraged to schedule appointments in advance, it is rare that the same day appointment is unavailable. To date, the volume of appointments has not demonstrated a need to expand counter service hours. Regarding code compliance-related inquiries, customers who visit the counter wishing to either file a code complaint or follow up on a code complaint, are assisted on a walk-in basis. Code Compliance staff are consistently available on a walk-in basis. In addition to counter appointments, all sections in the division maintain a general inquiry email box. Detailed information regarding permitting codes and applications is also available on the Planning website at www.sccoplanning.com. Department policy is that all email inquiries shall be returned within 24 hours. In the past, during periods of understaffing, email responses were sometimes delayed; however, responding to customer inquiries is consistently the top priority and, in most circumstances, the 24-hour response expectation is met. This policy also applies to phone messages. Planning has a live operator who staffs the general information line Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM. In situations where a member of the public seeks to speak with a specific staff member, responses may be impacted by workload and sickness or vacation time. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 589
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The Planning Department should increase the hours that are open to the public and enforce their 24 hour policy of returning phone calls from the public by the end of 2023 (F4)
R10:
The Code Compliance Department should add recommended time frames for the Flow Chart described in the policy and procedure manual by the end of 2023. (F4)
F5:
There is a persistent public perception of inconsistent interpretation of code. The building and other various codes are complex and difficult to understand. When misinformation is communicated and portions of projects must be redone, it leads to time and money loss as well as frustration. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The regulations can be complex, and members of the public are encouraged to work with Planning staff prior to submitting their development project permit applications. (Note that the building code is established by the International Code Council and the State of California.) Planning offers 30-minute counter appointments and email assistance, and there is no limit to the number of appointments or inquiries one may make. In that appointment, Planning and Building staff are available to provide general guidance on the applicable policies and regulations and to review and provide early feedback on project plan completeness. Projects are often complex with many unique parameters and characteristics. For more complex projects, it is recommended that prospective applicants apply for a pre- application consultation and/or a pre-development site review, the deliverable of which is a letter that contains written analysis of the project that lays out the permit path/next steps in the review process. Issuance of the letter is often preceded by a meeting with the applicant to review the findings in the letter. Unfortunately, these options are not often used. The public perception of varying interpretations of the code is based in part upon receiving different responses due to the customer’s presentation of the project at the time of the appointment. For example, with respect to the question of “do I need a permit for a 6-foot-tall fence?”, the answer is generally “no,” unless it is in the front yard. However, fences on coastal bluffs or near sensitive areas may have different requirements that can affect a seemingly straight-forward response. Appointments are intended to provide general information in response to the inquiry presented; the more detailed the question, the more detailed (and accurate) the answer will be. A considerable volume of inquiries is fielded daily, by telephone, email and appointment. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F6:
The Conflict-of-Interest policy does not include conflicts regarding family, friends, or prior relationships of a personal nature. This omission, and the optics in some situations, lead to misunderstanding and mistrust between the public and the Code Compliance Department as well as increasing the risk of liability to the County. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _x_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Code Compliance works with all members of the public and is bound by Santa Cruz County Code Chapter 3.40 Conflicts of Interest and Incompatible Activities. The standard practice with regards to family and friends who ask that Planning staff investigate something is to direct them to file a complaint, to be handled according to standard practice. Allegations of collusion between complaining parties or property owners and enforcement staff are common, especially in cases where the complaining party assists in providing evidence, or in cases where staff determines there is no violation, and a complaining party disagrees. When investigating a complaint, Planning staff have been instructed to recuse themselves from the case if they have a personal relationship. As the identity of a complaining party is confidential, an investigator may not know of a personal relationship unless the complaining party discloses their identity. If the relationship becomes known, the case is transferred to one of the other two investigators. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 591
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Conflict of Interest policy should be rewritten to include relationships of a personal nature by the end of 2023. Use the counties of Mendocino and San Bernardino policies as a reference. (F6)
F7:
The Planning Department is by its nature supposed to be a customer- focused department, yet it operates in ways that discourage communications, undermining the public’s trust in the department. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _x_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Planning Division has consistently prioritized customer service. Whether it be in a code enforcement, building permit, development permit, or policy related function, assisting the public is the division’s primary duty. As mentioned in an earlier response, staff are available by phone during business hours, with a live receptionist fielding and directing calls Monday through Friday. In addition, customers with general inquiries have several options by which to contact staff, including by email, phone, or in-person appointments. Staff are available on a walk-in basis. The division’s policy is to return emails and phone calls within 24 hours. As noted above, detailed information regarding permitting codes and applications is also available on the Planning Division website. Due to the complex regulatory environment inherent to the nature of the work that the Planning staff do, the information the public receives regarding the permit requirements or process is not what they were hoping to hear. The rules and regulations are put in place to protect public safety and the quality of life of residents and visitors to the County. This focus often conflicts with the wants and needs of the individual. This can leave individuals feeling as though the level of service received was less than expected when the hoped-for response is not heard. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Board of Supervisors and Community Development and Infrastructure Department Management should focus on the organizational culture within the planning department and refocus the culture in a way that fosters public trust. (F7) Code Compliance Division – Out of Compliance published June 23, 2023 574 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury reviewed responses to five of the 2019-2020 reports and found that, in general, commitments were kept. X__ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Required Response from the Capitola City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 DocuSign Envelope ID: F25E9C29-2A02-43D6-9ABD-9CCE21563C2A 382 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
We continue to recommend that all organizations create and regularly update formal records of the actions they take to address Grand Jury recommendations, and to share those records with the public, in accordance with CA Penal Code Section 933(c). (F1, F2) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: All City actions taken to address Grand Jury reports are provided to the public consistent with CA Penal Code Section 933(c) Required Response from the Capitola City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 DocuSign Envelope ID: F25E9C29-2A02-43D6-9ABD-9CCE21563C2A 386 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F2:
The evident coordination of responses from agencies leaves the public without independent contributions across agencies. _ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE X__ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Capitola City Council reviews and prepares responses to Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
All agencies should provide their own independent responses to findings and recommendations instead of referring to the response of another agency. (F2) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City of Capitola works closely with many public entities, including the cities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Scotts Valley, and the County of Santa Cruz. In some situations, it may be appropriate for the City of Capitola to consult with other agencies to better respond to Grand Jury reports. All responses submitted by the City of Capitola to the Grand Jury are the City’s independent response. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 DocuSign Envelope ID: F25E9C29-2A02-43D6-9ABD-9CCE21563C2A 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 385
R2:
We continue to recommend that all organizations create and regularly update formal records of the actions they take to address Grand Jury recommendations, and to share those records with the public, in accordance with CA Penal Code Section 933(c). (F1, F2) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: All City actions taken to address Grand Jury reports are provided to the public consistent with CA Penal Code Section 933(c) Required Response from the Capitola City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 DocuSign Envelope ID: F25E9C29-2A02-43D6-9ABD-9CCE21563C2A 386 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F3:
The City of Santa Cruz delayed the timeline rather than proceeding as outlined in their 2020 response to the Grand Jury. Instead, the City budgeted for a more comprehensive assessment of system-wide facilities and a capital investment plan to be completed in 2023. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Parks & Recreation Department has evaluated the condition of the driving range/cart barn and requested capital investment program (CIP) funding in the City’s Fiscal Year 2023 budget. The Department received funding through the City’s budget process, has made initial structural and safety improvements to the facilities, and will lead a more complete, full-scale renovation of the facilities with the appropriated funding in Fiscal Year 2024. It is accurate that the Parks & Recreation Department’s broader Facility Condition Assessment has been delayed. It will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2024. However, that study will look at all Department-operated facilities to establish an understanding of broader CIP needs and lead to prioritization for funding and investment in facilities with deferred maintenance. The customer-facing facilities at DeLaveaga Golf Course have been assessed, and the Parks & Recreation Department has funding, appropriated through the City’s budget process, to make necessary improvements. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 394 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F5:
The adoption of multi-year plans by both the City and County of Santa Cruz offer the public some assurance that locations can be found within the County where homeless services will be provided. _X_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County of Santa Cruz and the four cities should plan to provide services for homeless persons at the sites identified in their plans, including but not limited to supportive housing, case management, and medical services. The County of Santa Cruz and the four cities should report to the Grand Jury on the status of providing homeless services at the sites identified no later than December 31, 2023. (F5, F6) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City of Capitola does not have a homeless services plan. The City participates on the Housing for Health (H4H) Partnership, a collaboration with the County of Santa Cruz and all four cities within the County that is designed to coordinate resources and provide programs and services focused on ending homelessness. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 388 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Grand Jury ATTN: Civil Grand Jury Response (Honoring Commitments to the Public) Emeline Nguyen Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 7:55 AM To: "[email protected]" , Santa Cruz County Grand Jury , Matt Huffaker , Laura Schmidt , Tony Elliot , Lisa Murphy , Lee Butler , Ken Morgan , Gina Liebig Good afternoon Honorable Judge Cogliati and Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, On behalf of the City, please see the attached Civil Grand Jury Response relating to Honoring Commitments to the Public from the November 28th City Council meeting. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you, Emeline Nguyen Principal Management Analyst City of Santa Cruz | City Manager’s Office 809 Center Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Phone: 831-420-5017 Email: [email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com Honoring Commitments to the Public.pdf 236K 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 389 The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Santa Cruz City Council to Respond by September 5, 2023 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Honoring Commitments to the Public County Agency Actions in Response to 2019–2020 Grand Jury Recommendations Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are required to respond and to make your response available to the public by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report. Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Honoring Commitments to the Public Published on June 7, 2023 390 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Instructions for Respondents Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations. Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05: 1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why. 2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable. 3. Please confirm the date on which you approved the assigned responses: We approved these responses in a regular public meeting as shown in our minutes dated November 28, 2023. 4. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 391
F6:
Although the Cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville agreed that there appear to be unused or underutilized parcels of land that could possibly be used for homeless services, it is not clear how this could be done. X__ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Required Response from the Capitola City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 DocuSign Envelope ID: F25E9C29-2A02-43D6-9ABD-9CCE21563C2A 384 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
As recommended in the 2022 “Homelessness Action Plan,” the Cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should collaborate with leaders from the County of Santa Cruz and the City of Santa Cruz to identify 20 new locations for shelters across the county. These cities should report on the status of this recommendation no later than December 31, 2023. (F6) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The 2022 Homeless Action Plan is not a City of Capitola adopted plan. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 DocuSign Envelope ID: F25E9C29-2A02-43D6-9ABD-9CCE21563C2A 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 387
R6:
The County of Santa Cruz and the four cities should plan to provide services for homeless persons at the sites identified in their plans, including but not limited to supportive housing, case management, and medical services. The County of Santa Cruz and the four cities should report to the Grand Jury on the status of providing homeless services at the sites identified no later than December 31, 2023. (F5, F6) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City of Capitola does not have a homeless services plan. The City participates on the Housing for Health (H4H) Partnership, a collaboration with the County of Santa Cruz and all four cities within the County that is designed to coordinate resources and provide programs and services focused on ending homelessness. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 388 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Grand Jury ATTN: Civil Grand Jury Response (Honoring Commitments to the Public) Emeline Nguyen Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 7:55 AM To: "[email protected]" , Santa Cruz County Grand Jury , Matt Huffaker , Laura Schmidt , Tony Elliot , Lisa Murphy , Lee Butler , Ken Morgan , Gina Liebig Good afternoon Honorable Judge Cogliati and Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, On behalf of the City, please see the attached Civil Grand Jury Response relating to Honoring Commitments to the Public from the November 28th City Council meeting. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you, Emeline Nguyen Principal Management Analyst City of Santa Cruz | City Manager’s Office 809 Center Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Phone: 831-420-5017 Email: [email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com Honoring Commitments to the Public.pdf 236K 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 389 The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Santa Cruz City Council to Respond by September 5, 2023 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Honoring Commitments to the Public County Agency Actions in Response to 2019–2020 Grand Jury Recommendations Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are required to respond and to make your response available to the public by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report. Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Honoring Commitments to the Public Published on June 7, 2023 390 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Instructions for Respondents Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations. Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05: 1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why. 2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable. 3. Please confirm the date on which you approved the assigned responses: We approved these responses in a regular public meeting as shown in our minutes dated November 28, 2023. 4. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 391
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Please confirm the date on which you approved the assigned responses: We approved these responses in a regular public meeting as shown in our minutes dated November 28, 2023.
R4:
When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 391
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury reviewed responses to five of the 2019-2020 reports and found that, in general, commitments were kept. _X_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
We continue to recommend that all organizations create and regularly update formal records of the actions they take to address Grand Jury recommendations, and to share those records with the public, in accordance with CA Penal Code Section 933(c). (F1, F2) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Civil Grand Jury has, over the years, issued annual reports covering a wide variety of topics and issues, with a range of recommendations from the very granular (e.g., R6 “assign one individual responsible to cyber-security"), to very broad and general (e.g., R18 “demonstrate progress in working collaboratively with UCSC...”), some of which the City agrees with and others it does not. It is neither practical nor economically feasible for the City to create a formal record of all actions taken to “address Grand Jury recommendations,” as it would impose a substantial burden on City staff and resources over and above the cost and administrative burden of preparing responses to Grand Jury Reports, in the first instance, as required by Cal. Penal Code Section 933(c). Moreover, the recommendations the City agrees with would be implemented because the City agrees with them, and not because they “address Grand Jury recommendations.” Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 399
F7:
The master plan for Coral Street being worked by the City of Santa Cruz includes consideration of limiting vehicle access to Coral Street, but the grants received by the City and the plan to build 120 units of supportive housing preempt the original Grand Jury recommendation to consider closing it. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): A variety of uses exist on Coral Street. Vehicular access is needed to/from many of those residences and businesses, not just the 120 units of supportive housing. A number of enhancements are considered to the streetscape as part of the Visioning Report. See pages 39-40 and 48-49 at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/94159/63822268902 6170000. Staff will continue to consider options for how to improve the Coral Street right-of-way as development and uses along Coral Street evolve. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 396 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The City of Santa Cruz should complete and then implement their Master Plan for Coral Street, including consideration of limiting vehicle access. The City of Santa Cruz should report to the Grand Jury on the status of Coral Street no later than December 31, 2023. (F7) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X_ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Coral Street visioning community engagement was conducted in late 2022 and early 2023. The Coral Street Visioning Report is complete and was accepted by the City Council on May 9, 2023. The vision will be implemented over time. Work on two of the projects – short- and long-term use and development of 125 Coral Street and the former River Street Shelter site – is in process. The City purchased 125 Coral Street, and the current tenant is expected to vacate the site late this year. The City is currently further assessing needs for environmental remediation in advance of interim uses and future uses contemplated in the vision, and the City is coordinating closely with the County on potential funding and associated building design options. The former River Street Shelter site will be demolished in the coming months to prepare the site for interim uses and future uses contemplated in the vision. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 402 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F8:
Staffing shortages made automating the process for updating the website of the City of Santa Cruz and redesigning the website of the City of Scotts Valley more difficult. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): For the City of Santa Cruz, significant progress has been made in addressing staffing shortages within the IT Department, and continuous efforts are underway to enhance the City's website update procedures. These initiatives involve integrating third-party tools to bolster auditing and analytics capabilities, facilitating in-depth content analysis for departmental review and action. Moreover, the IT Department has recently enlisted a dedicated temporary resource to address content deficiencies and resolve numerous issues related to broken links on the website. Lastly, the City of Santa Cruz has allocated funds for an extensive website redesign project, set to occur in the latter part of Fiscal Year 2024 or the early stages of Fiscal Year 2025. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by September 5, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 397
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The City of Santa Cruz should verify that their commitment to automate the process for updating their website has been completed by October 31, 2023. (F8) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __ HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe __ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Automating updates to the City's website is in progress, highlighting the City's commitment through its investment in and deployment of specialized software tools. These tools are aimed at overseeing and enhancing various aspects of the City's website, such as accessibility, content quality, branding, data privacy, core web vitals, and more. Additionally, with the upcoming website refresh planned for either the end of Fiscal Year 2024 or beginning of Fiscal Year 2025, the City will leverage modern website automation tools that are readily available. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Grand Jury Scotts Valley Response Follow-up - Honoring Commitments to the Public 'Cathie Simonovich' via Santa Cruz Grand Jury Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 8:28 AM Reply-To: Cathie Simonovich To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" Cc: Mali LaGoe Dear Honorable Judge Cogliati and Members of the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, We have attached the completed response packet for the report titled Honoring Commitments to the Public - County Agency Actions in Response to 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendations. This report was approved by the Scotts Valley City Council at the regular public meeting held on August 16, 2023. Please confirm receipt of the report. Best regards, Cathie Simonovich City Clerk City of Scotts Valley 1 Civic Center Drive Scotts Valley, CA 95066 [email protected] Phone: 831-440-5608 NOTE: My regular work schedule is Tuesday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM. 2023 CGJ Continuity ScottsValley Response.pdf 209K 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 403 The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Scotts Valley City Council to Respond by September 5, 2023 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Honoring Commitments to the Public County Agency Actions in Response to 2019–2020 Grand Jury Recommendations Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are required to respond and to make your response available to the public by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report. Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
While all city and county planning departments have demonstrated a good understanding of the new State housing laws and the need to facilitate more housing, the failure to do so in a timely manner has served to further decrease the availability of housing and further increase the need and cost of more housing. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Capitola has consistently updated the Capitola Municipal Code to comply with state housing law in a timely manner. With the many annual housing bills, cities and developers alike must be diligent in understanding the latest legislative changes. Even in doing so, the state Housing and Community Development Department and case law provide new interpretations and precedents. The pace of entitlements and construction of ADUs in Capitola has increased in recent years, partly due to the changes in state legislation and the City’s rapid incorporation of those changes into the daily narrative and development entitlement decisions. For example, for new ADU laws that came into effect on Jan 1,2020, Capitola updated the ordinance by March of 2020. Capitola updated the ordinance again in 2022 due to additional modifications in ADU law. The City’s up-to-date understanding of housing legislation does and will continue to facilitate housing production. The City will continue to remain diligent in staying knowledgeable about the latest legislative changes, interpretations, and case law. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 249
F2:
Updated the ADU ordinance (2020 and 2022)
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
By the end of 2023, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate progress in working collaboratively with UCSC to develop housing sites that are affordable for UCSC students and essential workers. (F2) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _x_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: To the extent that UCSC has projects within the County’s unincorporated areas requiring the County’s participation through its permitting or land use regulatory roles, the County will work with UCSC as it would any other applicant. For example, there is a proposed 624-bed housing complex being jointly developed by UCSC and Cabrillo College on Cabrillo’s Aptos campus, and the County would be happy to assist those partners through the regulatory process should the proposal move forward. Given the disparate impacts of the ongoing housing crisis on lower-income families, any future funding the County might have for affordable housing would be applied consistent with the County’s Strategic Plan and equity goals. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F3:
Created ADU guidance document (2022)
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
By the end of 2023, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low-income housing for workers in the County, (particularly on properties such as the old drive-in theater acreage which is adjacent to transportation corridors. (F3, F6) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: County staff regularly meet with property owners, interested developers, employers, other public agencies, and non-profit housing providers to provide information on zoning, procedures, regulations, affordable housing programs, and funding opportunities that pertain to new development within the unincorporated areas. This is a typical service and is likely provided in all county jurisdictions as well. As noted in
F4:
Capitola has made little progress towards achieving housing goals, particularly for low income housing. Although the City identified sites for mixed use developments, they have made little progress towards developing those sites. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Capitola has made great progress towards achieving housing goals, but has made little progress in developing low-income sites in the current housing cycle. In terms of housing goals, Capitola had made great progress to enable more housing development citywide. Completed planning projects include: 1. Complete overhaul of Zoning Code to remove barriers to housing and ensure housing could be accommodated. (2014-2020) 2. Updated the ADU ordinance (2020 and 2022) 3. Created ADU guidance document (2022) 4. Created building permit ready ADU prototype designs (2022) 5. Completed a nexus study for affordable housing (2020/2021) 6. Completed feasibility analysis for affordable housing fees (2020) 7. Updated Chapter 18.02 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (2020/2021) 8. Added Chapter 18.05 for Inclusionary Housing Impact Fees (2020/2021) 9. Added Chapter 17.82 establishing Objective Standards for Multifamily and Mixed- Use Developments (2022) The City is not responsible for developing sites as the City is not a developer. Capitola is responsible for ensuring there are adequate sites to develop housing within the City and removing barriers. However, the City recently approved a 36 unit 100% affordable development at 4401 Capitola Road. The City will continue efforts to proactively reach out to affordable housing developers to increase interest in Capitola sites. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 250 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F5:
Capitola has focused primarily on streamlining the construction of ADUs as a means to increase housing. However, there is little evidence that ADUs are prioritized for rental to local workers, and there is little chance that ADUs alone can meet the housing needs for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ADUs are only a small portion of the work the City had done to meet housing needs. Of the nine tasks listed below toward housing, ADUs were the focus of three. The City agrees that ADUs alone cannot meet the housing needs for the 6th cycle. Completed housing projects: 1. Complete overhaul of Zoning Code to remove barriers to housing and ensure housing could be accommodated. (2014-2020) 2. Updated the ADU ordinance (2020 and 2022) 3. Created ADU guidance document (2022) 4. Created building permit ready ADU prototype designs (2022) 5. Completed a nexus study for affordable housing (2020/2021) 6. Completed feasibility analysis for affordable housing fees (2020) 7. Updated Chapter 18.02 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (2020/2021) 8. Added Chapter 18.05 for Inclusionary Housing Impact Fees (2020/2021) 9. Added Chapter 17.82 establishing Objective Standards for Multifamily and Mixed- Use Developments (2022) The City agrees there is little evidence that ADUs are prioritized for rental to local workers. However, the City recently approved a 36 unit 100% affordable development at 4401 Capitola Road and included a condition of approval for local worker preference. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 251
F6:
Capitola and the County of Santa Cruz need to work together to facilitate significant housing in the mid-county area where a large percentage of jobs are located. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Board of Supervisors agrees that housing located near job centers and transportation corridors is key to future sustainable urban development. Coordination among the various local jurisdictions and regional agencies within the county is important to making progress on the housing crisis. The planning directors meet quarterly, and further informal communications frequently occur. Coordination also occurs in the regular bi-monthly meetings of the Planning Directors Forum hosted by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), as well as in the local Continuum of Care, known as the Housing for Health Partnership, which includes representatives from all local jurisdictions. In addition to coordination among directors, other planning, and public works staff in various divisions (including housing and development review) are familiar with, and frequently reach out to their colleagues in neighboring jurisdictions when needed to coordinate on developments and other projects that require such cross-jurisdictional coordination, such as those located close to city limits, and regional infrastructure and planning efforts. Several recent examples of this include the Pippin I (built in 2018) and Pippin II (currently under construction) affordable housing development projects. Each of these projects included one parcel on unincorporated County land and one parcel in the City of Watsonville. Extensive coordination occurred between City and County staff at various stages of their development in order to get these projects funded and completed. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
By the end of 2023 the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate progress towards identifying sites and planning for increased housing along the transportation corridors in mid-county. (F6) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Like all AMBAG jurisdictions, the County of Santa Cruz is developing its 6th Cycle Housing Element, which is due to the State by the end of 2023. As a part of the Housing Element update, the County must analyze its capacity to accommodate the number of housing units dictated by the State under RHNA. Where the supply of land is deficient, jurisdictions must also identify parcels for rezoning to make up the total number of units (4,634 for the County in the 6th Cycle). Together, the parcels identified for potential housing units are considered the “Housing Inventory.” On June 12, 2023, the County released its draft Housing Element and Housing Inventory for public review, thereby beginning the process of review and adoption of the Housing Element in 2023. The Housing Element (as well as the Built Environment Element of the General Plan) contain policies and programs that give clear preference for locating housing in infill areas within the existing Urban Services Line and along transportation corridors. The location of properties in the Housing Inventory focuses on potential development in these areas as well. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 237
R13:
By the end of 2023, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low-income housing for workers in the County, (particularly on properties such as the old drive-in theater acreage which is adjacent to transportation corridors. (F3, F6) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: County staff regularly meet with property owners, interested developers, employers, other public agencies, and non-profit housing providers to provide information on zoning, procedures, regulations, affordable housing programs, and funding opportunities that pertain to new development within the unincorporated areas. This is a typical service and is likely provided in all county jurisdictions as well. As noted in
F7:
The City of Capitola has made little progress towards facilitating the development of the Capitola Mall as a mixed-use project which could accommodate both business and housing. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _x_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): In the recent Zoning Code update, Chapter 17.88: Incentives for Community Benefits was added providing incentives of additional height and floor area ratio on the mall site. In 2019, the mall owner submitted an application for a mixed-use development which would accommodate 637 new residential units along with commercial uses. During the conceptual review, the applicant received favorable feedback from Planning Commission and City Council. Ultimately, the applicant withdrew the application in the summer of 2020 due to the pandemic. Capitola made progress with the adoption of the new Incentives for Community Benefits Zoning as there are now incentives in place for increased height and floor area, combined with underlying zoning that has no density limit. However, the Capitola Mall is comprised of multiple parcels, owned by seven different entities. These seven property owners must all agree on any significant development on the Mall site. Unanimous agreement among these property owners has been a challenge for decades. While the City has created incentives to facilitate development, and helped facilitate discussions among those property owners, the City is not able to compel private property owners to redevelop Capitola Mall. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023
F8:
Added Chapter 18.05 for Inclusionary Housing Impact Fees (2020/2021)
F9:
Added Chapter 17.82 establishing Objective Standards for Multifamily and Mixed- Use Developments (2022) The City is not responsible for developing sites as the City is not a developer. Capitola is responsible for ensuring there are adequate sites to develop housing within the City and removing barriers. However, the City recently approved a 36 unit 100% affordable development at 4401 Capitola Road. The City will continue efforts to proactively reach out to affordable housing developers to increase interest in Capitola sites. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 250 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury F5. Capitola has focused primarily on streamlining the construction of ADUs as a means to increase housing. However, there is little evidence that ADUs are prioritized for rental to local workers, and there is little chance that ADUs alone can meet the housing needs for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): ADUs are only a small portion of the work the City had done to meet housing needs. Of the nine tasks listed below toward housing, ADUs were the focus of three. The City agrees that ADUs alone cannot meet the housing needs for the 6th cycle. Completed housing projects:
F12:
While all local municipalities have voiced support for prioritizing housing for local workers, only some of them have clear local preference guidelines that give some priority to local workers. Without clear guidelines and incentives, new housing is more likely to be purchased by those who do not live and work here. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Many California jurisdictions including the County that fund affordable housing projects or administer affordable housing programs, such as inclusionary or “below market-rate” programs, provide general preferences to prospective applicants who live and/or work in their locality. State and federal fair housing laws, as well as conditions attached to State and federal subsidies, limit the extent to which these preferences can be very narrowly tailored to provide priority preferences to local workers only, as opposed to those who may live locally but work elsewhere, and/or to those who work versus those who may be retired, unemployed, or unable to work due to disabilities or other reasons. The reasons are that such preferences could create a “disparate impact” on certain protected groups who may be less likely to be in the group receiving the preference, and thus the preference limits their access to fair housing, which would violate the law. Most local jurisdictions including the County generally provide legally allowable preferences in their local affordable housing projects and programs for those who live or work in the County. This sometimes include priorities for additional special needs groups, such as for those displaced by recent disasters, or for those who are homeless, households with a disability, seniors, homeless families, or other special needs group. Furthermore, if a project is being built by an employer specifically for its employees, then it does not violate fair housing law to limit those units to the specified group of employees. Examples include housing for farmworkers, or local school districts building housing for their employees. The County’s inclusionary housing program (also known as a below-market rate housing program), established through the 1978 voter initiative called “Measure J”, does generally limit the eligibility to access these affordable housing units entirely to applicants who live or work within the county. The County owns many parcels throughout the unincorporated area and is actively studying the potential for public-sector employee housing on several of its properties. Employers of various types may also develop housing for their employees on any other types of property they own that allows housing development, which includes residential zones and commercial mixed-use zones (C1, C2, PA, and/or RF). 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 235
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
By the end of 2023 the County of Santa Cruz should develop clear, measurable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of low-income housing. (F12) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Please see response to F12 above. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F13:
All municipalities are trying to identify and facilitate the building of housing projects, but most of that is done independently of the other municipalities or with outside partners. Since workforce housing and transportation gridlock is a county-wide problem, all county municipalities need to work more closely together and with property owners to develop housing solutions. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Please see response to F6. In addition, the County has forged strong partnerships with various non-profit affordable housing developers and other public agencies, including local cities in some cases, and/or the countywide Housing Authority, resulting in the construction of many affordable housing developments over the past 40 or more years. Some of the more recently built projects include Pippin Orchards Phases I and II in the Watsonville area, Aptos Blue and Canterbury Park in Aptos, and St. Stephens, 1520 Capitola Road (Bienestar Plaza), and Rodeo Creek Court in Live Oak. Where possible, the County has pursued partnerships including with local cities. However, housing is inherently a local land use issue and thus makes cross- jurisdictional coordination unfeasible in many cases. There are several regional agencies, such as the Regional Transportation Commission, that handle regional planning issues including transportation and groundwater. These agencies include representatives from each of the local jurisdictions, and staff of each of the local jurisdictions closely follow and participate in planning efforts of those regional agencies. Other regional entities that many local staff participate in, which help staff keep informed and share information on regional issues affecting housing development and housing needs, include AMBAG, the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership, the Housing for Health Partnership, and Housing Santa Cruz County. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
By the end of 2023 the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Planning directors throughout the county meet quarterly to discuss and share ideas on housing and other related issues. Planning staff from the various jurisdictions also collaborate through the regular AMBAG meetings and meetings of other regional bodies, as noted above in the response to F6, F13, and several of the recommendations above. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 241 Grand Jury City of Capitola Response to Report Titled "Housing Our Workers" Moss, Julia Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 12:01 PM To: "[email protected]" Cc: "[email protected]" Good Morning, Please find attached the City of Capitola’s response to the 2022-2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury report titled Housing Our Workers. This response was approved by the Capitola City Council on July 27th, 2023, as can be seen in the attached draft minutes from that meeting. Please respond to confirm receipt of this email. Thank you, Julia Moss City Clerk - City of Capitola 831.475.7300 x228 2 attachments Housing Grand Jury Response.pdf 401K Housing - Minutes from July 27th.pdf 609K 242 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury City of Capitola City Council Meeting Minutes Thursday, July 27, 2023 – 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010 Mayor: Margaux Keiser Vice Mayor: Kristen Brown Council Members: Yvette Brooks, Joe Clarke, Alexander Pedersen Closed Session – 5 PM i. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code § 54957.6) Negotiator: Chloé Woodmansee, Assistant to the City of Manager Employee Organizations: Association of Capitola Employees, Police Officers Association, Mid- Management Employees, Confidential Employees, Police Captains, and Management ii. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—LIABILITY CLAIMS (Gov. Code § 54956.95) 1) Graciela Cardiel Claim against the City of Capitola iii. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Gov. Code § 54956.9) Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: one case Regular Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM 1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. In attendance: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, and Mayor Keiser. Absent: Vice Mayor Brown 2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda - None 3. Report on Closed Session – The City Council met and discussed three items on the Closed Session Agenda. No reportable action was taken. 4. Additional Materials A. Updated Attachments for Item 7F B. Correspondence Received - Item 8C (2 emails) C. Correspondence Received - Item 8E (3 emails) D. Correspondence Received - Item 8F (3 emails) 5. Oral Communications by Members of the Public - None 6. Staff / City Council Comments
• Police Chief Dally reminded the public of National Night Out on August 1st from 5-7 PM.
• Council Member Clarke commended the Random Acts of Capitola Kindness group for their efforts on the Depot Hill fence repair. 7. Consent Items A. City Council Meeting Minutes 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 243 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve the June 22, 2023, City Council meeting minutes. B. City Check Registers Recommended Action: Approve check registers dated June 23, 2023, and July 7, 2023. C. Liability Claim of Graciela Cardiel Recommended Action: Reject liability claim. D. Grand Jury Response – Cyber Security Recommended Action: Approve the responses to the Grand Jury Report and direct the City Clerk to submit the completed response packet pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05. E. Grand Jury Response – Housing our Workers Recommended Action: Approve the responses to the Grand Jury Report and direct the City Clerk to submit the completed response packet pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05. F. Jade Street Park Universally Accessible Playground Fundraising Partnership Recommended Action: 1) Authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Friends of Santa Cruz County Parks for a fundraising campaign and administration of donations for the Jade Street Park Universally Accessible Playground Project; and 2) approve an administrative policy regarding the Universally Accessible Playground at Jade Street Park Donor Recognition. G. Plein Air Public Art Prize Amount Recommended Action: Approve the Art & Cultural Commission recommendation to increase the Plein Air Public Art Festival Competition prize amount from $1,500 to $1,800 for first place and from $800 to $1,000 for second place. Motion to adopt the Consent Calendar: Council Member Clarke Seconded: Council Member Brooks Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown 8. General Government / Public Hearings A. State Budget Update from Senator John Laird Senator John Laird provided a presentation on the State of California Budget. B. Children and Youth Bill of Rights Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution adopting the City of Capitola Children and Youth Bill of Rights. Deputy City Clerk Westly presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included an overview of the partnership between the City and the Children’s Network and Youth Action Network. Motion to adopt the resolution adopting the Capitola Children and Youth Bill of Rights with direction to staff to research the addition of a $2,000 stipend for youth participation on City advisory boards: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown City of Capitola 244 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury City Council Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2023 C. Jade Street Park UA Playground Project Recommended Action: Approve the Final Conceptual Design for the Jade Street Park Universally Accessible (UA) Playground Project. Public Works Director Kahn and Todd from Verde Design presented the staff report. Public Comments:
• Brenda, community member, spoke in support of the UA Playground Project.
• Dan Hastley, County Park Friends, spoke in support of the UA Playground Project.
• Lisa Duran, Capitola Aptos Rotary Member, spoke in support of the UA Playground Project. Council Member discussion included thanks for the Santa Cruz County Park Friends for their fundraising efforts, and encouragement to the community to donate to the fundraiser. Motion to approve the Final Conceptual Design: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Pedersen Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown D. Community Center Renovation Project – Budget Update Recommended Action: 1) Receive update on external funding sources for the Community Center Renovation Project; and 2) authorize Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Boone Low Ratliff Architects in the amount of $374,000 for final design documents, bidding support, and construction administration for the Community Center Renovation Project. Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included clarification on funding sources and timelines. Motion to authorize Amendment 1 to the Agreement with Boone Low Ratliff Architects: Council Member Pedersen Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown E. Capitola Wharf Enhancement Project Preliminary Conceptual Design Recommended Action: Direct staff to prepare a final concept plan, for consideration by the City Council on August 24, 2023, for the Capitola Wharf Enhancement Project (CWEP). Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. Public Comments:
• Community member requested clarification on the conceptual design.
• Gerry Jensen, CWET, thanked City staff and Wharf to Wharf staff for their collaboration efforts.
• Skip Allen, community member, voiced concerns about enhanced lighting in the conceptual design. City of Capitola 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 245 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2023 Council Members expressed thanks to CWET for their efforts, an interest in the addition of a kiosk element, and additional outreach for volunteer opportunities. Direction provided to staff to prepare a Final Conceptual Design with the addition of a kiosk: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown F. Capitola Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project Recommended Action: Approve the plans, specifications, and construction budget of $1,700,000 for the Capitola Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project; adopt a resolution amending the FY 2023-24 budget; and authorize the Department of Public Works to advertise for construction bids. Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. The City Council requested that staff provide an update on the ADA recommendations for this project and associated electrical improvements. Public Comments:
• Marianne Mahern, resident, requested further consideration of ADA accommodations in the pavement plan. Motion to approve the plans, specifications, and budget for the Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project and adopt the resolution: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown G. City Council Appointments to City Advisory Bodies Recommended Action: Appoint members of the public to the City of Capitola Arts and Cultural Commission and Historical Museum Board. City Clerk Moss presented the staff report. Motion to appoint Jennifer Major to the Arts and Cultural Commission to a term expiring 12/31/2024 and Brian Legakis to the Historical Museum Board to a term expiring 6/30/2024: Council Member Clarke Seconded: Council Member Pedersen Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown 9. Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 PM to the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 24, 2023, at 6:00 PM. ____________________________ ATTEST: Margaux Keiser, Mayor ____________________________ Julia Moss, City Clerk City of Capitola 246 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Capitola City Council to Respond by August 31, 2023 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Housing Our Workers Essential Workers Need Affordable Housing! Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are required to respond and to make your response available to the public by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report. Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Housing Our Workers Published on June 2, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 247 Instructions for Respondents Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations. Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05: 1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why. 2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable. 3. Please confirm the date on which you approved the assigned responses: We approved these responses in a regular public meeting as shown ________________ in our minutes dated . 4. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 248 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. In attendance: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, and Mayor Keiser. Absent: Vice Mayor Brown
R2:
Additions and Deletions to the Agenda - None
R3:
Report on Closed Session – The City Council met and discussed three items on the Closed Session Agenda. No reportable action was taken.
R4:
Additional Materials A. Updated Attachments for Item 7F B. Correspondence Received - Item 8C (2 emails) C. Correspondence Received - Item 8E (3 emails) D. Correspondence Received - Item 8F (3 emails)
R5:
Oral Communications by Members of the Public - None
R6:
Staff / City Council Comments
• Police Chief Dally reminded the public of National Night Out on August 1st from 5-7 PM.
• Council Member Clarke commended the Random Acts of Capitola Kindness group for their efforts on the Depot Hill fence repair.
R7:
Consent Items A. City Council Meeting Minutes 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 243 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2023 Recommended Action: Approve the June 22, 2023, City Council meeting minutes. B. City Check Registers Recommended Action: Approve check registers dated June 23, 2023, and July 7, 2023. C. Liability Claim of Graciela Cardiel Recommended Action: Reject liability claim. D. Grand Jury Response – Cyber Security Recommended Action: Approve the responses to the Grand Jury Report and direct the City Clerk to submit the completed response packet pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05. E. Grand Jury Response – Housing our Workers Recommended Action: Approve the responses to the Grand Jury Report and direct the City Clerk to submit the completed response packet pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05. F. Jade Street Park Universally Accessible Playground Fundraising Partnership Recommended Action: 1) Authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Friends of Santa Cruz County Parks for a fundraising campaign and administration of donations for the Jade Street Park Universally Accessible Playground Project; and 2) approve an administrative policy regarding the Universally Accessible Playground at Jade Street Park Donor Recognition. G. Plein Air Public Art Prize Amount Recommended Action: Approve the Art & Cultural Commission recommendation to increase the Plein Air Public Art Festival Competition prize amount from $1,500 to $1,800 for first place and from $800 to $1,000 for second place. Motion to adopt the Consent Calendar: Council Member Clarke Seconded: Council Member Brooks Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown
R8:
General Government / Public Hearings A. State Budget Update from Senator John Laird Senator John Laird provided a presentation on the State of California Budget. B. Children and Youth Bill of Rights Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution adopting the City of Capitola Children and Youth Bill of Rights. Deputy City Clerk Westly presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included an overview of the partnership between the City and the Children’s Network and Youth Action Network. Motion to adopt the resolution adopting the Capitola Children and Youth Bill of Rights with direction to staff to research the addition of a $2,000 stipend for youth participation on City advisory boards: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown City of Capitola 244 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury City Council Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2023 C. Jade Street Park UA Playground Project Recommended Action: Approve the Final Conceptual Design for the Jade Street Park Universally Accessible (UA) Playground Project. Public Works Director Kahn and Todd from Verde Design presented the staff report. Public Comments:
• Brenda, community member, spoke in support of the UA Playground Project.
• Dan Hastley, County Park Friends, spoke in support of the UA Playground Project.
• Lisa Duran, Capitola Aptos Rotary Member, spoke in support of the UA Playground Project. Council Member discussion included thanks for the Santa Cruz County Park Friends for their fundraising efforts, and encouragement to the community to donate to the fundraiser. Motion to approve the Final Conceptual Design: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Pedersen Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown D. Community Center Renovation Project – Budget Update Recommended Action: 1) Receive update on external funding sources for the Community Center Renovation Project; and 2) authorize Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Boone Low Ratliff Architects in the amount of $374,000 for final design documents, bidding support, and construction administration for the Community Center Renovation Project. Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included clarification on funding sources and timelines. Motion to authorize Amendment 1 to the Agreement with Boone Low Ratliff Architects: Council Member Pedersen Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown E. Capitola Wharf Enhancement Project Preliminary Conceptual Design Recommended Action: Direct staff to prepare a final concept plan, for consideration by the City Council on August 24, 2023, for the Capitola Wharf Enhancement Project (CWEP). Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. Public Comments:
• Community member requested clarification on the conceptual design.
• Gerry Jensen, CWET, thanked City staff and Wharf to Wharf staff for their collaboration efforts.
• Skip Allen, community member, voiced concerns about enhanced lighting in the conceptual design. City of Capitola 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 245 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2023 Council Members expressed thanks to CWET for their efforts, an interest in the addition of a kiosk element, and additional outreach for volunteer opportunities. Direction provided to staff to prepare a Final Conceptual Design with the addition of a kiosk: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown F. Capitola Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project Recommended Action: Approve the plans, specifications, and construction budget of $1,700,000 for the Capitola Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project; adopt a resolution amending the FY 2023-24 budget; and authorize the Department of Public Works to advertise for construction bids. Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. The City Council requested that staff provide an update on the ADA recommendations for this project and associated electrical improvements. Public Comments:
• Marianne Mahern, resident, requested further consideration of ADA accommodations in the pavement plan. Motion to approve the plans, specifications, and budget for the Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project and adopt the resolution: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown G. City Council Appointments to City Advisory Bodies Recommended Action: Appoint members of the public to the City of Capitola Arts and Cultural Commission and Historical Museum Board. City Clerk Moss presented the staff report. Motion to appoint Jennifer Major to the Arts and Cultural Commission to a term expiring 12/31/2024 and Brian Legakis to the Historical Museum Board to a term expiring 6/30/2024: Council Member Clarke Seconded: Council Member Pedersen Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen and Mayor Keiser Absent: Vice Mayor Brown
R9:
Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 PM to the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 24, 2023, at 6:00 PM. ____________________________ ATTEST: Margaux Keiser, Mayor ____________________________ Julia Moss, City Clerk City of Capitola 246 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Capitola City Council to Respond by August 31, 2023 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Housing Our Workers Essential Workers Need Affordable Housing! Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are required to respond and to make your response available to the public by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report. Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Housing Our Workers Published on June 2, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 247 Instructions for Respondents Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations. Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F9:
Data security is an important issue, including the security of voter registration data and it is unknown if measures have been taken in this area. _X_ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County Clerk/Elections department is answering “partially disagree” because of the way this finding is worded. The County Clerk and the department agree that data security – including voter registration data – is an important issue, one that this department takes seriously. Measures have been taken to strengthen the security of data within the County Clerk/Elections department. What we have put into place since 2020: • Two factor authentication for all workstations in the office as well as out at the voting locations. • More security controls for both election servers – the one hosting the voter file and the one for election operations (ballot creation, tabulation, etc.) • Working with partners such as the California Secretary of State (statewide voter registration database), the election management system vendor, the election voting system vendor, Santa Cruz County Information Services Department, election officers, and department staff, to ensure security policies and procedures are in place and adhered to. • Training for those who work with election data – employees, election officers and end users. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 371
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Santa Cruz County Clerk should outline steps that have been taken to make voter registration data more secure by September 30, 2023. (F9) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X_ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 373 The County Clerk/Elections department has had discussions with the election management vendor and the California Secretary of State’s office regarding the date of birth field on the voter file. VoteCal is the statewide voter registration database that is the system of record for California, and how the data is transmitted to counties is determined by the Secretary of State. Currently, the date of birth is sent as an 8-digit numeric number (MMDDYYYY). Through our election management vendor, we have submitted a “system change request” to the Secretary of State to get the date of birth in two 4-digit numeric fields (MMDD) and (YYYY). Until that change request is approved by the Secretary of State, the department has removed the date of birth field from any file requests fulfilled by the department. To change the field into MMDD would be a manual process that would be resource consuming and prone to error. Once the change request is approved, it will be implemented. The County Clerk/Elections department has redesigned the voter data application to highlight the permissible and non-permissible uses of the voter file per the California Elections Code. The department updated the form for the November 2020, and for process improvement and usability, it has been redesigned again to be used for the 2024 elections. Training – the Department has strengthened the training of employees and election officers (those working in the voting locations) around the importance of securing the data files during election time (voting locations and employees) and non-election time (employees). A request was made for the County Clerk/Elections department to use the training session the California Secretary of State is mandated to provide when a statewide voter file is purchased from them. To date, the Secretary of States office has NOT created a security training session, and as far as the County Clerk knows, there is not a plan to implement one soon. The California Elections Code does not mandate counties to have a training for people who are purchasing a data file. It does not list the items to be included in the training, the timing of the training, what happens if the training doesn’t occur, etc. Without a state model or clear direction in the Elections Code, the County Clerk is unsure what this type of training would entail, whether there is a method of enforcement or even if there can be enforcement, if any type of training needs to be approved by the Secretary of State since they have the mandate, and more. The County Clerk will implement something more around the security of voter data beyond what is on the application, for the 2024 election cycle, however at this time it is unknown as to the form and the actual implementation date. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Grand Jury Capitola Response - Honoring Commitments to the Public Moss, Julia Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:46 AM To: "[email protected]" , Santa Cruz Grand Jury Good Morning, Please see attached response to the “Honoring Commitments to the Public” SCC Civil Grand Jury Report. I have also attached draft minutes from our meeting showing this approval. Please respond to confirm receipt. Julia Moss City Clerk - City of Capitola 831.475.7300 x228 2 attachments 09-14-2023 Draft Minutes.pdf 251K Capitola SC Grand Jury Response - Honoring Commitments.docx.pdf 390K 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 375 City of Capitola City Council Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 14, 2023 – 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010 Mayor: Margaux Keiser Vice Mayor: Kristen Brown Council Members: Yvette Brooks, Joe Clarke, Alexander Pedersen Closed Session – 5:15 PM i. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Gov. Code § 54956.9) Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: one case Regular Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM 1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance – The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. In attendance: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser. 2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda – None 3. Presentations A. The Mayor presented a Proclamation honoring the life of Sterling "Nathan" Cross. 4. Report on Closed Session – The City Council met and discussed one item on the Closed Session agenda. No reportable action was taken. 5. Additional Materials – None 6. Oral Communications by Members of the Public • Goran Klepic, Santa Cruz County resident, spoke about the condition of the restroom at Jade Street Park. • Gerry Jensen, resident, spoke about upcoming fundraisers for the Wharf on September 27th and October 14th. 7. Staff / City Council Comments • Chief Dally reminded the City Council and public of the Gun Buy Back Program at the County Sheriff’s Office September 15th. • Council Member Brooks requested that staff provide an update on the Jade Street Park restroom conditions, and commended the City Manager on his appointment as the Vice Chair of the Central Coast Community Power Board. • Council Member Clarke reminded the public of the Capitola Beach Festival. 8. Consent Items A. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve minutes from the regular meeting on August 24, 2023. B. City Check Registers Recommended Action: Approve check registers dated August 04, 2023 and August 18, 2023. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury City Council Meeting Minutes – September 14, 2023 C. Grand Jury Response – Honoring Commitments to the Public Recommended Action: Approve the responses to the Grand Jury Report and direct the City Clerk to submit the completed response packet pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05. D. Purchasing and Procurement Policy and Ordinance Recommended Action: Introduce, by title only, waiving further reading of the text, an ordinance amending Chapter 3.16 of the Capitola Municipal Code pertaining to Purchasing and Purchasing Contracts; and adopt revised Administrative Policy III-4: Purchasing and Procurement Policy. E. Chapter 18.02 Affordable (Inclusionary) Housing Recommended Action: Adopt an ordinance of the City of Capitola amending Chapter 18.02 of the Capitola Municipal Code, Affordable (Inclusionary) Housing. F. CalOES Designated Agents for Disaster Assistance Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution certifying the Capitola staff members who are authorized to submit CalOES paperwork. G. Designation of Loading Zone for the Capitola Hotel Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution establishing a loading zone adjacent to the frontage of 210 Esplanade (Capitola Hotel). H. Surf Cameras on the Capitola Wharf and the Bandstand Pavilion Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Surfline/Wavetrak, Inc. to install and maintain new surf camaras on the Capitola Wharf and maintain existing surf cameras on the Bandstand Pavilion at no cost to the City. Motion to approve the Consent Calendar: Vice Mayor Brown Seconded: Council Member Brooks Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser 9. General Government / Public Hearings A. Mall Redevelopment Land Use Study Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Kosmont Companies for the Capitola Mall Redevelopment Land Use Study in the amount of $25,000. Community Development Director Herlihy presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included a request to include Housing Element outcomes in the scope of work for this agreement, and a request for a White Paper to be created and distributed in conjunction. Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Kosmont Companies: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Vice Mayor Brown Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser B. City Hall Needs Assessment and Alternatives Analysis Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Group 4 Architecture for Phase 1 of the City Hall Sites Needs Assessment and Alternatives Analysis Report in the amount of $49,950. City of Capitola 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 377 City Council Meeting Minutes – September 14, 2023 Community Development Director Herlihy presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included requests to modify the scope of work to remove certain elements that staff could conduct. Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Group 4 Architecture with additional direction to negotiate the scope of work: Vice Mayor Brown Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser C. Pedestrian Pathway from the Upper Beach and Village Parking Lot to Monterey Avenue Recommended Action: Direct staff to proceed with developing the final design of pedestrian pathway from the Upper Beach and Village Parking Lot to Monterey Avenue consistent with pathway configuration Alternative 3, as described in the staff report. Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included clarification on tree replacement sizing. Motion to adopt the resolution: Council Member Clarke Seconded: Council Member Pedersen Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser D. Long-Term Strategic Planning Recommended Action: Provide feedback regarding the development process for a longer-term City of Capitola Strategic Plan. Chloe Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the staff report. The City Council provided feedback to staff and recommended creation of a living document, recognition of the importance of priorities and strategies for the City, a request for a regional element of the plan, and the importance of an operational element which aligns with annual City Council goals. E. Interim Building Official Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution for an exception to the 180-day wait period per Government Code Section 7522.56 & 21221(h) and approve the appointment of Robin Woodman as the Interim Building Official-Retired Annuitant. Chloe Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the staff report. Motion to adopt the resolution: Vice Mayor Brown Seconded: Council Member Pedersen Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser F. City Council Appointments to City Advisory Bodies Recommended Action: Appoint members of the public to the City of Capitola Arts and Cultural Commission. City Clerk Moss presented the staff report. Motion to appoint Mario Beltramo to a term expiring 12/31/2024: Vice Mayor Brown City of Capitola 378 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury City Council Meeting Minutes – September 14, 2023 Seconded: Council Member Brooks Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser 10.Adjournment – Adjourned at 7:19 PM to the next regularly scheduled meeting on September 28, 2023. ____________________________ A TTEST: Margaux Keiser, Mayor ____________________________ Julia Moss, City Clerk City of Capitola DocuSign Envelope ID: F25E9C29-2A02-43D6-9ABD-9CCE21563C2A 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 379 The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Capitola City Council to Respond by September 5, 2023 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Honoring Commitments to the Public County Agency Actions in Response to 2019–2020 Grand Jury Recommendations Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are required to respond and to make your response available to the public by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report. Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Honoring Commitments to the Public Published on June 7, 2023
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why.
R2:
For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable.
R3:
When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R5:
Additional Materials – None
R6:
Oral Communications by Members of the Public • Goran Klepic, Santa Cruz County resident, spoke about the condition of the restroom at Jade Street Park. • Gerry Jensen, resident, spoke about upcoming fundraisers for the Wharf on September 27th and October 14th.
R7:
Staff / City Council Comments • Chief Dally reminded the City Council and public of the Gun Buy Back Program at the County Sheriff’s Office September 15th. • Council Member Brooks requested that staff provide an update on the Jade Street Park restroom conditions, and commended the City Manager on his appointment as the Vice Chair of the Central Coast Community Power Board. • Council Member Clarke reminded the public of the Capitola Beach Festival.
R8:
Consent Items A. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve minutes from the regular meeting on August 24, 2023. B. City Check Registers Recommended Action: Approve check registers dated August 04, 2023 and August 18, 2023. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury City Council Meeting Minutes – September 14, 2023 C. Grand Jury Response – Honoring Commitments to the Public Recommended Action: Approve the responses to the Grand Jury Report and direct the City Clerk to submit the completed response packet pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05. D. Purchasing and Procurement Policy and Ordinance Recommended Action: Introduce, by title only, waiving further reading of the text, an ordinance amending Chapter 3.16 of the Capitola Municipal Code pertaining to Purchasing and Purchasing Contracts; and adopt revised Administrative Policy III-4: Purchasing and Procurement Policy. E. Chapter 18.02 Affordable (Inclusionary) Housing Recommended Action: Adopt an ordinance of the City of Capitola amending Chapter 18.02 of the Capitola Municipal Code, Affordable (Inclusionary) Housing. F. CalOES Designated Agents for Disaster Assistance Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution certifying the Capitola staff members who are authorized to submit CalOES paperwork. G. Designation of Loading Zone for the Capitola Hotel Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution establishing a loading zone adjacent to the frontage of 210 Esplanade (Capitola Hotel). H. Surf Cameras on the Capitola Wharf and the Bandstand Pavilion Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Surfline/Wavetrak, Inc. to install and maintain new surf camaras on the Capitola Wharf and maintain existing surf cameras on the Bandstand Pavilion at no cost to the City. Motion to approve the Consent Calendar: Vice Mayor Brown Seconded: Council Member Brooks Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser
R9:
General Government / Public Hearings A. Mall Redevelopment Land Use Study Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Kosmont Companies for the Capitola Mall Redevelopment Land Use Study in the amount of $25,000. Community Development Director Herlihy presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included a request to include Housing Element outcomes in the scope of work for this agreement, and a request for a White Paper to be created and distributed in conjunction. Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Kosmont Companies: Council Member Brooks Seconded: Vice Mayor Brown Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser B. City Hall Needs Assessment and Alternatives Analysis Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Group 4 Architecture for Phase 1 of the City Hall Sites Needs Assessment and Alternatives Analysis Report in the amount of $49,950. City of Capitola 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 377 City Council Meeting Minutes – September 14, 2023 Community Development Director Herlihy presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included requests to modify the scope of work to remove certain elements that staff could conduct. Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Group 4 Architecture with additional direction to negotiate the scope of work: Vice Mayor Brown Seconded: Council Member Clarke Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser C. Pedestrian Pathway from the Upper Beach and Village Parking Lot to Monterey Avenue Recommended Action: Direct staff to proceed with developing the final design of pedestrian pathway from the Upper Beach and Village Parking Lot to Monterey Avenue consistent with pathway configuration Alternative 3, as described in the staff report. Public Works Director Kahn presented the staff report. Council Member discussion included clarification on tree replacement sizing. Motion to adopt the resolution: Council Member Clarke Seconded: Council Member Pedersen Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser D. Long-Term Strategic Planning Recommended Action: Provide feedback regarding the development process for a longer-term City of Capitola Strategic Plan. Chloe Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the staff report. The City Council provided feedback to staff and recommended creation of a living document, recognition of the importance of priorities and strategies for the City, a request for a regional element of the plan, and the importance of an operational element which aligns with annual City Council goals. E. Interim Building Official Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution for an exception to the 180-day wait period per Government Code Section 7522.56 & 21221(h) and approve the appointment of Robin Woodman as the Interim Building Official-Retired Annuitant. Chloe Woodmansee, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the staff report. Motion to adopt the resolution: Vice Mayor Brown Seconded: Council Member Pedersen Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser F. City Council Appointments to City Advisory Bodies Recommended Action: Appoint members of the public to the City of Capitola Arts and Cultural Commission. City Clerk Moss presented the staff report. Motion to appoint Mario Beltramo to a term expiring 12/31/2024: Vice Mayor Brown City of Capitola 378 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury City Council Meeting Minutes – September 14, 2023 Seconded: Council Member Brooks Voting Yea: Council Members Brooks, Clarke, Pedersen, Vice Mayor Brown, and Mayor Keiser 10.Adjournment – Adjourned at 7:19 PM to the next regularly scheduled meeting on September 28, 2023. ____________________________ A TTEST: Margaux Keiser, Mayor ____________________________ Julia Moss, City Clerk City of Capitola DocuSign Envelope ID: F25E9C29-2A02-43D6-9ABD-9CCE21563C2A 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 379 The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Capitola City Council to Respond by September 5, 2023 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Honoring Commitments to the Public County Agency Actions in Response to 2019–2020 Grand Jury Recommendations Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are required to respond and to make your response available to the public by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report. Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Honoring Commitments to the Public Published on June 7, 2023
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
While all city and county planning departments have demonstrated a good understanding of the new State housing laws and the need to facilitate more housing, the failure to do so in a timely manner has served to further decrease the availability of housing and further increase the need and cost of more housing. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): With housing a priority at the state level, the state legislature has passed a slew of new housing regulations each year that require in-depth review and legal interpretation prior to local adoption. The City strives to adopt local ordinances that comply with state law as soon as possible, however we are cautious to wait to adopt regulations until we are confident that they follow the intent of state law. This is partially why these state laws override local zoning control until such time that cities do adopt their own local ordinances in compliance with state regulations. For example, if a local jurisdiction has not updated their Density Bonus ordinance to comply with new state regulations, then a developer would simply utilize the state law rather than the local ordinance. Finally, government does not build housing. The role of local government is to ensure that there is land available to build housing and to ensure that we have regulations that promote the development of quality housing for residents. We are dependent on private sector developers and property owners to build housing. Invited Response from the Director, Watsonville Community Development Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 Attachment 4 322 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. (F1, F2, F5)
R2:
We continue to recommend that all organizations create and regularly update formal records of the actions they take to address Grand Jury recommendations, and to share those records with the public, in accordance with CA Penal Code Section 933(c). (F1, F2) DeLaveaga Golf Course
F2:
County and City administrations lack a process to review content accuracy and currency and thereby assure timely correction and revision of content. Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 336 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. (F1, F2, F5)
R2:
We continue to recommend that all organizations create and regularly update formal records of the actions they take to address Grand Jury recommendations, and to share those records with the public, in accordance with CA Penal Code Section 933(c). (F1, F2) DeLaveaga Golf Course
F3:
While an emergency generator has been procured, adequate testing of methods of connection and operation has not been done yet.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish ‘SMART’ goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5) Requested 2020 Responses:[21] City of Capitola The City of Capitola partially disagreed with Findings 1, 2, and 3. They update information on a regular basis. There have been occasions when old data did not get removed after updated data was added. Stale and inaccurate data is corrected and replaced whenever found. The City is in the process of updating its website platform to make this task easier for departments. They also stated that SMART (Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound) is not a methodology that the City of Capitola has adopted. The City of Capitola disagreed with Finding 5.They stated that If data is determined to be incorrect or out-of-date, they remove or correct the data. The City does not knowingly keep incorrect or out-of-date information on the City website. The City of Capitola, addressing Recommendation 1, agreed to implement in the future a formal process by December 31, 2020, for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. Regarding Recommendation 3 the City of Capitola felt that establishing SMART goals for website quality assurance and managing these goals beginning in 2021 needed further analysis. City of Santa Cruz The City of Santa Cruz agreed with Findings 1, 2, and 5.[22] Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 337 The City of Santa Cruz addressing Recommendation 1 agreed to implement a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information.[22] City of Scotts Valley The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Findings 1 and 2. The City of Scotts Valley responded in 2020 that they post all City Council, Committee and Commission agendas on the City website’s Agenda Center. Some commissions/committees meet only as needed and a committee’s last meeting may have been a year or more in the past. Thus, even though these agendas and minutes may appear out of date, the content is current. Similarly, the City maintains various plans and documents on its website and although they may be dated years in the past, the posted documents are still the most current. The City updates its website content regularly. They do not have the resources for a dedicated webmaster and staff manages the website on a departmental level. City staff reviews and updates City webpages on a regular, although not regimented, schedule. The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Finding 3. They implemented a major upgrade to their website in May 2018, moving from an antiquated website to the current, highly functional and easy-to-navigate site. The City of Scotts Valley has not adopted the formal goal paradigm of Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound. However, the City maintains the goal, as an operational prerequisite, to provide current, timely and useful information to the public. The City of Scotts Valley disagreed with Finding 5. When the City identifies outdated or inaccurate information on its website, it is rectified as soon as is practically feasible. They view their website as an important communication and engagement tool with the community and do not allow erroneous information to persist on their website. The City of Scotts Valley felt that they needed further analysis regarding
F4:
The City of Santa Cruz’s failure to conduct thorough, regular on-site inspections of the DeLaveaga Golf Course’s restaurant/lodge resulted in excessive renovation costs to the City of Santa Cruz. This contributed to more than doubling the original estimates to bring the building up to code.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish ‘SMART’ goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5) Requested 2020 Responses:[21] City of Capitola The City of Capitola partially disagreed with Findings 1, 2, and 3. They update information on a regular basis. There have been occasions when old data did not get removed after updated data was added. Stale and inaccurate data is corrected and replaced whenever found. The City is in the process of updating its website platform to make this task easier for departments. They also stated that SMART (Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound) is not a methodology that the City of Capitola has adopted. The City of Capitola disagreed with Finding 5.They stated that If data is determined to be incorrect or out-of-date, they remove or correct the data. The City does not knowingly keep incorrect or out-of-date information on the City website. The City of Capitola, addressing Recommendation 1, agreed to implement in the future a formal process by December 31, 2020, for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. Regarding Recommendation 3 the City of Capitola felt that establishing SMART goals for website quality assurance and managing these goals beginning in 2021 needed further analysis. City of Santa Cruz The City of Santa Cruz agreed with Findings 1, 2, and 5.[22] Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 337 The City of Santa Cruz addressing Recommendation 1 agreed to implement a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information.[22] City of Scotts Valley The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Findings 1 and 2. The City of Scotts Valley responded in 2020 that they post all City Council, Committee and Commission agendas on the City website’s Agenda Center. Some commissions/committees meet only as needed and a committee’s last meeting may have been a year or more in the past. Thus, even though these agendas and minutes may appear out of date, the content is current. Similarly, the City maintains various plans and documents on its website and although they may be dated years in the past, the posted documents are still the most current. The City updates its website content regularly. They do not have the resources for a dedicated webmaster and staff manages the website on a departmental level. City staff reviews and updates City webpages on a regular, although not regimented, schedule. The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Finding 3. They implemented a major upgrade to their website in May 2018, moving from an antiquated website to the current, highly functional and easy-to-navigate site. The City of Scotts Valley has not adopted the formal goal paradigm of Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound. However, the City maintains the goal, as an operational prerequisite, to provide current, timely and useful information to the public. The City of Scotts Valley disagreed with Finding 5. When the City identifies outdated or inaccurate information on its website, it is rectified as soon as is practically feasible. They view their website as an important communication and engagement tool with the community and do not allow erroneous information to persist on their website. The City of Scotts Valley felt that they needed further analysis regarding
R5:
The City of Santa Cruz City Manager should perform a lessons learned activity and then update the City’s relevant policies and operating procedures to avoid a future repeat of the DeLaveaga Golf Course’s restaurant/lodge shutdown and renovation no later than second quarter 2021. (F4)
F5:
The new draft Operations Plan lacks the necessary robustness to communicate how major golf course operations will be managed at DeLaveaga Golf Course, including but not limited to facility inspections, water use policies, variable pricing policies, charitable policies, operations review, and basic roles, responsibilities, and authority. Key 2020 Recommendations:
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. (F1, F2, F5)
R3:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish ‘SMART’ goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5) Requested 2020 Responses:[21] City of Capitola The City of Capitola partially disagreed with Findings 1, 2, and 3. They update information on a regular basis. There have been occasions when old data did not get removed after updated data was added. Stale and inaccurate data is corrected and replaced whenever found. The City is in the process of updating its website platform to make this task easier for departments. They also stated that SMART (Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound) is not a methodology that the City of Capitola has adopted. The City of Capitola disagreed with Finding 5.They stated that If data is determined to be incorrect or out-of-date, they remove or correct the data. The City does not knowingly keep incorrect or out-of-date information on the City website. The City of Capitola, addressing Recommendation 1, agreed to implement in the future a formal process by December 31, 2020, for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. Regarding Recommendation 3 the City of Capitola felt that establishing SMART goals for website quality assurance and managing these goals beginning in 2021 needed further analysis. City of Santa Cruz The City of Santa Cruz agreed with Findings 1, 2, and 5.[22] Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 337 The City of Santa Cruz addressing Recommendation 1 agreed to implement a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information.[22] City of Scotts Valley The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Findings 1 and 2. The City of Scotts Valley responded in 2020 that they post all City Council, Committee and Commission agendas on the City website’s Agenda Center. Some commissions/committees meet only as needed and a committee’s last meeting may have been a year or more in the past. Thus, even though these agendas and minutes may appear out of date, the content is current. Similarly, the City maintains various plans and documents on its website and although they may be dated years in the past, the posted documents are still the most current. The City updates its website content regularly. They do not have the resources for a dedicated webmaster and staff manages the website on a departmental level. City staff reviews and updates City webpages on a regular, although not regimented, schedule. The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Finding 3. They implemented a major upgrade to their website in May 2018, moving from an antiquated website to the current, highly functional and easy-to-navigate site. The City of Scotts Valley has not adopted the formal goal paradigm of Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound. However, the City maintains the goal, as an operational prerequisite, to provide current, timely and useful information to the public. The City of Scotts Valley disagreed with Finding 5. When the City identifies outdated or inaccurate information on its website, it is rectified as soon as is practically feasible. They view their website as an important communication and engagement tool with the community and do not allow erroneous information to persist on their website. The City of Scotts Valley felt that they needed further analysis regarding
R6:
The City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Department and the City of Santa Cruz City Manager should add a formal process to the Operation Plan by addressing needed capital improvements, maintenance schedules, facility inspections, water use, variable pricing, charitable policies, operations review, and basic stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Stakeholders include the Santa Cruz City Council, the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, the City’s Parks & Recreation Commission, the Operator, the DeLaveaga Golf Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 331 Course Superintendent, the City’s Building Department and the City’s Public Works Department. (F5) Requested 2020 Responses:[4] The City of Santa Cruz partially disagreed with Finding 4 as related to Recommendation 5, that there was a failure to conduct thorough, regular on-site inspections of the DeLaveaga Golf Course’s restaurant/lodge, resulting in excessive renovation costs to the City of Santa Cruz. This contributed to more than doubling the original estimates to bring the building up to code. They stated that many of the issues discovered during the golf lodge renovation were interior to the building (e.g. electrical, plumbing, rotting wood, etc.). These issues were not evident in general facility inspections. The fundamental cause of the facility issues and exorbitant costs to renovate was a lack of ongoing capital improvement investment into the building over time. Due to limitations of City budgets, and to some degree, the local political will to invest in the golf course, funding was not sufficiently appropriated to maintain the golf lodge over time. Therefore, the result was a costly repair due to years of virtually no maintenance. The City of Santa Cruz stated that this is an important lesson as other facilities at the golf course including the maintenance facility, golf cart barn, and driving range, among others, are in desperate need of investment. Otherwise they may face similarly expensive capital needs in the future. This is also true of many City-owned buildings such as the Civic Auditorium, Public Works Corp Yard and the Parks Yard, Market Street Senior Center, Harvey West Park facilities, and many more. Investment in an aging portfolio of City-owned assets is critical for the future. Regarding Finding 5, as related to Recommendation 6, the City of Santa Cruz felt that they needed further analysis on whether or not the City Manager should perform a lessons learned activity and then update the City’s relevant policies and operating procedures to avoid a future repeat of the DeLaveaga Golf Course’s restaurant/lodge shutdown and renovation no later than second quarter 2021. The City of Santa Cruz stated that as of July 2020, there are no specific plans to do this, although it would be a helpful exercise and the Parks and Recreation Department would support it. The Parks and Recreation Department responded, indicating it would discuss with the City Manager’s Office a plan to chart a course of action related to this recommendation before the end of calendar year 2020. 2022-2023 Update: Were Commitments Kept? In response to this jury’s request for an update, the Parks and Recreation Department indicated budgeting, and the Santa Cruz City Council approved funding to assess facilities and develop a long-term Capital Investment Plan as outlined in Budget, Fiscal Years 2023-2027.[5] Additionally, the City Council appropriated funding for critical infrastructure and facility upgrades in FY 2023.[6] The Parks and Recreation Department will initiate these projects in 2023. The completion of the study is estimated to be in June 2023, and the improvements to the driving range and golf course assets are estimated to be in October 2023.[7] Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 332 . Fail in the Jail[8] Summary: On September 28, 2019 an unplanned power failure at the Santa Cruz County Main Jail resulted in the loss of critical capability to provide safe and secure operation of the jail. While the risks were known well in advance of the failure event, steps to manage and mitigate the risks were not taken. Established, comprehensive policies for management in a power failure emergency were in place, but those policies were not followed. Evidence of process improvement and risk management practice after the event was lacking. Key 2020 Findings:
F6:
Although the Cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville agreed that there appear to be unused or underutilized parcels of land that could possibly be used for homeless services, it is not clear how this could be done.
F7:
ThemasterplanforCoralStreetbeingworkedbytheCityofSantaCruzincludes considerationoflimitingvehicleaccesstoCoralStreet,butthegrantsreceivedby theCityandtheplantobuild120unitsofsupportivehousingpreemptthe originalGrandJuryrecommendationtoconsiderclosingit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The City of Santa Cruz should complete and then implement their Master Plan for Coral Street, including consideration of limiting vehicle access. The City of Santa Cruz should report to the Grand Jury on the status of Coral Street no later than December 31, 2023. (F7) Tangled Web
F8:
Staffing shortages made automating the process for updating the website of the City of Santa Cruz and redesigning the website of the City of Scotts Valley more difficult.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The City of Santa Cruz should verify that their commitment to automate the Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 343 process for updating their website has been completed by October 31, 2023. (F8)
F9:
Data security is an important issue, including the security of voter registration data and it is unknown if measures have been taken in this area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Santa Cruz County Clerk should outline steps that have been taken to make voter registration data more secure by September 30, 2023. (F9)
F12:
While all local municipalities have voiced support for prioritizing housing for local workers, only some of them have clear local preference guidelines that give some priority to local workers. Without clear guidelines and incentives, new housing is more likely to be purchased by those who do not live and work here. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City provides local preference in the purchase of below-market-for-sale housing developments in Watsonville, because these projects do not utilize state or federal funding that would prohibit the practice. The Affordable Housing Program requires the creation of a lottery for the affordable units in a new subdivision, whereby tickets are given to those that: 1. Live in the City of Watsonville (1 ticket) 2. Work in the City of Watsonville (1 ticket) 3. Live and work in the City of Watsonville (3 tickets) The City also requires local and bilingual marketing efforts. To the extent allowed by applicable law, developers are required to make reasonable efforts to sell affordable units to buyers who live or work within the Watsonville City limits. To the extent necessary to ensure compliance with State and Federal fair housing laws, developers are required to employ bilingual staff to market the affordable units and prepare and use bilingual sales and marketing materials for the affordable units. The City also provides greater financial assistance to assist eligible homebuyers to purchase homes in the City of Watsonville in accordance with the requirements of the City of Watsonville’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. Applicants must provide valid evidence that they reside and/or are employed within the Watsonville City limits at the time of loan application, to be eligible for the higher loan limits. Invited Response from the Director, Watsonville Community Development Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 Attachment 4 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 323 In addition, the City has local preference requirements for rental projects; to wit, affordable rental units shall be marketed exclusively to existing City of Watsonville residents for two (2) weeks before any marketing to other persons (Watsonville Municipal Code, Chapter 14-46.140(g)(4)); and for projects requiring a five (5%) percent set aside for Section 8 vouchers, those Section 8 units must first be made available to the County of Santa Cruz Housing Authority for at least one-month period from the date of marketing for a new unit ((Watsonville Municipal Code, Chapter 14-46.040(a)(1)). For 100% affordable rental housing projects, preferences are dictated by the funding sources for the project. For instance, the Joe Serna Fund is earmarked for the provision of units for farmworkers, whereas there are other funds for kids aging out of foster-care, or housing for homeless. However, even in these projects, local preference is not allowed to be used because it is considered a discriminatory practice. Invited Response from the Director, Watsonville Community Development Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 Attachment 4 324 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
By the end of 2023, the city of Watsonville should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of low income housing. (F12) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: In 2002, the City of Watsonville adopted a local hiring ordinance (WMC Chapter 7-15) that requires contractors who receive City public works construction contracts in excess of $600,000 to hire local residents. Under this regulation, at least 15% of each contractor’s construction workforce, including subcontractors, shall live within the boundary of the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. Additionally, at least 50% of the workforce must live within the Tri-County area (Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito). Invited Response from the Director, Watsonville Community Development Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 Attachment 4 [Return to Table of Contents] 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 327 Honoring Commitments to the Public County Agency Actions in Response to 2019–2020 Grand Jury Recommendations
F13:
All municipalities are trying to identify and facilitate the building of housing projects, but most of that is done independently of the other municipalities or with outside partners. Since workforce housing and transportation gridlock is a county-wide problem, all county municipalities need to work more closely together and with property owners to develop housing solutions. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Planning staff have opportunities to regularly meet with planners from other jurisdictions through a variety of different agencies, including the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC),the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), the Housing for Health Partnership, and the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP). AMBAG holds regular meetings for planning directors and senior planning staff. The Housing for Health Partnership is a county-wide collaboration of agencies focused on addressing homelessness. In addition, the planning directors from all Santa Cruz agencies meet several times a year to collaborate and share ideas. Ad-hoc collaboration occurs across agencies as well in an effort to share knowledge and best practices. Santa Cruz County abuts the City of Watsonville, and there have been two affordable housing projects that the two agencies have coordinated to bring to fruition, known as Pippin 1 and Pippin 2. Pippin 1 was a 46-unit project that included 26 units in the County and 20 units in the City of Watsonville. Both jurisdictions had to coordinate permitting and inspection authority for the project, which the City annexed after completion. Pippin 2 is the 80-unit extension of this project built entirely within the County, however the City is expected to annex this project as well after completion. The project has been designed to meet City standards for streets, sidewalks, solid waste, etcetera, as the housing project will be ultimately serviced by the City. Invited Response from the Director, Watsonville Community Development Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 Attachment 4 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 325
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
By the end of 2023 the city of Watsonville should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As stated in R13, planning directors and staff regularly collaborate in a variety of regular and one-off meetings, through AMBAG, RTC, MBEP, Housing for Health, and on projects that involve multi-jurisdiction coordination, such as Pippin 1 and 2. Additionally, the planning directors for every jurisdiction in the county meet at least 5 times a year to collaborate and share information. Please note that state law requires that housing development applications be approved only by the jurisdiction in which they are located, and this prevents jurisdictions from developing joint projects outside of those described previously. Invited Response from the Director, Watsonville Community Development Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 Attachment 4 326 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F21:
If underutilized parcels of land throughout Santa Cruz County were identified, such as the area near Coral Street in Santa Cruz and the parcel adjacent to the County Mental Health Building in Watsonville, these parcels could potentially be used to increase the number of beds and services to support the homeless. Key 2020 Recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The County Elections Department should incorporate amendments to ELEC 2188 (1994), as specified in AB 1678 and AB 1044, in the county application and website information, namely that county recipients must inform the Secretary of State of a data breach, and that County Applicants may be subject to data security training.
R9:
By December 31, 2020, the City of Santa Cruz should evaluate whether closing Coral Street permanently to thru traffic, to make more space available for additional housing and services for the homeless, would be a viable option. (F13 was cited in the 2019-2020 Grand Jury report, but this probably should have been F12 and/or F21) Requested 2020 Responses:[13]
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F8:
The City of Capitola claims to have significantly fewer resources to attract housing planners and builders than do the bigger municipalities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz, but that does not mean the City should be exempt from the need to construct housing for local low income workers. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City agrees it should not be exempt from the need to construct housing for local low-income workers. However, it is a fact that Capitola has significantly less housing staff and financial resources than the City of Santa Cruz, City of Watsonville, and the County of Santa Cruz, which can make it more challenging to partner with housing developers toward construction of projects. Two new housing fund sources recently became available through the payoff of a large housing loan and the recent award from the state of PLHA funds. Capitola intends to utilize the new funding source to assist MidPen Housing with plans for a 52- unit 100% affordable project at 1098 38th Avenue. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 254 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F4 – F6, F8) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The 6th cycle draft housing element, as submitted to HCD, identifies more than the required parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, including low-income housing. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 257
R2:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F4, F6 – F8) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City updated the Zoning Code to allow mixed-use in all commercial zones (2014- 2020); updated Chapter 18.02 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (2020/2021); added Chapter 18.05 for Inclusionary Housing Impact Fees (2020/2021); and added Chapter 17.82 establishing Objective Standards for Multifamily and Mixed-Use Developments (2022). The draft 6th cycle housing element includes many properties within Capitola’s mixed-use zoning district. These accomplishments create significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed-use businesses and housing citywide. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 258 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F12:
While all local municipalities have voiced support for prioritizing housing for local workers, only some of them have clear local preference guidelines that give some priority to local workers. Without clear guidelines and incentives, new housing is more likely to be purchased by those who do not live and work here. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Capitola’s inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) gives preference to local residents and workers. Within Capitola Municipal Code Section 18.02.080, the City’s inclusionary ordinance gives preferences for ownership inclusionary units to households who live or work in Capitola. Beyond the IHO, Capitola does not have requirements for prioritizing housing for local workers. However, during the review of a recent 36-unit, 100 percent affordable housing development project at 4401 Capitola Road, the project was conditioned to require local worker preference. Prior to adopting a standard for local worker preference, the City would have to do more research on applicable laws and fair housing practices. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 255
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of ADUs as well as low income housing. (F12) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City cannot legally require private homeowners to hire local workers for construction of ADUs. Further, this requirement would be an impediment to housing development due to limited construction workers at the local level, and increased development costs which would make development of new housing less feasible. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 260 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F13:
All municipalities are trying to identify and facilitate the building of housing projects, but most of that is done independently of the other municipalities or with outside partners. Since workforce housing and transportation gridlock is a county-wide problem, all county municipalities need to work more closely together and with property owners to develop housing solutions. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): While representatives from the different jurisdictions can and do regularly learn from one another and collaborate on the best ways to grow across the region, particularly when it comes to planning for and requiring increased densities in areas close to transit and other daily needs, individual projects are typically best handled by the jurisdiction in which they are located. All jurisdictions in the County regularly collaborate during the Association of Monterey Bay Area Government (AMBAG) meetings. Senate Bill 375 set forth consistency requirements between transportation planning processes and housing planning processes. More specifically, the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) must be consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) development pattern. For the Monterey Bay Area, these requirements necessitate extensive coordination between three regional transportation planning agencies, two major transit agencies, 21 local jurisdictions, two councils of government and AMBAG, the region's metropolitan planning organization. The RHNA process assigned more units to Capitola and the County of Santa Cruz due to the number of jobs in mid-county to facilitate significant housing in the mid-county area where a large percentage of jobs are located. Also, Planning Directors from throughout the County meet regularly to collaborate on housing and other related issues. The Planning Department staff from the countywide jurisdictions also collaborate through AMBAG meetings, trainings, discussions of state legislation, joint presentations, and various other communications. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 256 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
By the end of 2023, the City of Capitola should demonstrate a plan to work with the County of Santa Cruz as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop housing close to transportation corridors along Hwy 1 and 41st Avenue. (F6, F7, F13) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Planning Directors from throughout the County meet regularly to collaborate on housing and other related issues. The Planning Department staff from the countywide jurisdictions also collaborate through AMBAG meetings, trainings, discussions of state legislation, joint presentations, and various other communication streams. Specific development projects typically are handled by the specific jurisdiction where they are located. In terms of regional planning, all jurisdictions in the County regularly collaborate during the Association of Monterey Bay Area Government (AMBAG) meetings. Senate Bill 375 set forth consistency requirements between transportation planning processes and housing planning processes. More specifically, the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) must be consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) development pattern. For the Monterey Bay Area, these requirements necessitate extensive coordination between three regional transportation planning agencies, two major transit agencies, 21 local jurisdictions, two councils of government and AMBAG, the region's metropolitan planning organization. The regional coordination encourages housing development near transportation corridors along Hwy 1 and 41st Avenue. Also, Capitola’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element includes numerous sites along 41st Avenue due to existing transit and jobs. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 259
R5:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As stated in R3, Planning Directors from throughout the County meet regularly to collaborate on housing and other related issues. The Planning Department staff from the countywide jurisdictions also collaborate through AMBAG meetings, trainings, discussions of state legislation, joint presentations, and various other communication streams. Specific development projects typically are handled by the specific jurisdiction where they are located. Required Response from the Capitola City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 261 Grand Jury ATTN: Civil Grand Jury Response (Housing Our Workers) Emeline Nguyen Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 12:46 PM To: "[email protected]" Cc: Laura Schmidt , Matt Huffaker Good afternoon Honorable Judge Cogliati and Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, We received an email that the Grand Jury report is past due. Please see the attached report that was submitted on August 15th. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you, Emeline [Quoted text hidden] 20230816_Civil Grand Jury_Housing Our Workers_V2.pdf 225K 262 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury The 2022–2023 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Requires the Santa Cruz City Council to Respond by August 31, 2023 to the Findings and Recommendations listed below which were assigned to them in the report titled Housing Our Workers Essential Workers Need Affordable Housing! Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. You are required to respond and to make your response available to the public by the California Penal Code (PC) §933(c). Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report. Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response. Housing Our Workers Published on June 2, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 263 Instructions for Respondents Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations. Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05: 1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why. 2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable. 3. Please confirm the date on which you approved the assigned responses: We approved these responses in a regular public meeting as shown in our minutes dated August 8, 2023. 4. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F4:
The safe and secure operation of the County Jail remains vulnerable during an unexpected power outage. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Main Jail is capable of safely functioning in the event of a power outage. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by August 7, 2023
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff should verify that the new generator system is operational by August 31, 2023. If not, the reasons for the further delay should be explained. (F4) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _x_ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Santa Cruz County General Services Department is managing the installation of the new Main Jail generator. The new generator should be fully operational by August 31, 2023. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. AGREE with the Finding, or b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why.
R2:
For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information: a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable.
R3:
When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Packet as a PDF file attachment to both The Honorable Judge Syda Cogliati [email protected] and The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected]. If you have questions about this response form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected]. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Honoring Commitments to the Public Due by August 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 365
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F9:
above F12 below) 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 279
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
By the end of 2023 the City of Scotts Valley should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F9) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City has submitted a draft of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. The City plans to adopt the Housing Element by December 2023. The draft Housing Element includes a sites inventory/analysis and draft housing policy program which adequately plans for and accommodates its RHNA obligation. The policy program provides various strategies to assist the City in planning for additional low income housing units. The draft sites inventory/analysis identifies enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, for the City to meet its RHNA housing allocation of 1,220 housing units The inventory includes adequate capacity to meet RHNA allocations at all income levels (very-low, low, moderate, and above moderate). Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R8:
By the end of 2023, the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the City. (F9 – F11) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Planning Directors from throughout the County meet regularly to collaborate on housing and other related issues. The Planning Department staff from the countywide jurisdictions also collaborate through AMBAG meetings, trainings, discussions of state legislation, joint presentations, and various other communication streams. While the City has created incentives to facilitate development, and helped facilitate discussions among property owners, the City is not able to compel private property owners to develop properties. The City will continue to maintain relationships with for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the City. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F11:
The City of Scotts Valley claims to have significantly fewer resources to attract housing planners and builders than do the bigger municipalities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz, but that does not mean the City should be exempt from the need to construct housing for local low income workers. _X_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City agrees that smaller jurisdictions have fewer resources to attract affordable housing developers. Scotts Valley has never claimed to be exempt from the need for housing and continues to be committed to encouraging the construction of housing for local low income workers. However, the City does not construct housing nor can the City compel private property owners to develop properties. (Please see responses to
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of 2023, the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the City. (F9 – F11) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Planning Directors from throughout the County meet regularly to collaborate on housing and other related issues. The Planning Department staff from the countywide jurisdictions also collaborate through AMBAG meetings, trainings, discussions of state legislation, joint presentations, and various other communication streams. While the City has created incentives to facilitate development, and helped facilitate discussions among property owners, the City is not able to compel private property owners to develop properties. The City will continue to maintain relationships with for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the City. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F12:
While all local municipalities have voiced support for prioritizing housing for local workers, only some of them have clear local preference guidelines that give some priority to local workers. Without clear guidelines and incentives, new housing is more likely to be purchased by those who do not live and work here. _X_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City agrees that clear local preference guidelines that give priority to local workers is important and thus has a preference system to ensure residents and workers are prioritized. Applicants are prioritized in the order listed below: 1. Live and work in Scotts Valley: A household which includes at least one adult whose primary work location is within the city limits of the City of Scotts Valley and they have been working in Scotts Valley for a minimum of six (6) months, and the household has resided in the City of Scotts Valley for a minimum of six (6) months prior to the date of application to purchase the unit. 2. Live in Scotts Valley: A household which has resided within the city limits of the City of Scotts Valley for a minimum of six (6) months prior to the date of application to purchase the unit. 3. Work in Scotts Valley: A household which includes at least one (1) adult who has worked within the city limits of the City of Scotts Valley for a minimum of one (1) year prior to the application to purchase the unit and at least one (1) adult shall be working in Scotts Valley at the time of occupancy of the unit. 4. Live and work in Santa Cruz County: A household which contains at least one (1) adult who works within the County of Santa Cruz and the household has resided in the County of Santa Cruz for a minimum of one (1) year prior to the date of application to purchase the unit. 5. Live in Santa Cruz County: A household which has resided in the County of Santa Cruz for a minimum of six (6) months prior to the date of application to purchase the unit. 6. Work in Santa Cruz County: A household which includes at least one (1) adult has worked in the County of Santa Cruz for a minimum of one (1) year prior to the date of application to rent the unit and at least one (1) adult shall be working in the county of Santa Cruz at the time of occupancy of the unit. 7. All Others: A household which does not meet any of the above listed Preference Criteria. Historically most affordable housing units are purchased or rented by persons in the top 3 ranking categories. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By the end of 2023 the City of Scotts Valley should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of low income housing. (F12) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Note that the wording of this recommendation is a bit confusing. For purposes of this response, it has been interpreted to mean that local workers should be preferred when it comes to their ability to buy or rent low-income housing, the City has regulations in place to achieve that goal (Please see Response F12). 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 285
F13:
All municipalities are trying to identify and facilitate the building of housing projects, but most of that is done independently of the other municipalities or with outside partners. Since workforce housing and transportation gridlock is a county-wide problem, all county municipalities need to work more closely together and with property owners to develop housing solutions. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Representatives from the different jurisdictions regularly learn from one another and collaborate on the best ways to grow across the region, particularly when it comes to planning for and requiring increased densities in areas close to transit and other daily needs. Individual projects are typically best handled by the jurisdiction in which they are located. Planning Directors throughout the County also meet at least five times per year to collaborate on housing and other related issues. The Planning Department staff from countywide jurisdictions also collaborate through AMBAG meetings, trainings, discussions of state legislation, joint presentations, and various other communication streams. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 281
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By the end of 2023 the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) _X_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __ HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe __ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Planning Directors throughout the County meet at least five times per year to collaborate on housing and other related issues. The Planning Department staff from countywide jurisdictions also collaborate through the AMBAG meetings, trainings, discussions of state legislation, joint presentations, and various other communication streams. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 285 Grand Jury City of Watsonville Response to Grand Jury Report 'Irwin Ortiz' via Santa Cruz Grand Jury Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 12:16 PM Reply-To: Irwin Ortiz To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" Dear Grand Jury and Honorable Judge Cogliati, I hope this email finds you in good health. At our August 29, 2023, City Council Meeting, the City Council unanimously approved the response packet to the Grand Jury Report received by the City. We thank you for your patience and your good work. Please see the response packet as approved by our City Council attached to this email. If you have any questions, please fee free to contact me. Irwin I. Ortiz, City Clerk City Clerk's Office (831) 768-3048 275 Main Street, Suite 400, Watsonville, CA 95076 FAX: 831-761-0736 E-mail: [email protected] Open Monday - Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM **Public Records Requests (PRR) submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturday, Sunday, holidays, will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10-day response period begins when the PRR is received. Please note: Our website domain and emails have changed on 4/17/23 to watsonville.gov Item 9.b. Civil Grand Jury Housing & Cyber Response.pdf 1178K 286 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Report: “Cyber Threat Preparedness: Phishing and Passwords and Ransomware, Oh My!”
R2:
Watsonville response to “Cyber Threat Preparedness: Phishing and Passwords and Ransomware, Oh My!”
R3:
Report: “Housing Our Workers: Essential Workers Need Affordable Housing!”
R4:
Watsonville response to “Housing Our Workers: Essential Workers Need Affordable Housing!”
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Permanent mandatory overtime for Corrections Officers has a negative effect on them that leads to high turnover, and the need to hire more COs and train them, which is inefficient and demoralizing for the Sheriff’s Office. _X AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 165
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In the next budget cycle the Board of Supervisors should allocate more funding to the Sheriff’s Office to be used to increase Correctional Officer pay, and/or give out increased hiring or retention bonuses as the Sheriff’s Office determines. (F1) _x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: On September 13, 2022, the Board of Supervisors approved a three-year agreement with the Santa Cruz Correctional Officers Association, resulting in an approximate 11% increase with additional incentives for Supervising Correctional Officers (4%) and a Longevity/Retention Bonus for all Correctional Officers with over eight years of service (3%). Contract provisions intentionally focused on recruitment and retention to address the historical difficulty in filling vacancies for Corrections Officer positions. The challenges faced by Santa Cruz County are not unique and are compounded by the need for extensive backgrounds, 24/7 operations, and the nature of the job. In addition, the Board approved a recruiting and hiring incentive program in October 2021 that pays $10,000 (subject to legally required taxes) to a new hire in the classification of Corrections Officer and/or lateral transfer upon completion of the new hire probationary period, which is one year or 2080 County service hours. These efforts have yielded 34 new hires since October 2021. County staff will continue working collaboratively on strategies to stabilize the Corrections workforce, which is critical to sustaining stable and experienced personnel in performing their essential work to ensure the safety and care of all individuals incarcerated. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 157
F2:
Overcrowding at the Main Jail would be alleviated if the Blaine Street Women’s Jail and the second unit at Rountree could be reopened. __ AGREE _X PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Blaine Street was reopened on 5/19/23. Opening the second unit at Rountree would help ease overcrowding but would not solve it entirely. Overcrowding is a result of many different factors including but not limited to our administratively separated population, different classifications of incarcerated persons, and factors such as mental illness and substance abuse. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 166 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Blaine Street Women’s Jail should be reopened as soon as practical, but definitely before the end of 2023. (The reopening is imminent and will occur mid May 2023) (F2 – F4) _X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Blaine Street facility was reopened on 5/19/23. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 176 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R3:
After Blaine Street, the second unit at Rountree should be reopened as soon as sufficient staffing is available, and preferably by the end of 2023. (F2, F4, F5) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Sheriff’s Office will continue to recruit, hire, and retain Correctional Officers. When staffing permits, we plan to reopen the second housing unit at Rountree. We do not have a timetable for that at this time. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 177
F3:
Keeping women who do not need to be in a high security facility in the Main Jail is clearly detrimental to their mental health, and to their chances of staying out of jail once released. __ AGREE _X PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Blaine Street is more conducive to programming and a better overall environment. We disagree that the Main Jail is “clearly detrimental to their mental health, and to their chances of staying out of jail once released.” We believe mental health and recidivism are more complex issues and cannot be reduced to merely the environment in which one is housed while in custody; nor is the security level of a custodial facility determinative to its effectiveness of future recidivism rates. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 167
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Blaine Street Women’s Jail should be reopened as soon as practical, but definitely before the end of 2023. (The reopening is imminent and will occur mid May 2023) (F2 – F4) _X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Blaine Street facility was reopened on 5/19/23. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 176 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F4:
Reopening Blaine Street and the second unit at Rountree would give the Sheriff’s Office much more scope to balance the jail population between the three facilities, and would allow some inmates from the Main Jail to move to Rountree and take advantage of the programming available there. _X AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 168 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Blaine Street Women’s Jail should be reopened as soon as practical, but definitely before the end of 2023. (The reopening is imminent and will occur mid May 2023) (F2 – F4) _X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Blaine Street facility was reopened on 5/19/23. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 176 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R3:
After Blaine Street, the second unit at Rountree should be reopened as soon as sufficient staffing is available, and preferably by the end of 2023. (F2, F4, F5) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Sheriff’s Office will continue to recruit, hire, and retain Correctional Officers. When staffing permits, we plan to reopen the second housing unit at Rountree. We do not have a timetable for that at this time. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 177
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should commission a study to determine the most effective use of the three jails and any modifications to existing facilities needed to house the expected jail population into the future. This study should be completed by the end of 2024. (F4, F9, F10) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Sheriff’s Office and County Administrative Office have been exploring the best approach to conduct this study, known as a Facility Needs Assessment. In the next six months, they will determine whether to issue a Request for Proposals to identify a consultant for this assessment. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Grand Jury Responses to the findings and recommendations in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report, “Envisioning the Future of our Jails.....” Caitlin Smith Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:35 PM Good Afternoon, Please see attached for the Board of Supervisors, the Public Defender, and Sheriff’s responses to the findings and recommendations in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report, “Envisioning the Future of our Jails – We Continue to ‘Kick The Can’.” Best, Caitlin C. Smith County Supervisors’ Analyst Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors 701 Ocean Street, Room 500 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 831-454-2200 main 831-454-3516 direct [email protected] To email all five members of the Board of Supervisors at once, please use: [email protected] 4 attachments Future of our Jails response Cover letter.pdf 37K Future of our Jails Report-Board of Supervisors response.pdf 321K Future of our Jails Report-Sheriff's response.pdf 256K Future of our Jails Report-Public Defender Response.pdf 212K 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 161 County of Santa Cruz BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 701 OCEAN STREET, SUITE 500, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4069 (831) 454-2200 • FAX: (831) 454-3262 TDD/TTY - Call 711 MANU KOENIG ZACH FRIEND JUSTIN CUMMINGS FELIPE HERNANDEZ BRUCE MCPHERSON FIRST DISTRICT SECOND DISTRICT THIRD DISTRICT FOURTH DISTRICT FIFTH DISTRICT August 8, 2023 The Honorable Syda Cogliati Santa Cruz Courthouse 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 RE: Response to the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report titled "Envisioning the Future of our Jails - We Continue to 'Kick The Can"' Dear Judge Cogliati: The purpose of this letter is to formally transmit the responses of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, the Santa Cruz County Public Defender, and the Santa Cruz County Sheriff to the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report titled "Envisioning the Future of our Jails - We Continue to 'Kick The Can'." Sincerely, ZACH FRI · ND, Chair Board of Supervisors ZF: cs
F5:
Lack of programming at the Main Jail is bad for inmate welfare, both their mental health while on the inside, and their ability to stay out of the criminal justice system once released. __ AGREE _X PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Sheriff’s Office believes in the value of programming for incarcerated persons. We believe it can have a positive effect on their well-being, should they choose to participate. We believe mental health and recidivism are much more complex than issues such as environment and access to programming. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 169
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
After Blaine Street, the second unit at Rountree should be reopened as soon as sufficient staffing is available, and preferably by the end of 2023. (F2, F4, F5) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – _X summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Sheriff’s Office will continue to recruit, hire, and retain Correctional Officers. When staffing permits, we plan to reopen the second housing unit at Rountree. We do not have a timetable for that at this time. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 177
F6:
Programs such as those run by the Public Defender’s Office and CAFES that reduce recidivism are effective because they give former inmates the mental health and/or substance abuse treatments they need, as well as case management and supportive housing. _X AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 170 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Programming at the Main Jail, both that intended to stimulate and entertain inmates, and that intended to provide them with skills for life on the outside, should be restarted as soon as practical and as Covid restrictions allow. (F6) _X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Sheriff’s Office restarted in-person programming in May 2022. Contracted organizations must recruit and train staff to provide programs. We are continually evaluating new programs but are somewhat limited at the Main Jail by lack of classrooms and space to conduct group programs. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Envisioning the Future of our Jails Due by July 24, 2023 178 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The FY 2023-24 budget provides County Behavioral Health with funding to treat mental illness and provide supportive housing to those in need of these services, including released inmates. Funding allocations are determined annually as part of the budget cycle. The FY 2024-25 budget will be developed beginning in fall 2023 and ending in spring 2024 during which time staff will determine how much additional funding is available to support these programs. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 159
F7:
Lack of continuing care for released inmates, most especially those with mental illness, SUD and/or who will be homeless after release, significantly contributes to recidivism, which then contributes to the need for a new jail. _x_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 153
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Public Defender’s Office should receive funding in the next budget cycle to provide adequate anti recidivism programs. (F7 – F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The FY 2023-24 budget provides the Public Defender’s Office with funding to provide holistic representation to the people they represent. This holistic model of representation supports countywide efforts to reduce recidivism and connect people to meaningful, stabilizing services and support in the community. Funding allocations are determined annually as part of the budget cycle. The FY 2024-25 budget will be developed beginning in fall 2023 and ending in spring 2024 during which time staff will determine how much additional funding is available to support these programs. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The FY 2023-24 budget provides County Behavioral Health with funding to treat mental illness and provide supportive housing to those in need of these services, including released inmates. Funding allocations are determined annually as part of the budget cycle. The FY 2024-25 budget will be developed beginning in fall 2023 and ending in spring 2024 during which time staff will determine how much additional funding is available to support these programs. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 159
F8:
Some continuing care does exist, but is massively underfunded, especially for former inmates who need supportive housing. _x_ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): There is a need for additional continuing care in the community, particularly for those suffering from mental illness or substance use disorders. Supportive housing is especially critical for former inmates who are unhoused and struggling with these challenges. There is also a need to make continuing care that does exist less diffuse and difficult to access. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Public Defender’s Office should receive funding in the next budget cycle to provide adequate anti recidivism programs. (F7 – F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The FY 2023-24 budget provides the Public Defender’s Office with funding to provide holistic representation to the people they represent. This holistic model of representation supports countywide efforts to reduce recidivism and connect people to meaningful, stabilizing services and support in the community. Funding allocations are determined annually as part of the budget cycle. The FY 2024-25 budget will be developed beginning in fall 2023 and ending in spring 2024 during which time staff will determine how much additional funding is available to support these programs. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The FY 2023-24 budget provides County Behavioral Health with funding to treat mental illness and provide supportive housing to those in need of these services, including released inmates. Funding allocations are determined annually as part of the budget cycle. The FY 2024-25 budget will be developed beginning in fall 2023 and ending in spring 2024 during which time staff will determine how much additional funding is available to support these programs. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 159
F9:
The Main Jail is old, has been overcrowded, and does not meet current requirements for incarceration. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Main Jail is old, overcrowded and in need of replacement. The Main Jail is not conducive to modern Corrections practices and would not be built the same way under current practices, policies, and community expectations. However, the Main Jail has passed all Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Inspections and does meet current requirements for use as a corrections facility. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 155
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
The Public Defender’s Office should receive funding in the next budget cycle to provide adequate anti recidivism programs. (F7 – F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The FY 2023-24 budget provides the Public Defender’s Office with funding to provide holistic representation to the people they represent. This holistic model of representation supports countywide efforts to reduce recidivism and connect people to meaningful, stabilizing services and support in the community. Funding allocations are determined annually as part of the budget cycle. The FY 2024-25 budget will be developed beginning in fall 2023 and ending in spring 2024 during which time staff will determine how much additional funding is available to support these programs. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The FY 2023-24 budget provides County Behavioral Health with funding to treat mental illness and provide supportive housing to those in need of these services, including released inmates. Funding allocations are determined annually as part of the budget cycle. The FY 2024-25 budget will be developed beginning in fall 2023 and ending in spring 2024 during which time staff will determine how much additional funding is available to support these programs. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 159
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should commission a study to determine the most effective use of the three jails and any modifications to existing facilities needed to house the expected jail population into the future. This study should be completed by the end of 2024. (F4, F9, F10) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Sheriff’s Office and County Administrative Office have been exploring the best approach to conduct this study, known as a Facility Needs Assessment. In the next six months, they will determine whether to issue a Request for Proposals to identify a consultant for this assessment. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Grand Jury Responses to the findings and recommendations in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report, “Envisioning the Future of our Jails.....” Caitlin Smith Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:35 PM Good Afternoon, Please see attached for the Board of Supervisors, the Public Defender, and Sheriff’s responses to the findings and recommendations in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report, “Envisioning the Future of our Jails – We Continue to ‘Kick The Can’.” Best, Caitlin C. Smith County Supervisors’ Analyst Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors 701 Ocean Street, Room 500 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 831-454-2200 main 831-454-3516 direct [email protected] To email all five members of the Board of Supervisors at once, please use: [email protected] 4 attachments Future of our Jails response Cover letter.pdf 37K Future of our Jails Report-Board of Supervisors response.pdf 321K Future of our Jails Report-Sheriff's response.pdf 256K Future of our Jails Report-Public Defender Response.pdf 212K 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 161 County of Santa Cruz BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 701 OCEAN STREET, SUITE 500, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4069 (831) 454-2200 • FAX: (831) 454-3262 TDD/TTY - Call 711 MANU KOENIG ZACH FRIEND JUSTIN CUMMINGS FELIPE HERNANDEZ BRUCE MCPHERSON FIRST DISTRICT SECOND DISTRICT THIRD DISTRICT FOURTH DISTRICT FIFTH DISTRICT August 8, 2023 The Honorable Syda Cogliati Santa Cruz Courthouse 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 RE: Response to the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report titled "Envisioning the Future of our Jails - We Continue to 'Kick The Can"' Dear Judge Cogliati: The purpose of this letter is to formally transmit the responses of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, the Santa Cruz County Public Defender, and the Santa Cruz County Sheriff to the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report titled "Envisioning the Future of our Jails - We Continue to 'Kick The Can'." Sincerely, ZACH FRI · ND, Chair Board of Supervisors ZF: cs
F10:
The Main Jail might be adequate for incarcerating inmates who need to be in a high security facility, providing it can be renovated to meet current incarceration requirements for a much reduced population. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _x_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The current Main Jail needs to be fully replaced. The building is old, resulting in continual and costly maintenance, and lacks the modern design and infrastructure needed to ensure efficient and secure operations. A new jail facility can address these shortcomings by incorporating state-of-the-art systems, improved inmate management techniques, and enhanced facilities for staff and inmates alike, while prioritizing the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders through better programming spaces, educational resources, and medical and mental health services. Additionally, a new facility can be designed with sustainability in mind, promoting energy efficiency while creating a safer and more effective environment for both staff and inmates that meets modern correctional standards. Furthermore, continued operation of multiple facilities in different parts of the County is costly and not an efficient use of limited staffing resources. Consolidating facilities to a smaller geographic area would allow more efficient utilization of staffing. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should commission a study to determine the most effective use of the three jails and any modifications to existing facilities needed to house the expected jail population into the future. This study should be completed by the end of 2024. (F4, F9, F10) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe _x_ (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Sheriff’s Office and County Administrative Office have been exploring the best approach to conduct this study, known as a Facility Needs Assessment. In the next six months, they will determine whether to issue a Request for Proposals to identify a consultant for this assessment. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Grand Jury Responses to the findings and recommendations in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report, “Envisioning the Future of our Jails.....” Caitlin Smith Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:35 PM Good Afternoon, Please see attached for the Board of Supervisors, the Public Defender, and Sheriff’s responses to the findings and recommendations in the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report, “Envisioning the Future of our Jails – We Continue to ‘Kick The Can’.” Best, Caitlin C. Smith County Supervisors’ Analyst Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors 701 Ocean Street, Room 500 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 831-454-2200 main 831-454-3516 direct [email protected] To email all five members of the Board of Supervisors at once, please use: [email protected] 4 attachments Future of our Jails response Cover letter.pdf 37K Future of our Jails Report-Board of Supervisors response.pdf 321K Future of our Jails Report-Sheriff's response.pdf 256K Future of our Jails Report-Public Defender Response.pdf 212K 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 161 County of Santa Cruz BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 701 OCEAN STREET, SUITE 500, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4069 (831) 454-2200 • FAX: (831) 454-3262 TDD/TTY - Call 711 MANU KOENIG ZACH FRIEND JUSTIN CUMMINGS FELIPE HERNANDEZ BRUCE MCPHERSON FIRST DISTRICT SECOND DISTRICT THIRD DISTRICT FOURTH DISTRICT FIFTH DISTRICT August 8, 2023 The Honorable Syda Cogliati Santa Cruz Courthouse 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 RE: Response to the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report titled "Envisioning the Future of our Jails - We Continue to 'Kick The Can"' Dear Judge Cogliati: The purpose of this letter is to formally transmit the responses of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, the Santa Cruz County Public Defender, and the Santa Cruz County Sheriff to the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report titled "Envisioning the Future of our Jails - We Continue to 'Kick The Can'." Sincerely, ZACH FRI · ND, Chair Board of Supervisors ZF: cs
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Understaffing over a long period of time in the Code Compliance Department means that Code Compliance Investigators are unable to complete cases in a timely manner, causing a huge backlog of cases some of which are up to 40 years old.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Planning Department should fill vacant code compliance positions by the end of the calendar year 2023. (F1)
R2:
The Personnel Department should reclassify the job description and requirements for the Code Compliance Supervisor to allow the de-facto supervisor to become the department supervisor by the end of this calendar year 2023. (F1)
R3:
The Planning Department should, by the end of 2023, determine what steps and staff are needed to close out the backlog of code compliance cases within a two year time frame. (Consider including the County Auditing Department to assist with this process.) (F1)
F2:
The Code Compliance Department and the Planning Department do not routinely revise and update their departmental procedures and policies, which leads to lack of accountability to the public and inconsistent implementation and interpretation of findings in investigations.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The policies and procedures manuals for the Planning Department and Code Compliance Department should be completely reviewed, updated as prescribed in the policy and procedures manual, and digitized. Each section should be dated, and all future revisions should include date markings for any changes. This process should be completed by the end of 2023. (F2)
R7:
The Code Compliance Department should institute monthly staff meetings by October 1, 2023. Meetings should include relevant educational materials, data regarding monthly activity, new challenges such as policy changes, and resolution of or issues regarding active complaints about the department. (F2)
R8:
The Code Compliance Department should formalize training and staff development requirements of Code Compliance Investigators through CACEO, use staff meetings to encourage cross training and continuing education, document staff development in employee files, and formalize it in the employee evaluation protocol by October 1, 2023. (F2)
F3:
The Code Compliance Department of the Planning Department does not have quality assurance systems in place to evaluate their own performance and effectiveness, which contributes to lack of accountability and lack of credibility and public confidence.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Code Compliance Department should create a log system that ensures that all Planning Department and Code Compliance desk interactions, phone calls, emails, text messages,complaints, and any other interactions with the public are entered into a searchable database by the end of 2023. (F3)
R6:
Data regarding public complaints about Code Compliance Investigators actions should be discussed at staff meetings. Data collected by the log system should be reviewed by Code Compliance Department management no less than quarterly. This should be instituted by October 1, 2023. (F3)
F4:
At the present time the Planning Department has limited access for the public. It is frustrating to the public to be unable to readily communicate with the staff required to assist in dealings with building, planning, and code compliance matters.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The Planning Department should increase the hours that are open to the public and enforce their 24 hour policy of returning phone calls from the public by the end of 2023 (F4)
R10:
The Code Compliance Department should add recommended time frames for the Flow Chart described in the policy and procedure manual by the end of 2023. (F4)
F5:
There is a persistent public perception of inconsistent interpretation of code. The building and other various codes are complex and difficult to understand. When misinformation is communicated and portions of projects must be redone, it leads to time and money loss as well as frustration.
F6:
The Conflict of Interest policy does not include conflicts regarding family, friends, or prior relationships of a personal nature. This omission, and the optics in some situations, lead to misunderstanding and mistrust between the public and the Code Compliance Department as well as increasing the risk of liability to the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Conflict of Interest policy should be rewritten to include relationships of a personal nature by the end of 2023. Use the counties of Mendocino and San Bernardino policies as a reference. (F6)
F7:
The Planning Department is by its nature supposed to be a customer-focused department, yet it operates in ways that discourage communications, undermining the public’s trust in the department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Board of Supervisors and Community Development and Infrastructure Department Management should focus on the organizational culture within the planning department and refocus the culture in a way that fosters public trust. (F7)
F8:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections’ lack of a documented process for handling inadvertent recording of privileged communications (e.g., communications by an inmate to legal counsel), is a concern since a breach of confidentiality could expose the County to costly legal liability. __ AGREE _x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Sheriff’s Office reports they have documented an existing practice/procedure in Correctional Memo 23-C-008 Inadvertent Recording of Privileged Communications. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 555
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Sheriff’s Office documenting minimal use of Amazon Ring, and informing the public of use specifically to assist with the investigation of significant crimes, assures the public this tool is not in constant use or frequently surveilling specific neighborhoods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
As Ring installations become more widespread, the Sheriff’s Office should include statistics on Amazon Ring Neighbors Portal usage in its annual report to the public by March 30, 2024. (F1)
F2:
The Sheriff’s Office indicating no use of automated license plate readers updates the public with current information consistent with findings from the 2021 Criminal Justice Council Report.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Office should consider using its 2024 annual Military Equipment Inventory public meeting as its forum to inform the public of intent to acquire or use any Automated License Plate Reader equipment. (F2)
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should consider regular public reporting on the intended acquisition and ongoing use of surveillance technologies not already publicly reported as required under state or county law. The Sheriff’s Office should consider using portions of the Military Equipment Inventory as a template for providing the public with pertinent information on any surveillance equipment proposed, or acquired through federal grants, or other funding rather than creating yet another reporting format by December 31, 2023. (F2, F4)
F3:
Conflicting information on records retention within Policy 423 (Body Worn Cameras), as well as between Policies 422 (Portable Audio/Video Recorders) and 423, creates confusion and doubt for the public, and may present lack of certainty on proper records retention and disposal for Sheriff’s Office personnel.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual should review and propose potential revisions specific to confusing language in Policies 422 (Portable Audio/Video Recorders) and 423 (Body Worn Cameras) by December 31, 2023. (F3)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F4:
The Sheriff’s Office’s lack of documentation specific to the Cellebrite Mobile Device Forensics Tool leaves the public without critical information on how this tool will be used, and more importantly, when it will not be used.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The Sheriff’s Office should inform the public on whether Mobile Device Forensic Tools are used for consent searches specifically, and define and announce disposal dates for non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F4)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should consider regular public reporting on the intended acquisition and ongoing use of surveillance technologies not already publicly reported as required under state or county law. The Sheriff’s Office should consider using portions of the Military Equipment Inventory as a template for providing the public with pertinent information on any surveillance equipment proposed, or acquired through federal grants, or other funding rather than creating yet another reporting format by December 31, 2023. (F2, F4)
F5:
The Sheriff’s Office first annual Military Equipment Inventory for the surveillance tools reviewed by the Grand Jury lacks details such as impact cost and specific linkages to Sheriff’s Office policy as required under California AB-481. This lack of detail leaves the public without clarity on aspects of cost and accountability measures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
R8:
The Sheriff’s Office should review its Military Equipment Inventory to ensure compliance with AB-481. Where documentation is missing, the Sheriff’s Office should draft clarifying text either to share with the public for review, or for inclusion in the annual update by May 31, 2024. (F5)
F6:
The ability to register video surveillance on a web page created specifically for security alarm registration within Santa Cruz County may be confusing to the registered subscribers, as well as those considering adding security services to their home or business.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Sheriff’s Office may wish to recommend to the County Administration Office that clarifying language be added to the False Alarm and Administration online registration. (F6)
F7:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections’ lack of clear documentation specific to inmate tablet use leaves the public without critical information on how the information collected is used, how this information is retained, and more importantly, when disposal occurs for non-evidentiary records.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
R9:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections should consider a documented process for handling the inadvertent recording of privileged communications, including inmate tablet use by September 30, 2023. (F7, F8) Commendation C1. The Sheriff’s Office Annual Report is easy to read, well organized, and provides useful information to the public. This publication offers thoughtful views of equipment, events, and Sheriff’s Office personnel.
F8:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections’ lack of a documented process for handling inadvertent recording of privileged communications (e.g., communications by an inmate to legal counsel), is a concern since a breach of confidentiality could expose the County to costly legal liability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections should consider a documented process for handling the inadvertent recording of privileged communications, including inmate tablet use by September 30, 2023. (F7, F8) Commendation C1. The Sheriff’s Office Annual Report is easy to read, well organized, and provides useful information to the public. This publication offers thoughtful views of equipment, events, and Sheriff’s Office personnel.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The chronic understaffing in the Behavioral Health Division (BHD) and their contractors is negatively impacting the department’s ability to meet goals and to provide services in a timely and effective manner.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Competitive salaries and hiring incentives should be put in place for all vacant Behavioral Health Division (BHD) positions that don’t already have them. The BHD should consider the salaries and hiring incentives offered by Santa Clara County as a guide - such as hiring bonuses, loan repayment, public service loan repayment, and workforce tuition.The Personnel Department must plan for increases in salary and incentives by the end of 2023 with the goal of including them in the next budget cycle. (F1, F2, F8)
R2:
The County Personnel Department should plan to do an analysis of the hiring process for BHD positions and put measures into place to reduce the time it takes to hire by at least half. They should streamline the process and make use of up to date automated processes by the end of 2023. (F1, F2, F3)
R4:
The County Personnel Department should develop connections and internships with nearby universities that have Psychology and Social Work programs to groom a clinical workforce. A plan for this should be completed by the end of 2023. (F1, F2) Recommendations about the Crisis Stabilization Program
F2:
The County Personnel Department has been slow to respond to the chronic understaffing in the Behavioral Health Division. It has not put measures into place to speed up the hiring process or to create competitive salaries and incentives for the non-medical personnel who staff the BHD positions. Nor have they created connections with nearby universities to groom a clinical workforce. This causes unnecessary delays in hiring mental health professionals.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Competitive salaries and hiring incentives should be put in place for all vacant Behavioral Health Division (BHD) positions that don’t already have them. The BHD should consider the salaries and hiring incentives offered by Santa Clara County as a guide - such as hiring bonuses, loan repayment, public service loan repayment, and workforce tuition.The Personnel Department must plan for increases in salary and incentives by the end of 2023 with the goal of including them in the next budget cycle. (F1, F2, F8)
R2:
The County Personnel Department should plan to do an analysis of the hiring process for BHD positions and put measures into place to reduce the time it takes to hire by at least half. They should streamline the process and make use of up to date automated processes by the end of 2023. (F1, F2, F3)
R3:
The County Personnel Department should institute an annual competitive analysis for all open BHD positions that includes consideration of the extraordinarily high cost of living in Santa Cruz, benefits and incentives. This should be completed by the end of 2023. (F2, F3)
R4:
The County Personnel Department should develop connections and internships with nearby universities that have Psychology and Social Work programs to groom a clinical workforce. A plan for this should be completed by the end of 2023. (F1, F2) Recommendations about the Crisis Stabilization Program
F3:
Both the Personnel Department and the Behavioral Health Division do not have enough analysts to allow an adequate review of their programs and systems, including analyzing the County’s hiring process. This makes it difficult for them to improve services. Findings about the Crisis Stabilization Program
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County Personnel Department should plan to do an analysis of the hiring process for BHD positions and put measures into place to reduce the time it takes to hire by at least half. They should streamline the process and make use of up to date automated processes by the end of 2023. (F1, F2, F3)
R3:
The County Personnel Department should institute an annual competitive analysis for all open BHD positions that includes consideration of the extraordinarily high cost of living in Santa Cruz, benefits and incentives. This should be completed by the end of 2023. (F2, F3)
F4:
The Crisis Stabilization Program (CSP) has been diverting patients experiencing a mental health crisis to hospital emergency departments too frequently, delaying diagnosis, delaying treatment, and placing an extra burden on the emergency departments, which are already overcrowded. The emergency departments then become responsible for finding an inpatient facility for patients who cannot be safely discharged to outpatient care, which further stretches limited resources.
F5:
The limited hours that the Mobile Emergency Response Team and Mobile Emergency Response Team for Youth operate interfere with a timely assessment of patients in a mental health crisis, negatively impacting patient care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
To eliminate the frequent offloading of the Behavioral Health Division (BHD) clients to local hospital emergency departments, the Board of Supervisors and BHD should evaluate ways to increase the number of Crisis Stabilization Program chairs and psychiatric beds available, which may include planning for another adult Psychiatric Healthcare Facility. This evaluation and planning process should be completed by the end of 2023. (F5, F7)
F6:
An inadequate number of beds at the Psychiatric Healthcare Facility (PHF) results in the practice of sending patients out of county, which negatively impacts the patient’s care, and is expensive for the Behavioral Health Division.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Behavioral Health Division should improve the services provided by the Mobile Emergency Response Team and the Mobile Emergency Response Team for Youth by improving staffing and expanding coverage to 24/7. This should be completed by the end of 2023. (F6)
F7:
The County plans to close the current Crisis Stabilization Program (CSP) to patients under 18 after June 30, 2023, and the new CSP/PHF in Live Oak will not be open until late 2024 or early 2025 compromising crisis care to minors for 18 months or more. Finding about High Cost Beneficiaries
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
To eliminate the frequent offloading of the Behavioral Health Division (BHD) clients to local hospital emergency departments, the Board of Supervisors and BHD should evaluate ways to increase the number of Crisis Stabilization Program chairs and psychiatric beds available, which may include planning for another adult Psychiatric Healthcare Facility. This evaluation and planning process should be completed by the end of 2023. (F5, F7)
F8:
The large number of high cost beneficiaries results in additional demands on an already overloaded behavioral health system. Finding about the new Watsonville facility
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Competitive salaries and hiring incentives should be put in place for all vacant Behavioral Health Division (BHD) positions that don’t already have them. The BHD should consider the salaries and hiring incentives offered by Santa Clara County as a guide - such as hiring bonuses, loan repayment, public service loan repayment, and workforce tuition.The Personnel Department must plan for increases in salary and incentives by the end of 2023 with the goal of including them in the next budget cycle. (F1, F2, F8)
R7:
The Behavioral Health Division should ensure that there is a smooth transition plan and back up plan for the treatment of children and youths from the current Crisis Stabilization Program to the planned new facility in Live Oak other than diverting them to emergency departments. This should be completed by September 30, 2023. (F8) Recommendation about Step-Down, Homelessness, and Jail Inmates
R8:
The Behavioral Health Division should request sufficient funding from the County to provide adequate step-down care so patients do not relapse and need yet more care. This request should be in place by the end of 2023. (F8, F10 – F12) Recommendations about Latino/a Utilization of Mental Health Services
F9:
The new Sí Se Puede Behavioral Health Center in Watsonville is a big step in the right direction, and will provide significantly increased service capacity, but it is still not enough. Findings about Step-Down, Homelessness, and Jail Inmates
F10:
The lack of step-down care for patients completing both inpatient and outpatient treatment often results in patients relapsing and needing retreatment, which is bad for the patient and increases costs for the Behavioral Health Division.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Behavioral Health Division should request sufficient funding from the County to provide adequate step-down care so patients do not relapse and need yet more care. This request should be in place by the end of 2023. (F8, F10 – F12) Recommendations about Latino/a Utilization of Mental Health Services
F11:
The high rate of homelessness and Substance Use Disorder in the County results in the Behavioral Health Division’s clients that are especially demanding and difficult to treat.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Behavioral Health Division should request sufficient funding from the County to provide adequate step-down care so patients do not relapse and need yet more care. This request should be in place by the end of 2023. (F8, F10 – F12) Recommendations about Latino/a Utilization of Mental Health Services
F12:
The Behavioral Health Division is insufficiently funded and staffed to provide adequate step-down care for their patients, many of whom are homeless, and/or recently released from jail, and thus have a need for support. Findings about services to Latino/as
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Behavioral Health Division should request sufficient funding from the County to provide adequate step-down care so patients do not relapse and need yet more care. This request should be in place by the end of 2023. (F8, F10 – F12) Recommendations about Latino/a Utilization of Mental Health Services
F13:
Outreach to the Latino/a community is insufficient because of the lack of bilingual and bicultural staff contributing to disproportionate underutilization of mental health services within the Latino/a community.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The Behavioral Health Division should continue to improve bilingual/bicultural outreach to the Latino/a population, including whether any language besides Spanish reaches the threshold to warrant offering the bilingual pay differential. Improvements should be in place by the end of 2023. (F13, F14)
R10:
The Behavioral Health Division should review the recruitment and retention of bilingual staff, including an increase to the current bilingual pay differential, in an effort to improve bilingual services. This should be completed by the end of 2023. (F13, F14)
F14:
The current pay differential for bilingual staff is insufficient to attract and retain suitably qualified staff making adequate outreach to the Latino/a community difficult.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The Behavioral Health Division should continue to improve bilingual/bicultural outreach to the Latino/a population, including whether any language besides Spanish reaches the threshold to warrant offering the bilingual pay differential. Improvements should be in place by the end of 2023. (F13, F14)
R10:
The Behavioral Health Division should review the recruitment and retention of bilingual staff, including an increase to the current bilingual pay differential, in an effort to improve bilingual services. This should be completed by the end of 2023. (F13, F14)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
While all city and county planning departments have demonstrated a good understanding of the new State housing laws and the need to facilitate more housing, the failure to do so in a timely manner has served to further decrease the availability of housing and further increase the need and cost of more housing.
F2:
With the planned growth of UCSC to 28,000 students, the potential demand for off campus housing for students, faculty and staff has the potential to make the affordable housing problem even worse.
Related Recommendations (2)
R14:
By the end of 2023, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate progress in working collaboratively with UCSC to develop housing sites that are affordable for UCSC students and essential workers. (F2)
R18:
By the end of 2023, the City of Santa Cruz should demonstrate progress in working collaboratively with UCSC to develop housing sites that are affordable for UCSC students and essential workers. (F2) City of Watsonville:
F3:
The County of Santa Cruz has identified several sites for higher density housing, identified sites along transportation corridors for housing and changed zoning laws to allow more mixed use developments, however in the past several years, few low income homes have been built or approved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
By the end of 2023, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the county, (particularly on properties such as the old drive-in theater acreage which is adjacent to transportation corridors. (F3, F6)
F4:
Capitola has made little progress towards achieving housing goals, particularly for low income housing. Although the City identified sites for mixed use developments, they have made little progress towards developing those sites.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F4 – F6, F8)
R2:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F4, F6 – F8)
F5:
Capitola has focused primarily on streamlining the construction of ADUs as a means to increase housing. However, there is little evidence that ADUs are prioritized for rental to local workers, and there is little chance that ADUs alone can meet the housing needs for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F4 – F6, F8)
F6:
Capitola and the County of Santa Cruz need to work together to facilitate significant housing in the mid-county area where a large percentage of jobs are located.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F4 – F6, F8)
R2:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F4, F6 – F8)
R3:
By the end of 2023, the City of Capitola should demonstrate a plan to work with the County of Santa Cruz as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop housing close to transportation corridors along Hwy 1 and 41st Avenue. (F6, F7, F13)
R11:
By the end of 2023 the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate progress towards identifying sites and planning for increased housing along the transportation corridors in mid-county. (F6)
R13:
By the end of 2023, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the county, (particularly on properties such as the old drive-in theater acreage which is adjacent to transportation corridors. (F3, F6)
F7:
The City of Capitola has made little progress towards facilitating the development of the Capitola Mall as a mixed use project which could accommodate both business and housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F4, F6 – F8)
R3:
By the end of 2023, the City of Capitola should demonstrate a plan to work with the County of Santa Cruz as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop housing close to transportation corridors along Hwy 1 and 41st Avenue. (F6, F7, F13)
F8:
The City of Capitola claims to have significantly fewer resources to attract housing planners and builders than do the bigger municipalities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz, but that does not mean the City should be exempt from the need to construct housing for local low income workers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F4 – F6, F8)
R2:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F4, F6 – F8)
F9:
The City of Scotts Valley has facilitated the building of market rate housing in recent years, but has made little effort to develop housing for low income workers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
By the end of 2023 the City of Scotts Valley should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F9)
R8:
By the end of 2023, the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the City. (F9 – F11)
F10:
The City of Scotts Valley has made little progress towards developing the Town Square project which could accommodate both business and housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
By the end of 2023, the City of Scotts Valley should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F10)
R8:
By the end of 2023, the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the City. (F9 – F11)
F11:
The City of Scotts Valley claims to have significantly fewer resources to attract housing planners and builders than do the bigger municipalities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz, but that does not mean the City should be exempt from the need to construct housing for local low income workers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of 2023, the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the City. (F9 – F11)
F12:
While all local municipalities have voiced support for prioritizing housing for local workers, only some of them have clear local preference guidelines that give some priority to local workers. Without clear guidelines and incentives, new housing is more likely to be purchased by those who do not live and work here.
Related Recommendations (5)
R4:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of ADUs as well as low income housing. (F12)
R9:
By the end of 2023 the City of Scotts Valley should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of low income housing. (F12)
R12:
By the end of 2023 the County of Santa Cruz should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of low income housing. (F12)
R17:
By the end of 2023, the City of Santa Cruz should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that preference is given to local workers in the construction of low income housing. (F12)
R20:
By the end of 2023, the City of Watsonville should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of low income housing. (F12)
F13:
All municipalities are trying to identify and facilitate the building of housing projects, but most of that is done independently of the other municipalities or with outside partners. Since workforce housing and transportation gridlock is a county-wide problem, all county municipalities need to work more closely together and with property owners to develop housing solutions.
Related Recommendations (6)
R3:
By the end of 2023, the City of Capitola should demonstrate a plan to work with the County of Santa Cruz as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop housing close to transportation corridors along Hwy 1 and 41st Avenue. (F6, F7, F13)
R5:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) City of Scotts Valley:
R10:
By the end of 2023 the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) County of Santa Cruz:
R15:
By the end of 2023 the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) City of Santa Cruz
R16:
By the end of 2023 the City of Santa Cruz should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13)
R19:
By the end of 2023 the City of Watsonville should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Permanent mandatory overtime for Corrections Officers has a negative effect on them that leads to high turnover, and the need to hire more COs and train them, which is inefficient and demoralizing for the Sheriff’s Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In the next budget cycle the Board of Supervisors should allocate more funding to the Sheriff’s Office to be used to increase Correctional Officer pay, and/or give out increased hiring or retention bonuses as the Sheriff’s Office determines. (F1)
F2:
Overcrowding at the Main Jail would be alleviated if the Blaine Street Women’s Jail and the second unit at Rountree could be reopened.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Blaine Street Women’s Jail should be reopened as soon as practical, but definitely before the end of 2023. (The reopening is imminent and will occur mid May 2023) (F2 – F4)
R3:
After Blaine Street, the second unit at Rountree should be reopened as soon as sufficient staffing is available, and preferably by the end of 2023. (F2, F4, F5)
F3:
Keeping women who do not need to be in a high security facility in the Main Jail is clearly detrimental to their mental health, and to their chances of staying out of jail once released.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Blaine Street Women’s Jail should be reopened as soon as practical, but definitely before the end of 2023. (The reopening is imminent and will occur mid May 2023) (F2 – F4)
F4:
Reopening Blaine Street and the second unit at Rountree would give the Sheriff’s Office much more scope to balance the jail population between the three facilities, and would allow some inmates from the Main Jail to move to Rountree and take advantage of the programming available there.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Blaine Street Women’s Jail should be reopened as soon as practical, but definitely before the end of 2023. (The reopening is imminent and will occur mid May 2023) (F2 – F4)
R3:
After Blaine Street, the second unit at Rountree should be reopened as soon as sufficient staffing is available, and preferably by the end of 2023. (F2, F4, F5)
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should commission a study to determine the most effective use of the three jails and any modifications to existing facilities needed to house the expected jail population into the future. This study should be completed by the end of 2024. (F4, F9, F10)
F5:
Lack of programming at the Main Jail is bad for inmate welfare, both their mental health while on the inside, and their ability to stay out of the criminal justice system once released.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
After Blaine Street, the second unit at Rountree should be reopened as soon as sufficient staffing is available, and preferably by the end of 2023. (F2, F4, F5)
F6:
Programs such as those run by the Public Defender’s Office and CAFES that reduce recidivism are effective because they give former inmates the mental health and/or substance abuse treatments they need, as well as case management and supportive housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Programming at the Main Jail, both that intended to stimulate and entertain inmates, and that intended to provide them with skills for life on the outside, should be restarted as soon as practical and as Covid restrictions allow. (F6)
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9)
F7:
Lack of continuing care for released inmates, most especially those with mental illness, SUD and/or who will be homeless after release, significantly contributes to recidivism, which then contributes to the need for a new jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Public Defender’s Office should receive funding in the next budget cycle to provide adequate anti recidivism programs. (F7 – F9)
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9)
F8:
Some continuing care does exist, but is massively underfunded, especially for former inmates who need supportive housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Public Defender’s Office should receive funding in the next budget cycle to provide adequate anti recidivism programs. (F7 – F9)
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9)
F9:
The Main Jail is old, has been overcrowded, and does not meet current requirements for incarceration.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
The Public Defender’s Office should receive funding in the next budget cycle to provide adequate anti recidivism programs. (F7 – F9)
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9)
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should commission a study to determine the most effective use of the three jails and any modifications to existing facilities needed to house the expected jail population into the future. This study should be completed by the end of 2024. (F4, F9, F10)
F10:
The Main Jail might be adequate for incarcerating inmates who need to be in a high security facility, providing it can be renovated to meet current incarceration requirements for a much reduced population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should commission a study to determine the most effective use of the three jails and any modifications to existing facilities needed to house the expected jail population into the future. This study should be completed by the end of 2024. (F4, F9, F10)
F22:
The City of Capitola does not have an Incident Response Plan, which could exacerbate the effects of a cyber incident such as increase the time a network is unavailable or raise the potential financial costs of a resolution. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City has a Cyber Attack Response plan in place. The plan is modified and updated annually by the Information Systems Specialist. 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 113 Required Response from the Capitola City Council Cyber Threat Preparedness Due by August 16 2023
F23:
Capitola does not participate in any cyber-focused information sharing groups, nor does it take advantage of state and federal resources designed to assist small cities with mitigating cyber attacks, thereby forfeiting opportunities to learn best practices and raise their cyber awareness. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City’s Information Systems Specialist participates in: 1. Cyber threat meetings sponsored by Alverez Technology Group 2. NCRIS.ca.gov Regional Information Center meetings regarding cyber threats 3. MISAC.org 4. Santa Cruz County Cyber Security Consortium 114 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Required Response from the Capitola City Council Cyber Threat Preparedness Due by August 16 2023
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
Santa Cruz County does not have a Cybersecurity Plan, and the absence of a current plan that defines security policies, procedures, and controls required to protect its networks and devices increases the risk of vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County should prepare and implement a Cybersecurity Plan by the end of 2023, ensuring that city officials and all staff are well aware of the plan details, their responsibilities, and associated policies. (F1)
F2:
Santa Cruz County does not have a sufficiently detailed Incident Response Plan, indicating they would not be prepared to respond rapidly and effectively in the event of a cyber incident.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By the end of 2023, the county should revise and expand its Incident Response Plan to clearly delineate the steps it will take in response to a cyber attack, the responsibilities of identified officials, and the coordination required with state and federal officials for each type and level of cyber attack. A detailed plan is a requirement for continuity of county operations in a cyber incident. (F2)
F3:
Santa Cruz County participates in multiple information sharing groups at regional and state levels, although it has only minimal interaction with the cities across Santa Cruz County, degrading their ability to fully understand regional vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County’s information sharing efforts should be expanded to ensure fulsome information sharing across all government entities in the county, specifically Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Scotts Valley, and Capitola, by the end of 2023. A simple schedule of monthly meetings would permit regular sharing of possible threats, TTPs seen across the county, and information learned from outside organizations such as the Cal-CSIC. (F3)
F4:
The City of Santa Cruz seems to have an adequate IT Department structure; however, in late 2022, 40 percent of its positions remained vacant, leaving them inadequately staffed to mitigate and respond to cyber attacks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City of Santa Cruz should prioritize filling its vacant IT department positions by Fall 2023. The IT Department and the Human Resources (HR) Department should revise its position requirements, compensation packages, and recruiting priorities to enable the City to attract qualified personnel to these positions. (F4)
F5:
Inadequate staffing and high attrition has led to overworked staff and raises the risk of cyber vulnerabilities across its networks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By Fall 2023, Santa Cruz should identify and implement creative approaches to hiring and retention so they can maintain a fully staffed IT Department despite the competition with surrounding counties. The City should investigate potential partnerships with one or more of the 18 California colleges and universities with National Centers of Academic Excellence in Cybersecurity. (F5)
F6:
The City does not have an individual dedicated as the lead for cyber security, which could lead to inadequate preparation for and response to a cyber attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By Fall 2023, the City of Santa Cruz should assign one individual responsible for cybersecurity. Adoption of a managed service provider arrangement will boost its security posture, although it does not eliminate the need for a dedicated security lead within the City’s IT Department. (F6)
F7:
The City of Santa Cruz does not have a Cybersecurity Policy, suggesting that preparations to mitigate a cyber attack are inadequate and not widely shared.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of 2023 or sooner, the City of Santa Cruz should develop and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that encompasses all aspects of information security. (F7)
F8:
The City of Santa Cruz does not have an Incident Response Plan, and this absence indicates that the City will be challenged in responding to a cyber attack, especially a ransomware attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of 2023 or sooner, the City should complete an Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail for city officials to use as a step-by-step guide in the event of a cyber incident. (F8)
F9:
Santa Cruz participates in some information sharing organizations such as the California Municipal Information Services Association (MISAC), yet it has minimal collaboration within the county and the other cities, forfeiting opportunities to share best practices and understand threats.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Once the IT Department has adequate staffing and by the end of 2023, it should expand its participation in local and state information sharing groups to maintain current knowledge of the threat environment and emerging technologies. (F9)
F10:
After recently expanding its IT Department, the City of Watsonville has improved its IT functions although it does not yet allocate sufficient resources to cybersecurity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Watsonville should conduct an evaluation of its recently expanded IT Department, critical IT upgrades, and the status of cybersecurity measures by the end of 2023. Based on this assessment, the City should allocate existing or newly identified resources to ensure cybersecurity is adequately addressed going forward. (F10)
F11:
The City does not have an individual whose primary responsibility is cybersecurity for the city networks, leaving cybersecurity oversight to the IT Director–along with a multitude of other IT responsibilities–and lowering the priority for cybersecurity measures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Given the size of Watsonville, the City should have a dedicated position for cybersecurity by the end of 2023, to ensure adherence to best practices, mitigation of potential threats, and education of city staff and leadership. (F11)
F12:
Watsonville does not have a Cybersecurity Plan that defines security policies, procedures, and controls required to protect its networks and devices, a situation that increases the risks of vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
By early 2024 or sooner, Watsonville should prepare and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that addresses all of the best practices for strong cyber hygiene. (F12)
F13:
Watsonville does not have an Incident Response Plan that provides detailed information on how to respond to an attack, suggesting the City would not be able to respond rapidly and effectively to a cyber attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
By early 2024 or sooner, Watsonville should prepare and implement an Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail to serve as a guide in the event of a cyber attack. (F13)
F14:
Watsonville participates in some regional information sharing forums, but it does not have the resources to expand its participation or tap into state-level information sharing, thus forfeiting valuable best practices and cyber threat information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
Upon completion of IT structural upgrades and a higher level of cyber maturity, and by the end of 2023, Watsonville should participate in local, regional, and state information sharing initiatives. (F14)
F15:
Although Scotts Valley’s managed service provider is very knowledgeable and capable of providing cybersecurity services, there is no single city official with cybersecurity oversight, potentially leading to a poor understanding of the threats and an inadequate response to a cyber attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
By mid-2023, Scotts Valley should assign a city official as the lead for cybersecurity for the city. This individual should oversee the contractor’s performance in cybersecurity and ensure city leaders are well informed on emerging threats, cybersecurity challenges, and information provided from regional and state entities. (F15)
F16:
Scotts Valley does not have a current Cybersecurity Plan that defines security policies, procedures, and controls required to protect its networks and devices, potentially increasing the risks of vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
Working with its IT contractor, by Fall 2023, Scotts Valley should write and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that is shared with all city officials to demonstrate comprehensive security measures and executive-level cyber threat awareness. (F16)
F17:
Scotts Valley does not have a current Incident Response Plan, which could exacerbate the effects of a cyber incident such as increase the time a network is unavailable or raise the potential financial costs of a resolution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
By Fall 2023, Scotts Valley should write an Incident Response Plan that clearly delineates the steps it will take in response to a cyber attack, the responsibilities of identified officials, and the coordination required with state and federal officials for each type and level of cyber attack. (F17)
F18:
Scotts Valley does not participate in any cybersecurity information sharing groups to enhance best practices, rather they depend on their contractor to stay informed, which makes the City last to know of critical cyber threats.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
Scotts Valley should participate in local, regional, and state cybersecurity organizations for information sharing by the end of 2023. (F18)
F19:
With one individual responsible for IT services, Capitola does not allocate sufficient resources to cybersecurity, a status that could lead to poor cyber knowledge and unnecessary vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R19:
By Fall 2023, Capitola should hire a full-time IT Director to replace the IT Director who departed in mid-2022. The IT Director should oversee and expand IT services, including those of the consulting company, and lead cybersecurity initiatives. (F19)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F20:
The City of Capitola does not have a robust cybersecurity training program, nor does it conduct phishing tests or routinely remind employees to adhere to cybersecurity measures during potential periods of increased threats.
Related Recommendations (2)
R20:
The City should develop a more robust cybersecurity training and phishing testing program for all employees by Fall 2023 or earlier. (F20)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F21:
The City of Capitola does not have a Cybersecurity Plan to address cybersecurity measures city wide, suggesting the city is not adequately mitigating the potential impact of cyber incidents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R21:
Capitola should establish and implement a Cybersecurity Plan by the end of 2023. Several resources exist to provide a foundation or templates for these plans including NIST Guidelines, CISA resources, and Cal-CSIC guidance. (F21)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F22:
The City of Capitola does not have an Incident Response Plan, which could exacerbate the effects of a cyber incident such as increase the time a network is unavailable or raise the potential financial costs of a resolution.
Related Recommendations (2)
R22:
By Fall 2023 Capitola should prepare an Incident Response Plan that provides detailed guidance for a city response to a cyber attack. (F22)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F23:
Capitola does not participate in any cyber-focused information sharing groups, nor does it take advantage of state and federal resources designed to assist small cities with mitigating cyber attacks, thereby forfeiting opportunities to learn best practices and raise their cyber awareness.
Related Recommendations (2)
R23:
When appropriately resourced to monitor cyber threats, and by the end of 2023, Capitola should participate in regional cybersecurity information sharing groups, to gain valuable information to best protect the City. (F23)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
It is hard to contact the relevant people in CPS to get information since there is
F2:
The lack of readily available CPS data metrics accessible on the Santa Cruz
F3:
Lots of data is available on the California Welfare Indicators Project maintained
F4:
With HSD’s updating of its public facing website, the process to register a formal complaint if informal processes are not satisfactory, will be made clearer. This website update is anticipated to be completed by the Grand Jury’s timeline. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Report on Child Protective Services Due by September 16, 2024 Page 11 of 13 278 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a Child Welfare Oversight board and an Inspector General similar to what the 2002-2003 Grand Jury recommended. This could help resolve bias, impropriety and undue influence complaints and will help provide transparency and increase trust in the CPS process. The Grand Jury recommends that the planning for this should start by December 31, 2024, with the board fully implemented six months after the planning is finished. (F4, F5) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This
F5:
Child Family Team members often dispute the accuracy of "official" meeting
F6:
The lack of data makes it difficult to determine whether bias is present either to
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish an organizational chart by
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS publish outcome based metrics, such as
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that CPS create and publish the complaint
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors establish a
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the CPS department begin to record the Child
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Understaffing over a long period of time in the Code Compliance Department means that Code Compliance Investigators are unable to complete cases in a timely manner, causing a huge backlog of cases some of which are up to 40 years old.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Planning Department should fill vacant code compliance positions by the end of the calendar year 2023. (F1)
R2:
The Personnel Department should reclassify the job description and requirements for the Code Compliance Supervisor to allow the de-facto supervisor to become the department supervisor by the end of this calendar year 2023. (F1)
R3:
The Planning Department should, by the end of 2023, determine what steps and staff are needed to close out the backlog of code compliance cases within a two year time frame. (Consider including the County Auditing Department to assist with this process.) (F1) Code Compliance Division – Out of Compliance published June 23, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 573
F2:
The Code Compliance Department and the Planning Department do not routinely revise and update their departmental procedures and policies, which leads to lack of accountability to the public and inconsistent implementation and interpretation of findings in investigations.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The policies and procedures manuals for the Planning Department and Code Compliance Department should be completely reviewed, updated as prescribed in the policy and procedures manual, and digitized. Each section should be dated, and all future revisions should include date markings for any changes. This process should be completed by the end of 2023. (F2)
R7:
The Code Compliance Department should institute monthly staff meetings by October 1, 2023. Meetings should include relevant educational materials, data regarding monthly activity, new challenges such as policy changes, and resolution of or issues regarding active complaints about the department. (F2)
R8:
The Code Compliance Department should formalize training and staff development requirements of Code Compliance Investigators through CACEO, use staff meetings to encourage cross training and continuing education, document staff development in employee files, and formalize it in the employee evaluation protocol by October 1, 2023. (F2)
F3:
The Code Compliance Department of the Planning Department does not have quality assurance systems in place to evaluate their own performance and effectiveness, which contributes to lack of accountability and lack of credibility and public confidence.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Code Compliance Department should create a log system that ensures that all Planning Department and Code Compliance desk interactions, phone calls, emails, text messages,complaints, and any other interactions with the public are entered into a searchable database by the end of 2023. (F3)
R6:
Data regarding public complaints about Code Compliance Investigators actions should be discussed at staff meetings. Data collected by the log system should be reviewed by Code Compliance Department management no less than quarterly. This should be instituted by October 1, 2023. (F3)
F4:
At the present time the Planning Department has limited access for the public. It is frustrating to the public to be unable to readily communicate with the staff required to assist in dealings with building, planning, and code compliance matters.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The Planning Department should increase the hours that are open to the public and enforce their 24 hour policy of returning phone calls from the public by the end of 2023 (F4)
R10:
The Code Compliance Department should add recommended time frames for the Flow Chart described in the policy and procedure manual by the end of 2023. (F4)
F5:
There is a persistent public perception of inconsistent interpretation of code. The building and other various codes are complex and difficult to understand. When misinformation is communicated and portions of projects must be redone, it leads to time and money loss as well as frustration.
F6:
The Conflict of Interest policy does not include conflicts regarding family, friends, or prior relationships of a personal nature. This omission, and the optics in some situations, lead to misunderstanding and mistrust between the public and the Code Compliance Department as well as increasing the risk of liability to the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Conflict of Interest policy should be rewritten to include relationships of a personal nature by the end of 2023. Use the counties of Mendocino and San Bernardino policies as a reference. (F6)
F7:
The Planning Department is by its nature supposed to be a customer-focused department, yet it operates in ways that discourage communications, undermining the public’s trust in the department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Board of Supervisors and Community Development and Infrastructure Department Management should focus on the organizational culture within the planning department and refocus the culture in a way that fosters public trust. (F7) Code Compliance Division – Out of Compliance published June 23, 2023 574 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The County budget website lacks HSA Financial data visible to the public to
F2:
The County has limited staff to analyze the data for identifying trends which
F3:
Zip code data can pinpoint areas of “High Need,” which can direct data-driven
F4:
The 95076 zip code has an extraordinarily high number of patient transfers to
F5:
A study of socioeconomic indicators of the 95076 zip code, compared to other zip
F6:
The ECM programs are currently at capacity and have waiting lists. More
F7:
Though there is evidence that managed care programs like ECM are effective,
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, in collaboration
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the CAO to
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that because the 95076 zip code is the area of
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services, County Office of
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that Behavioral Health Services and the Board of
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
Santa Cruz County does not have a Cybersecurity Plan, and the absence of a current plan that defines security policies, procedures, and controls required to protect its networks and devices increases the risk of vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County should prepare and implement a Cybersecurity Plan by the end of 2023, ensuring that city officials and all staff are well aware of the plan details, their responsibilities, and associated policies. (F1)
F2:
Santa Cruz County does not have a sufficiently detailed Incident Response Plan, indicating they would not be prepared to respond rapidly and effectively in the event of a cyber incident.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By the end of 2023, the county should revise and expand its Incident Response Plan to clearly delineate the steps it will take in response to a cyber attack, the responsibilities of identified officials, and the coordination required with state and federal officials for each type and level of cyber attack. A detailed plan is a requirement for continuity of county operations in a cyber incident. (F2)
F3:
Santa Cruz County participates in multiple information sharing groups at regional and state levels, although it has only minimal interaction with the cities across Santa Cruz County, degrading their ability to fully understand regional vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County’s information sharing efforts should be expanded to ensure fulsome information sharing across all government entities in the county, specifically Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Scotts Valley, and Capitola, by the end of 2023. A simple schedule of monthly meetings would permit regular sharing of possible threats, TTPs seen across the county, and information learned from outside organizations such as the Cal-CSIC. (F3) Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 42 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F4:
The City of Santa Cruz seems to have an adequate IT Department structure; however, in late 2022, 40 percent of its positions remained vacant, leaving them inadequately staffed to mitigate and respond to cyber attacks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City of Santa Cruz should prioritize filling its vacant IT department positions by Fall 2023. The IT Department and the Human Resources (HR) Department should revise its position requirements, compensation packages, and recruiting priorities to enable the City to attract qualified personnel to these positions. (F4)
F5:
Inadequate staffing and high attrition has led to overworked staff and raises the risk of cyber vulnerabilities across its networks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By Fall 2023, Santa Cruz should identify and implement creative approaches to hiring and retention so they can maintain a fully staffed IT Department despite the competition with surrounding counties. The City should investigate potential partnerships with one or more of the 18 California colleges and universities with National Centers of Academic Excellence in Cybersecurity. (F5)
F6:
The City does not have an individual dedicated as the lead for cyber security, which could lead to inadequate preparation for and response to a cyber attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By Fall 2023, the City of Santa Cruz should assign one individual responsible for cybersecurity. Adoption of a managed service provider arrangement will boost its security posture, although it does not eliminate the need for a dedicated security lead within the City’s IT Department. (F6)
F7:
The City of Santa Cruz does not have a Cybersecurity Policy, suggesting that preparations to mitigate a cyber attack are inadequate and not widely shared.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By the end of 2023 or sooner, the City of Santa Cruz should develop and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that encompasses all aspects of information security. (F7)
F8:
The City of Santa Cruz does not have an Incident Response Plan, and this absence indicates that the City will be challenged in responding to a cyber attack, especially a ransomware attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of 2023 or sooner, the City should complete an Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail for city officials to use as a step-by-step guide in the event of a cyber incident. (F8) Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 43
F9:
Santa Cruz participates in some information sharing organizations such as the California Municipal Information Services Association (MISAC), yet it has minimal collaboration within the county and the other cities, forfeiting opportunities to share best practices and understand threats.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Once the IT Department has adequate staffing and by the end of 2023, it should expand its participation in local and state information sharing groups to maintain current knowledge of the threat environment and emerging technologies. (F9)
F10:
After recently expanding its IT Department, the City of Watsonville has improved its IT functions although it does not yet allocate sufficient resources to cybersecurity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Watsonville should conduct an evaluation of its recently expanded IT Department, critical IT upgrades, and the status of cybersecurity measures by the end of 2023. Based on this assessment, the City should allocate existing or newly identified resources to ensure cybersecurity is adequately addressed going forward. (F10)
F11:
The City does not have an individual whose primary responsibility is cybersecurity for the city networks, leaving cybersecurity oversight to the IT Director–along with a multitude of other IT responsibilities–and lowering the priority for cybersecurity measures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Given the size of Watsonville, the City should have a dedicated position for cybersecurity by the end of 2023, to ensure adherence to best practices, mitigation of potential threats, and education of city staff and leadership. (F11)
F12:
Watsonville does not have a Cybersecurity Plan that defines security policies, procedures, and controls required to protect its networks and devices, a situation that increases the risks of vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
By early 2024 or sooner, Watsonville should prepare and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that addresses all of the best practices for strong cyber hygiene. (F12)
F13:
Watsonville does not have an Incident Response Plan that provides detailed information on how to respond to an attack, suggesting the City would not be able to respond rapidly and effectively to a cyber attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
By early 2024 or sooner, Watsonville should prepare and implement an Incident Response Plan with sufficient detail to serve as a guide in the event of a cyber attack. (F13)
F14:
Watsonville participates in some regional information sharing forums, but it does not have the resources to expand its participation or tap into state-level information sharing, thus forfeiting valuable best practices and cyber threat information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
Upon completion of IT structural upgrades and a higher level of cyber maturity, and by the end of 2023, Watsonville should participate in local, regional, and state information sharing initiatives. (F14) Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 44 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F15:
Although Scotts Valley’s managed service provider is very knowledgeable and capable of providing cybersecurity services, there is no single city official with cybersecurity oversight, potentially leading to a poor understanding of the threats and an inadequate response to a cyber attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
By mid-2023, Scotts Valley should assign a city official as the lead for cybersecurity for the city. This individual should oversee the contractor’s performance in cybersecurity and ensure city leaders are well informed on emerging threats, cybersecurity challenges, and information provided from regional and state entities. (F15)
F16:
Scotts Valley does not have a current Cybersecurity Plan that defines security policies, procedures, and controls required to protect its networks and devices, potentially increasing the risks of vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
Working with its IT contractor, by Fall 2023, Scotts Valley should write and implement a Cybersecurity Plan that is shared with all city officials to demonstrate comprehensive security measures and executive-level cyber threat awareness. (F16)
F17:
Scotts Valley does not have a current Incident Response Plan, which could exacerbate the effects of a cyber incident such as increase the time a network is unavailable or raise the potential financial costs of a resolution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
By Fall 2023, Scotts Valley should write an Incident Response Plan that clearly delineates the steps it will take in response to a cyber attack, the responsibilities of identified officials, and the coordination required with state and federal officials for each type and level of cyber attack. (F17)
F18:
Scotts Valley does not participate in any cybersecurity information sharing groups to enhance best practices, rather they depend on their contractor to stay informed, which makes the City last to know of critical cyber threats.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
Scotts Valley should participate in local, regional, and state cybersecurity organizations for information sharing by the end of 2023. (F18)
F19:
With one individual responsible for IT services, Capitola does not allocate sufficient resources to cybersecurity, a status that could lead to poor cyber knowledge and unnecessary vulnerabilities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R19:
By Fall 2023, Capitola should hire a full-time IT Director to replace the IT Director who departed in mid-2022. The IT Director should oversee and expand IT services, including those of the consulting company, and lead cybersecurity initiatives. (F19)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F20:
The City of Capitola does not have a robust cybersecurity training program, nor does it conduct phishing tests or routinely remind employees to adhere to cybersecurity measures during potential periods of increased threats. Cyber Threat Preparedness published May 18, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 45
Related Recommendations (2)
R20:
The City should develop a more robust cybersecurity training and phishing testing program for all employees by Fall 2023 or earlier. (F20)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F21:
The City of Capitola does not have a Cybersecurity Plan to address cybersecurity measures city wide, suggesting the city is not adequately mitigating the potential impact of cyber incidents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R21:
Capitola should establish and implement a Cybersecurity Plan by the end of 2023. Several resources exist to provide a foundation or templates for these plans including NIST Guidelines, CISA resources, and Cal-CSIC guidance. (F21)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F22:
The City of Capitola does not have an Incident Response Plan, which could exacerbate the effects of a cyber incident such as increase the time a network is unavailable or raise the potential financial costs of a resolution.
Related Recommendations (2)
R22:
By Fall 2023 Capitola should prepare an Incident Response Plan that provides detailed guidance for a city response to a cyber attack. (F22)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
F23:
Capitola does not participate in any cyber-focused information sharing groups, nor does it take advantage of state and federal resources designed to assist small cities with mitigating cyber attacks, thereby forfeiting opportunities to learn best practices and raise their cyber awareness.
Related Recommendations (2)
R23:
When appropriately resourced to monitor cyber threats, and by the end of 2023, Capitola should participate in regional cybersecurity information sharing groups, to gain valuable information to best protect the City. (F23)
R24:
By mid-2023, Capitola city management should raise the priority it assigns to cybersecurity and demonstrate a recognition of their role in ensuring the security of the City’s information networks.(F19–F23)
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The chronic understaffing in the Behavioral Health Division (BHD) and their contractors is negatively impacting the department’s ability to meet goals and to provide services in a timely and effective manner.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Competitive salaries and hiring incentives should be put in place for all vacant Behavioral Health Division (BHD) positions that don’t already have them. The BHD should consider the salaries and hiring incentives offered by Santa Clara County as a guide - such as hiring bonuses, loan repayment, public service loan repayment, and workforce tuition.The Personnel Department must plan for increases in salary and incentives by the end of 2023 with the goal of including them in the next budget cycle. (F1, F2, F8)
R2:
The County Personnel Department should plan to do an analysis of the hiring process for BHD positions and put measures into place to reduce the time it takes to hire by at least half. They should streamline the process and make use of up to date automated processes by the end of 2023. (F1, F2, F3)
R4:
The County Personnel Department should develop connections and internships with nearby universities that have Psychology and Social Work programs to groom a clinical workforce. A plan for this should be completed by the end of 2023. (F1, F2) Recommendations about the Crisis Stabilization Program
F2:
The County Personnel Department has been slow to respond to the chronic understaffing in the Behavioral Health Division. It has not put measures into place to speed up the hiring process or to create competitive salaries and incentives for the non-medical personnel who staff the BHD positions. Nor have they created connections with nearby universities to groom a clinical workforce. This causes unnecessary delays in hiring mental health professionals.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Competitive salaries and hiring incentives should be put in place for all vacant Behavioral Health Division (BHD) positions that don’t already have them. The BHD should consider the salaries and hiring incentives offered by Santa Clara County as a guide - such as hiring bonuses, loan repayment, public service loan repayment, and workforce tuition.The Personnel Department must plan for increases in salary and incentives by the end of 2023 with the goal of including them in the next budget cycle. (F1, F2, F8)
R2:
The County Personnel Department should plan to do an analysis of the hiring process for BHD positions and put measures into place to reduce the time it takes to hire by at least half. They should streamline the process and make use of up to date automated processes by the end of 2023. (F1, F2, F3)
R3:
The County Personnel Department should institute an annual competitive analysis for all open BHD positions that includes consideration of the extraordinarily high cost of living in Santa Cruz, benefits and incentives. This should be completed by the end of 2023. (F2, F3)
R4:
The County Personnel Department should develop connections and internships with nearby universities that have Psychology and Social Work programs to groom a clinical workforce. A plan for this should be completed by the end of 2023. (F1, F2) Recommendations about the Crisis Stabilization Program
F3:
Both the Personnel Department and the Behavioral Health Division do not have enough analysts to allow an adequate review of their programs and systems, including analyzing the County’s hiring process. This makes it difficult for them to improve services. Findings about the Crisis Stabilization Program
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County Personnel Department should plan to do an analysis of the hiring process for BHD positions and put measures into place to reduce the time it takes to hire by at least half. They should streamline the process and make use of up to date automated processes by the end of 2023. (F1, F2, F3)
R3:
The County Personnel Department should institute an annual competitive analysis for all open BHD positions that includes consideration of the extraordinarily high cost of living in Santa Cruz, benefits and incentives. This should be completed by the end of 2023. (F2, F3)
F4:
The Crisis Stabilization Program (CSP) has been diverting patients experiencing a mental health crisis to hospital emergency departments too frequently, delaying diagnosis, delaying treatment, and placing an extra burden on the emergency departments, which are already overcrowded. The emergency departments then become responsible for finding an inpatient facility for patients who cannot be safely discharged to outpatient care, which further stretches limited resources.
F5:
The limited hours that the Mobile Emergency Response Team and Mobile Emergency Response Team for Youth operate interfere with a timely assessment of patients in a mental health crisis, negatively impacting patient care. Diagnosing the Crisis in Behavioral Health published June 12, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 439
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
To eliminate the frequent offloading of the Behavioral Health Division (BHD) clients to local hospital emergency departments, the Board of Supervisors and BHD should evaluate ways to increase the number of Crisis Stabilization Program chairs and psychiatric beds available, which may include planning for another adult Psychiatric Healthcare Facility. This evaluation and planning process should be completed by the end of 2023. (F5, F7)
F6:
An inadequate number of beds at the Psychiatric Healthcare Facility (PHF) results in the practice of sending patients out of county, which negatively impacts the patient’s care, and is expensive for the Behavioral Health Division.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Behavioral Health Division should improve the services provided by the Mobile Emergency Response Team and the Mobile Emergency Response Team for Youth by improving staffing and expanding coverage to 24/7. This should be completed by the end of 2023. (F6)
F7:
The County plans to close the current Crisis Stabilization Program (CSP) to patients under 18 after June 30, 2023, and the new CSP/PHF in Live Oak will not be open until late 2024 or early 2025 compromising crisis care to minors for 18 months or more. Finding about High Cost Beneficiaries
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
To eliminate the frequent offloading of the Behavioral Health Division (BHD) clients to local hospital emergency departments, the Board of Supervisors and BHD should evaluate ways to increase the number of Crisis Stabilization Program chairs and psychiatric beds available, which may include planning for another adult Psychiatric Healthcare Facility. This evaluation and planning process should be completed by the end of 2023. (F5, F7)
F8:
The large number of high cost beneficiaries results in additional demands on an already overloaded behavioral health system. Finding about the new Watsonville facility
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Competitive salaries and hiring incentives should be put in place for all vacant Behavioral Health Division (BHD) positions that don’t already have them. The BHD should consider the salaries and hiring incentives offered by Santa Clara County as a guide - such as hiring bonuses, loan repayment, public service loan repayment, and workforce tuition.The Personnel Department must plan for increases in salary and incentives by the end of 2023 with the goal of including them in the next budget cycle. (F1, F2, F8)
R7:
The Behavioral Health Division should ensure that there is a smooth transition plan and back up plan for the treatment of children and youths from the current Crisis Stabilization Program to the planned new facility in Live Oak other than diverting them to emergency departments. This should be completed by September 30, 2023. (F8) Diagnosing the Crisis in Behavioral Health published June 12, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 441 Recommendation about Step-Down, Homelessness, and Jail Inmates
R8:
The Behavioral Health Division should request sufficient funding from the County to provide adequate step-down care so patients do not relapse and need yet more care. This request should be in place by the end of 2023. (F8, F10 – F12) Recommendations about Latino/a Utilization of Mental Health Services
F9:
The new Sí Se Puede Behavioral Health Center in Watsonville is a big step in the right direction, and will provide significantly increased service capacity, but it is still not enough. Findings about Step-Down, Homelessness, and Jail Inmates
F10:
The lack of step-down care for patients completing both inpatient and outpatient treatment often results in patients relapsing and needing retreatment, which is bad for the patient and increases costs for the Behavioral Health Division.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Behavioral Health Division should request sufficient funding from the County to provide adequate step-down care so patients do not relapse and need yet more care. This request should be in place by the end of 2023. (F8, F10 – F12) Recommendations about Latino/a Utilization of Mental Health Services
F11:
The high rate of homelessness and Substance Use Disorder in the County results in the Behavioral Health Division’s clients that are especially demanding and difficult to treat.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Behavioral Health Division should request sufficient funding from the County to provide adequate step-down care so patients do not relapse and need yet more care. This request should be in place by the end of 2023. (F8, F10 – F12) Recommendations about Latino/a Utilization of Mental Health Services
F12:
The Behavioral Health Division is insufficiently funded and staffed to provide adequate step-down care for their patients, many of whom are homeless, and/or recently released from jail, and thus have a need for support. Findings about services to Latino/as
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Behavioral Health Division should request sufficient funding from the County to provide adequate step-down care so patients do not relapse and need yet more care. This request should be in place by the end of 2023. (F8, F10 – F12) Recommendations about Latino/a Utilization of Mental Health Services
F13:
Outreach to the Latino/a community is insufficient because of the lack of bilingual and bicultural staff contributing to disproportionate underutilization of mental health services within the Latino/a community.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The Behavioral Health Division should continue to improve bilingual/bicultural outreach to the Latino/a population, including whether any language besides Spanish reaches the threshold to warrant offering the bilingual pay differential. Improvements should be in place by the end of 2023. (F13, F14)
R10:
The Behavioral Health Division should review the recruitment and retention of bilingual staff, including an increase to the current bilingual pay differential, in an effort to improve bilingual services. This should be completed by the end of 2023. (F13, F14)
F14:
The current pay differential for bilingual staff is insufficient to attract and retain suitably qualified staff making adequate outreach to the Latino/a community difficult. Diagnosing the Crisis in Behavioral Health published June 12, 2023 440 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
The Behavioral Health Division should continue to improve bilingual/bicultural outreach to the Latino/a population, including whether any language besides Spanish reaches the threshold to warrant offering the bilingual pay differential. Improvements should be in place by the end of 2023. (F13, F14)
R10:
The Behavioral Health Division should review the recruitment and retention of bilingual staff, including an increase to the current bilingual pay differential, in an effort to improve bilingual services. This should be completed by the end of 2023. (F13, F14)
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Permanent mandatory overtime for Corrections Officers has a negative effect on them that leads to high turnover, and the need to hire more COs and train them, which is inefficient and demoralizing for the Sheriff’s Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In the next budget cycle the Board of Supervisors should allocate more funding to the Sheriff’s Office to be used to increase Correctional Officer pay, and/or give out increased hiring or retention bonuses as the Sheriff’s Office determines. (F1)
F2:
Overcrowding at the Main Jail would be alleviated if the Blaine Street Women’s Jail and the second unit at Rountree could be reopened.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Blaine Street Women’s Jail should be reopened as soon as practical, but definitely before the end of 2023. (The reopening is imminent and will occur mid May 2023) (F2 – F4)
R3:
After Blaine Street, the second unit at Rountree should be reopened as soon as sufficient staffing is available, and preferably by the end of 2023. (F2, F4, F5)
F3:
Keeping women who do not need to be in a high security facility in the Main Jail is clearly detrimental to their mental health, and to their chances of staying out of jail once released. Envisioning the Future of our Jails published May 25, 2023 134 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Blaine Street Women’s Jail should be reopened as soon as practical, but definitely before the end of 2023. (The reopening is imminent and will occur mid May 2023) (F2 – F4)
F4:
Reopening Blaine Street and the second unit at Rountree would give the Sheriff’s Office much more scope to balance the jail population between the three facilities, and would allow some inmates from the Main Jail to move to Rountree and take advantage of the programming available there.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Blaine Street Women’s Jail should be reopened as soon as practical, but definitely before the end of 2023. (The reopening is imminent and will occur mid May 2023) (F2 – F4)
R3:
After Blaine Street, the second unit at Rountree should be reopened as soon as sufficient staffing is available, and preferably by the end of 2023. (F2, F4, F5)
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should commission a study to determine the most effective use of the three jails and any modifications to existing facilities needed to house the expected jail population into the future. This study should be completed by the end of 2024. (F4, F9, F10)
F5:
Lack of programming at the Main Jail is bad for inmate welfare, both their mental health while on the inside, and their ability to stay out of the criminal justice system once released.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
After Blaine Street, the second unit at Rountree should be reopened as soon as sufficient staffing is available, and preferably by the end of 2023. (F2, F4, F5)
F6:
Programs such as those run by the Public Defender’s Office and CAFES that reduce recidivism are effective because they give former inmates the mental health and/or substance abuse treatments they need, as well as case management and supportive housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Programming at the Main Jail, both that intended to stimulate and entertain inmates, and that intended to provide them with skills for life on the outside, should be restarted as soon as practical and as Covid restrictions allow. (F6)
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9) Envisioning the Future of our Jails published May 25, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 135
F7:
Lack of continuing care for released inmates, most especially those with mental illness, SUD and/or who will be homeless after release, significantly contributes to recidivism, which then contributes to the need for a new jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Public Defender’s Office should receive funding in the next budget cycle to provide adequate anti recidivism programs. (F7 – F9)
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9) Envisioning the Future of our Jails published May 25, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 135
F8:
Some continuing care does exist, but is massively underfunded, especially for former inmates who need supportive housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The Public Defender’s Office should receive funding in the next budget cycle to provide adequate anti recidivism programs. (F7 – F9)
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9) Envisioning the Future of our Jails published May 25, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 135
F9:
The Main Jail is old, has been overcrowded, and does not meet current requirements for incarceration.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
The Public Defender’s Office should receive funding in the next budget cycle to provide adequate anti recidivism programs. (F7 – F9)
R6:
In the next budget cycle, County Behavioral Health should be funded to adequately treat released inmates with mental illness, including supportive housing where necessary. (F6 – F9) Envisioning the Future of our Jails published May 25, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 135
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should commission a study to determine the most effective use of the three jails and any modifications to existing facilities needed to house the expected jail population into the future. This study should be completed by the end of 2024. (F4, F9, F10)
F10:
The Main Jail might be adequate for incarcerating inmates who need to be in a high security facility, providing it can be renovated to meet current incarceration requirements for a much reduced population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should commission a study to determine the most effective use of the three jails and any modifications to existing facilities needed to house the expected jail population into the future. This study should be completed by the end of 2024. (F4, F9, F10)
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation is developing a new system of
F2:
The Active and Passive modes of notification will allow access to members of the
F3:
Because project delays have put off the release of the new system until the
F4:
As science progresses, less toxic pesticides are being developed and released
F5:
Communication between the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and other south
F6:
With regard to the City Manager’s response to
F7:
The joint effort between CAL Fire and OR3, as well as many other partners listed in the report, to improve preparedness for future wildfires is well-documented in the above-mentioned After-Action Report and Improvement Plan. Furthermore, the Grand Jury’s
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury requests an update as to the progress to date of the objectives outlined in the December 2021 After-Action Report in Appendix A: CORE CAPABILITIES / IMPROVEMENT PLAN and further requests that the OR3 publish this update on its website. (F7) Conclusion As previously mentioned in the Summary, the 2023-24 Grand Jury reviewed
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner
R5:
Within 90 days the City Manager should publish the figures that their initial
R6:
Within 90 days the City should publish the summary of expenditures as
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
County and City website information is sometimes missing, out-of-date, and inaccurate; links may be broken. Thus, many city and county departments aren't updating their websites often enough to keep citizens informed.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. (F1, F2, F5)
R2:
We continue to recommend that all organizations create and regularly update formal records of the actions they take to address Grand Jury recommendations, and to share those records with the public, in accordance with CA Penal Code Section 933(c). (F1, F2) DeLaveaga Golf Course
F2:
County and City administrations lack a process to review content accuracy and currency and thereby assure timely correction and revision of content. Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 336 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. (F1, F2, F5)
R2:
We continue to recommend that all organizations create and regularly update formal records of the actions they take to address Grand Jury recommendations, and to share those records with the public, in accordance with CA Penal Code Section 933(c). (F1, F2) DeLaveaga Golf Course
F3:
While an emergency generator has been procured, adequate testing of methods of connection and operation has not been done yet.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish ‘SMART’ goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5) Requested 2020 Responses:[21] City of Capitola The City of Capitola partially disagreed with Findings 1, 2, and 3. They update information on a regular basis. There have been occasions when old data did not get removed after updated data was added. Stale and inaccurate data is corrected and replaced whenever found. The City is in the process of updating its website platform to make this task easier for departments. They also stated that SMART (Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound) is not a methodology that the City of Capitola has adopted. The City of Capitola disagreed with Finding 5.They stated that If data is determined to be incorrect or out-of-date, they remove or correct the data. The City does not knowingly keep incorrect or out-of-date information on the City website. The City of Capitola, addressing Recommendation 1, agreed to implement in the future a formal process by December 31, 2020, for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. Regarding Recommendation 3 the City of Capitola felt that establishing SMART goals for website quality assurance and managing these goals beginning in 2021 needed further analysis. City of Santa Cruz The City of Santa Cruz agreed with Findings 1, 2, and 5.[22] Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 337 The City of Santa Cruz addressing Recommendation 1 agreed to implement a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information.[22] City of Scotts Valley The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Findings 1 and 2. The City of Scotts Valley responded in 2020 that they post all City Council, Committee and Commission agendas on the City website’s Agenda Center. Some commissions/committees meet only as needed and a committee’s last meeting may have been a year or more in the past. Thus, even though these agendas and minutes may appear out of date, the content is current. Similarly, the City maintains various plans and documents on its website and although they may be dated years in the past, the posted documents are still the most current. The City updates its website content regularly. They do not have the resources for a dedicated webmaster and staff manages the website on a departmental level. City staff reviews and updates City webpages on a regular, although not regimented, schedule. The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Finding 3. They implemented a major upgrade to their website in May 2018, moving from an antiquated website to the current, highly functional and easy-to-navigate site. The City of Scotts Valley has not adopted the formal goal paradigm of Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound. However, the City maintains the goal, as an operational prerequisite, to provide current, timely and useful information to the public. The City of Scotts Valley disagreed with Finding 5. When the City identifies outdated or inaccurate information on its website, it is rectified as soon as is practically feasible. They view their website as an important communication and engagement tool with the community and do not allow erroneous information to persist on their website. The City of Scotts Valley felt that they needed further analysis regarding
F4:
The City of Santa Cruz’s failure to conduct thorough, regular on-site inspections of the DeLaveaga Golf Course’s restaurant/lodge resulted in excessive renovation costs to the City of Santa Cruz. This contributed to more than doubling the original estimates to bring the building up to code.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish ‘SMART’ goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5) Requested 2020 Responses:[21] City of Capitola The City of Capitola partially disagreed with Findings 1, 2, and 3. They update information on a regular basis. There have been occasions when old data did not get removed after updated data was added. Stale and inaccurate data is corrected and replaced whenever found. The City is in the process of updating its website platform to make this task easier for departments. They also stated that SMART (Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound) is not a methodology that the City of Capitola has adopted. The City of Capitola disagreed with Finding 5.They stated that If data is determined to be incorrect or out-of-date, they remove or correct the data. The City does not knowingly keep incorrect or out-of-date information on the City website. The City of Capitola, addressing Recommendation 1, agreed to implement in the future a formal process by December 31, 2020, for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. Regarding Recommendation 3 the City of Capitola felt that establishing SMART goals for website quality assurance and managing these goals beginning in 2021 needed further analysis. City of Santa Cruz The City of Santa Cruz agreed with Findings 1, 2, and 5.[22] Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 337 The City of Santa Cruz addressing Recommendation 1 agreed to implement a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information.[22] City of Scotts Valley The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Findings 1 and 2. The City of Scotts Valley responded in 2020 that they post all City Council, Committee and Commission agendas on the City website’s Agenda Center. Some commissions/committees meet only as needed and a committee’s last meeting may have been a year or more in the past. Thus, even though these agendas and minutes may appear out of date, the content is current. Similarly, the City maintains various plans and documents on its website and although they may be dated years in the past, the posted documents are still the most current. The City updates its website content regularly. They do not have the resources for a dedicated webmaster and staff manages the website on a departmental level. City staff reviews and updates City webpages on a regular, although not regimented, schedule. The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Finding 3. They implemented a major upgrade to their website in May 2018, moving from an antiquated website to the current, highly functional and easy-to-navigate site. The City of Scotts Valley has not adopted the formal goal paradigm of Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound. However, the City maintains the goal, as an operational prerequisite, to provide current, timely and useful information to the public. The City of Scotts Valley disagreed with Finding 5. When the City identifies outdated or inaccurate information on its website, it is rectified as soon as is practically feasible. They view their website as an important communication and engagement tool with the community and do not allow erroneous information to persist on their website. The City of Scotts Valley felt that they needed further analysis regarding
R5:
The City of Santa Cruz City Manager should perform a lessons learned activity and then update the City’s relevant policies and operating procedures to avoid a future repeat of the DeLaveaga Golf Course’s restaurant/lodge shutdown and renovation no later than second quarter 2021. (F4)
F5:
The new draft Operations Plan lacks the necessary robustness to communicate how major golf course operations will be managed at DeLaveaga Golf Course, including but not limited to facility inspections, water use policies, variable pricing policies, charitable policies, operations review, and basic roles, responsibilities, and authority. Key 2020 Recommendations:
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. (F1, F2, F5)
R3:
The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish ‘SMART’ goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5) Requested 2020 Responses:[21] City of Capitola The City of Capitola partially disagreed with Findings 1, 2, and 3. They update information on a regular basis. There have been occasions when old data did not get removed after updated data was added. Stale and inaccurate data is corrected and replaced whenever found. The City is in the process of updating its website platform to make this task easier for departments. They also stated that SMART (Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound) is not a methodology that the City of Capitola has adopted. The City of Capitola disagreed with Finding 5.They stated that If data is determined to be incorrect or out-of-date, they remove or correct the data. The City does not knowingly keep incorrect or out-of-date information on the City website. The City of Capitola, addressing Recommendation 1, agreed to implement in the future a formal process by December 31, 2020, for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information. Regarding Recommendation 3 the City of Capitola felt that establishing SMART goals for website quality assurance and managing these goals beginning in 2021 needed further analysis. City of Santa Cruz The City of Santa Cruz agreed with Findings 1, 2, and 5.[22] Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 337 The City of Santa Cruz addressing Recommendation 1 agreed to implement a formal process by December 31, 2020 for their departments to validate and verify the accuracy and currency of website information.[22] City of Scotts Valley The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Findings 1 and 2. The City of Scotts Valley responded in 2020 that they post all City Council, Committee and Commission agendas on the City website’s Agenda Center. Some commissions/committees meet only as needed and a committee’s last meeting may have been a year or more in the past. Thus, even though these agendas and minutes may appear out of date, the content is current. Similarly, the City maintains various plans and documents on its website and although they may be dated years in the past, the posted documents are still the most current. The City updates its website content regularly. They do not have the resources for a dedicated webmaster and staff manages the website on a departmental level. City staff reviews and updates City webpages on a regular, although not regimented, schedule. The City of Scotts Valley partially disagreed with Finding 3. They implemented a major upgrade to their website in May 2018, moving from an antiquated website to the current, highly functional and easy-to-navigate site. The City of Scotts Valley has not adopted the formal goal paradigm of Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time-Bound. However, the City maintains the goal, as an operational prerequisite, to provide current, timely and useful information to the public. The City of Scotts Valley disagreed with Finding 5. When the City identifies outdated or inaccurate information on its website, it is rectified as soon as is practically feasible. They view their website as an important communication and engagement tool with the community and do not allow erroneous information to persist on their website. The City of Scotts Valley felt that they needed further analysis regarding
R6:
The City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Department and the City of Santa Cruz City Manager should add a formal process to the Operation Plan by addressing needed capital improvements, maintenance schedules, facility inspections, water use, variable pricing, charitable policies, operations review, and basic stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Stakeholders include the Santa Cruz City Council, the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, the City’s Parks & Recreation Commission, the Operator, the DeLaveaga Golf Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 331 Course Superintendent, the City’s Building Department and the City’s Public Works Department. (F5) Requested 2020 Responses:[4] The City of Santa Cruz partially disagreed with Finding 4 as related to Recommendation 5, that there was a failure to conduct thorough, regular on-site inspections of the DeLaveaga Golf Course’s restaurant/lodge, resulting in excessive renovation costs to the City of Santa Cruz. This contributed to more than doubling the original estimates to bring the building up to code. They stated that many of the issues discovered during the golf lodge renovation were interior to the building (e.g. electrical, plumbing, rotting wood, etc.). These issues were not evident in general facility inspections. The fundamental cause of the facility issues and exorbitant costs to renovate was a lack of ongoing capital improvement investment into the building over time. Due to limitations of City budgets, and to some degree, the local political will to invest in the golf course, funding was not sufficiently appropriated to maintain the golf lodge over time. Therefore, the result was a costly repair due to years of virtually no maintenance. The City of Santa Cruz stated that this is an important lesson as other facilities at the golf course including the maintenance facility, golf cart barn, and driving range, among others, are in desperate need of investment. Otherwise they may face similarly expensive capital needs in the future. This is also true of many City-owned buildings such as the Civic Auditorium, Public Works Corp Yard and the Parks Yard, Market Street Senior Center, Harvey West Park facilities, and many more. Investment in an aging portfolio of City-owned assets is critical for the future. Regarding Finding 5, as related to Recommendation 6, the City of Santa Cruz felt that they needed further analysis on whether or not the City Manager should perform a lessons learned activity and then update the City’s relevant policies and operating procedures to avoid a future repeat of the DeLaveaga Golf Course’s restaurant/lodge shutdown and renovation no later than second quarter 2021. The City of Santa Cruz stated that as of July 2020, there are no specific plans to do this, although it would be a helpful exercise and the Parks and Recreation Department would support it. The Parks and Recreation Department responded, indicating it would discuss with the City Manager’s Office a plan to chart a course of action related to this recommendation before the end of calendar year 2020. 2022-2023 Update: Were Commitments Kept? In response to this jury’s request for an update, the Parks and Recreation Department indicated budgeting, and the Santa Cruz City Council approved funding to assess facilities and develop a long-term Capital Investment Plan as outlined in Budget, Fiscal Years 2023-2027.[5] Additionally, the City Council appropriated funding for critical infrastructure and facility upgrades in FY 2023.[6] The Parks and Recreation Department will initiate these projects in 2023. The completion of the study is estimated to be in June 2023, and the improvements to the driving range and golf course assets are estimated to be in October 2023.[7] Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 332 . Fail in the Jail[8] Summary: On September 28, 2019 an unplanned power failure at the Santa Cruz County Main Jail resulted in the loss of critical capability to provide safe and secure operation of the jail. While the risks were known well in advance of the failure event, steps to manage and mitigate the risks were not taken. Established, comprehensive policies for management in a power failure emergency were in place, but those policies were not followed. Evidence of process improvement and risk management practice after the event was lacking. Key 2020 Findings:
F6:
Although the Cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville agreed that there appear to be unused or underutilized parcels of land that could possibly be used for homeless services, it is not clear how this could be done.
F7:
ThemasterplanforCoralStreetbeingworkedbytheCityofSantaCruzincludes considerationoflimitingvehicleaccesstoCoralStreet,butthegrantsreceivedby theCityandtheplantobuild120unitsofsupportivehousingpreemptthe originalGrandJuryrecommendationtoconsiderclosingit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The City of Santa Cruz should complete and then implement their Master Plan for Coral Street, including consideration of limiting vehicle access. The City of Santa Cruz should report to the Grand Jury on the status of Coral Street no later than December 31, 2023. (F7) Tangled Web
F8:
Staffing shortages made automating the process for updating the website of the City of Santa Cruz and redesigning the website of the City of Scotts Valley more difficult.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The City of Santa Cruz should verify that their commitment to automate the Honoring 2019-2020 Commitments published June 7, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 343 process for updating their website has been completed by October 31, 2023. (F8)
F9:
Data security is an important issue, including the security of voter registration data and it is unknown if measures have been taken in this area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Santa Cruz County Clerk should outline steps that have been taken to make voter registration data more secure by September 30, 2023. (F9)
F12:
There are parcels of land throughout the county that appear to be unused or underutilized, and could possibly be used to build housing for the homeless.
F21:
If underutilized parcels of land throughout Santa Cruz County were identified, such as the area near Coral Street in Santa Cruz and the parcel adjacent to the County Mental Health Building in Watsonville, these parcels could potentially be used to increase the number of beds and services to support the homeless. Key 2020 Recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The County Elections Department should incorporate amendments to ELEC 2188 (1994), as specified in AB 1678 and AB 1044, in the county application and website information, namely that county recipients must inform the Secretary of State of a data breach, and that County Applicants may be subject to data security training.
R9:
By December 31, 2020, the City of Santa Cruz should evaluate whether closing Coral Street permanently to thru traffic, to make more space available for additional housing and services for the homeless, would be a viable option. (F13 was cited in the 2019-2020 Grand Jury report, but this probably should have been F12 and/or F21) Requested 2020 Responses:[13]
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The contradictory entries on the City’s website and in the City’s legal documents
F2:
The City has no data on whether Inclusionary Housing is occupied by
F3:
The City has no data on the percentage of units in Inclusionary and 100%
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council state exactly
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council develop an
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council document the
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council create an
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
While all city and county planning departments have demonstrated a good understanding of the new State housing laws and the need to facilitate more housing, the failure to do so in a timely manner has served to further decrease the availability of housing and further increase the need and cost of more housing.
F2:
With the planned growth of UCSC to 28,000 students, the potential demand for off campus housing for students, faculty and staff has the potential to make the affordable housing problem even worse.
Related Recommendations (2)
R14:
By the end of 2023, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate progress in working collaboratively with UCSC to develop housing sites that are affordable for UCSC students and essential workers. (F2)
R18:
By the end of 2023, the City of Santa Cruz should demonstrate progress in working collaboratively with UCSC to develop housing sites that are affordable for UCSC students and essential workers. (F2) City of Watsonville:
F3:
The County of Santa Cruz has identified several sites for higher density housing, identified sites along transportation corridors for housing and changed zoning laws to allow more mixed use developments, however in the past several years, few low income homes have been built or approved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
By the end of 2023, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the county, (particularly on properties such as the old drive-in theater acreage which is adjacent to transportation corridors. (F3, F6)
F4:
Capitola has made little progress towards achieving housing goals, particularly for low income housing. Although the City identified sites for mixed use developments, they have made little progress towards developing those sites.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F4 – F6, F8)
R2:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F4, F6 – F8)
F5:
Capitola has focused primarily on streamlining the construction of ADUs as a means to increase housing. However, there is little evidence that ADUs are prioritized for rental to local workers, and there is little chance that ADUs alone can meet the housing needs for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F4 – F6, F8)
F6:
Capitola and the County of Santa Cruz need to work together to facilitate significant housing in the mid-county area where a large percentage of jobs are located.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F4 – F6, F8)
R2:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F4, F6 – F8)
R3:
By the end of 2023, the City of Capitola should demonstrate a plan to work with the County of Santa Cruz as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop housing close to transportation corridors along Hwy 1 and 41st Avenue. (F6, F7, F13)
R11:
By the end of 2023 the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate progress towards identifying sites and planning for increased housing along the transportation corridors in mid-county. (F6)
R13:
By the end of 2023, the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the county, (particularly on properties such as the old drive-in theater acreage which is adjacent to transportation corridors. (F3, F6)
F7:
The City of Capitola has made little progress towards facilitating the development of the Capitola Mall as a mixed use project which could accommodate both business and housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F4, F6 – F8)
R3:
By the end of 2023, the City of Capitola should demonstrate a plan to work with the County of Santa Cruz as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop housing close to transportation corridors along Hwy 1 and 41st Avenue. (F6, F7, F13)
F8:
The City of Capitola claims to have significantly fewer resources to attract housing planners and builders than do the bigger municipalities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz, but that does not mean the City should be exempt from the need to construct housing for local low income workers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F4 – F6, F8)
R2:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F4, F6 – F8)
F9:
The City of Scotts Valley has facilitated the building of market rate housing in recent years, but has made little effort to develop housing for low income workers. Housing Our Workers published June 2, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 205
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
By the end of 2023 the City of Scotts Valley should identify enough parcels of land, zoned appropriately, to meet the new RHNA housing allocations for all income levels, especially low income housing. (F9) Housing Our Workers published June 2, 2023 206 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R8:
By the end of 2023, the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the City. (F9 – F11)
F10:
The City of Scotts Valley has made little progress towards developing the Town Square project which could accommodate both business and housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
By the end of 2023, the City of Scotts Valley should show significant progress towards planning and facilitating the construction of mixed use businesses and housing on identified parcels of land in the City. (F10)
R8:
By the end of 2023, the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the City. (F9 – F11)
F11:
The City of Scotts Valley claims to have significantly fewer resources to attract housing planners and builders than do the bigger municipalities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz, but that does not mean the City should be exempt from the need to construct housing for local low income workers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By the end of 2023, the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate a plan to work with other county municipalities as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop low income housing for workers in the City. (F9 – F11)
F12:
While all local municipalities have voiced support for prioritizing housing for local workers, only some of them have clear local preference guidelines that give some priority to local workers. Without clear guidelines and incentives, new housing is more likely to be purchased by those who do not live and work here.
Related Recommendations (5)
R4:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of ADUs as well as low income housing. (F12)
R9:
By the end of 2023 the City of Scotts Valley should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of low income housing. (F12)
R12:
By the end of 2023 the County of Santa Cruz should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of low income housing. (F12)
R17:
By the end of 2023, the City of Santa Cruz should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that preference is given to local workers in the construction of low income housing. (F12) Housing Our Workers published June 2, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 207
R20:
By the end of 2023, the City of Watsonville should develop clear, measureable guidelines to ensure that local preference is given to local workers in the construction of low income housing. (F12)
F13:
All municipalities are trying to identify and facilitate the building of housing projects, but most of that is done independently of the other municipalities or with outside partners. Since workforce housing and transportation gridlock is a county-wide problem, all county municipalities need to work more closely together and with property owners to develop housing solutions.
Related Recommendations (6)
R3:
By the end of 2023, the City of Capitola should demonstrate a plan to work with the County of Santa Cruz as well as other for profit and non-profit agencies to develop housing close to transportation corridors along Hwy 1 and 41st Avenue. (F6, F7, F13)
R5:
By the end of 2023 the City of Capitola should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) City of Scotts Valley:
R10:
By the end of 2023 the City of Scotts Valley should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) County of Santa Cruz:
R15:
By the end of 2023 the County of Santa Cruz should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13) City of Santa Cruz
R16:
By the end of 2023 the City of Santa Cruz should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13)
R19:
By the end of 2023 the City of Watsonville should demonstrate that they have reestablished regular meetings of a workgroup or other entity that would allow planners from all 5 county jurisdictions to share ideas on housing development and develop joint projects. (F13)
F17:
All municipalities are trying to identify and facilitate the building of housing projects, but most of that is done independently of the other municipalities or with outside partners. Since workforce housing and transportation gridlock is a county-wide problem, all county municipalities need to work more closely together and with property owners to develop housing solutions. __ AGREE __X PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Please see response to F13 above. Invited Response from the Director, Santa Cruz Community Development Housing Our Workers Due by August 31, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 305
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Requiring candidates for difficult to fill positions coordinate with Personnel rather
F2:
The Personnel Department recruiter training does not provide recruiter skills to
F3:
Outdated personnel “candidate pool” rules and Civil Service recruiting policies
F4:
By not sending candidates for difficult to fill positions directly to hiring managers
F5:
Most county departments lack dedicated hiring managers leading to overloaded
F6:
The Personnel Department has not changed policies and procedures in the face
F7:
The Personnel Department’s website advertising continuous open positions
F8:
Continuous improvement for promoting existing employees in departments with
F9:
Promoting employees within departments with many difficult to fill positions can
F10:
The months-long hiring process is frustrating to candidates and jeopardizes the
F11:
The time required for complex paper processes steals time from creative
F12:
Despite the finding in F9, having leadership in Personnel Department positions
F13:
The 8-county salary comparison in place since 2002 is no longer a useful
F14:
To attract a wider pool of candidates for difficult to fill positions, pay needs to be
F15:
The County Personnel Department was consistently unable to provide
F16:
The Personnel Department expects the department units themselves to track
F17:
By not filling essential positions for months at a time, services for residents suffer
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, in order to reduce the
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, and annually
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2024, the Personnel
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Underfunding the road and culvert maintenance work on the 586 miles of County
F2:
Due to the large shortfall in funding, Santa Cruz County Department of Public
F3:
The County road maintenance strategy differs by Supervisorial District leading to
F4:
Storms of 2017 and 2023 caused significant road failures. Contributing factors
F5:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to ask unincorporated County voters to
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
This effort will begin in Fiscal Year 2024-25. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024 Page 19 of 21 44 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury R7. The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to prioritize a minimum of 10% of Measure K funds to repair roads in the County with a PCI of 25 or less by December 31, 2024. (F10, F11) __ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – __ summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe __ (not to exceed six months) _X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Board evaluates and sets County prioritizes through the annual budget process. This process allocates the County’s scarce resources across many competing demands such as addressing homelessness, providing affordable housing, maintaining public safety and the many mandated services the County must provide. The Board has programmed $1 million of Measure K in Fiscal Year 2024-25 for road repairs. Any further investment will be recommended by Public Works to follow best management practices. Required Response from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz County Local Roads Due by September 3, 2024 Page 20 of 21 2023-2024 Consolidated Final Report with
F6:
The County of Santa Cruz has failed to perform resurfacing maintenance on
F7:
Santa Cruz County's neglect of unincorporated local roads for many decades has
F8:
The County prioritizes preventive maintenance of roads in fair to good condition
F9:
The most recent LAFCO and County reports fail to provide detailed accounting of
F10:
Minor progress has been made in seeking and securing additional funding
F11:
Measure K funds go directly into the General Fund and road maintenance
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW complete a public report by
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors increase annual
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW supply information to LAFCO
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCO issue a new County Service Area
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors take steps
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DPW formalize its policy of abandoning
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Sheriff’s Office documenting minimal use of Amazon Ring, and informing the public of use specifically to assist with the investigation of significant crimes, assures the public this tool is not in constant use or frequently surveilling specific neighborhoods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
As Ring installations become more widespread, the Sheriff’s Office should include statistics on Amazon Ring Neighbors Portal usage in its annual report to the public by March 30, 2024. (F1)
F2:
The Sheriff’s Office indicating no use of automated license plate readers updates the public with current information consistent with findings from the 2021 Criminal Justice Council Report.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Office should consider using its 2024 annual Military Equipment Inventory public meeting as its forum to inform the public of intent to acquire or use any Automated License Plate Reader equipment. (F2) Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 2022-2023 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 523
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should consider regular public reporting on the intended acquisition and ongoing use of surveillance technologies not already publicly reported as required under state or county law. The Sheriff’s Office should consider using portions of the Military Equipment Inventory as a template for providing the public with pertinent information on any surveillance equipment proposed, or acquired through federal grants, or other funding rather than creating yet another reporting format by December 31, 2023. (F2, F4)
F3:
Conflicting information on records retention within Policy 423 (Body Worn Cameras), as well as between Policies 422 (Portable Audio/Video Recorders) and 423, creates confusion and doubt for the public, and may present lack of certainty on proper records retention and disposal for Sheriff’s Office personnel.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual should review and propose potential revisions specific to confusing language in Policies 422 (Portable Audio/Video Recorders) and 423 (Body Worn Cameras) by December 31, 2023. (F3)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
F4:
The Sheriff’s Office’s lack of documentation specific to the Cellebrite Mobile Device Forensics Tool leaves the public without critical information on how this tool will be used, and more importantly, when it will not be used.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The Sheriff’s Office should inform the public on whether Mobile Device Forensic Tools are used for consent searches specifically, and define and announce disposal dates for non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F4)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office should consider regular public reporting on the intended acquisition and ongoing use of surveillance technologies not already publicly reported as required under state or county law. The Sheriff’s Office should consider using portions of the Military Equipment Inventory as a template for providing the public with pertinent information on any surveillance equipment proposed, or acquired through federal grants, or other funding rather than creating yet another reporting format by December 31, 2023. (F2, F4)
F5:
The Sheriff’s Office first annual Military Equipment Inventory for the surveillance tools reviewed by the Grand Jury lacks details such as impact cost and specific linkages to Sheriff’s Office policy as required under California AB-481. This lack of detail leaves the public without clarity on aspects of cost and accountability measures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
R8:
The Sheriff’s Office should review its Military Equipment Inventory to ensure compliance with AB-481. Where documentation is missing, the Sheriff’s Office should draft clarifying text either to share with the public for review, or for inclusion in the annual update by May 31, 2024. (F5)
F6:
The ability to register video surveillance on a web page created specifically for security alarm registration within Santa Cruz County may be confusing to the registered subscribers, as well as those considering adding security services to their home or business.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Sheriff’s Office may wish to recommend to the County Administration Office that clarifying language be added to the False Alarm and Administration online registration. (F6)
F7:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections’ lack of clear documentation specific to inmate tablet use leaves the public without critical information on how the information collected is used, how this information is retained, and more importantly, when disposal occurs for non-evidentiary records.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Where possible, the Sheriff’s Office should publicly provide information on retention and specify disposal dates for all surveillance technologies non-evidentiary data by December 31, 2023. (F3, F4, F5, F7)
R9:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections should consider a documented process for handling the inadvertent recording of privileged communications, including inmate tablet use by September 30, 2023. (F7, F8) Commendation C1. The Sheriff’s Office Annual Report is easy to read, well organized, and provides useful information to the public. This publication offers thoughtful views of equipment, events, and Sheriff’s Office personnel. Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 524 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F8:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections’ lack of a documented process for handling inadvertent recording of privileged communications (e.g., communications by an inmate to legal counsel), is a concern since a breach of confidentiality could expose the County to costly legal liability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Sheriff’s Office of Corrections should consider a documented process for handling the inadvertent recording of privileged communications, including inmate tablet use by September 30, 2023. (F7, F8) Commendation C1. The Sheriff’s Office Annual Report is easy to read, well organized, and provides useful information to the public. This publication offers thoughtful views of equipment, events, and Sheriff’s Office personnel. Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County published June 20, 2023 524 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The inability of local fire departments to coordinate (communicate) with CAL
F2:
The Long-term Recovery Group which assisted CZU fire and other disaster
F3:
Because many CZU fire victims were unaware of LTRG disaster services, fire
F4:
The failure of County agencies to have an effective disaster response plan in
F5:
The failure of CDI and Environmental Health to provide timely guidance with
F6:
The failure of the County Environmental Health department to fully inform CZU
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that OR3, CDI, and Santa
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury recommends that OR3 provide a list of
R4:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury further recommends that the Board of
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The failure of Wellpath, the medical provider contracted by the Sheriff to provide
F2:
The failure of Wellpath to implement a comprehensive discharge plan causes
F3:
The failure of the Sheriff”s jail staff to properly address inmates' mental illness
F4:
The improper use of Safety Cells by the Sheriff’s jail staff to isolate inmates who
F5:
The use of Safety Cells for punishment has resulted in violations of Title
F6:
The practice of excluding mentally ill patients from 5150 hold and transfer until
F7:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer inmates with suicidal ideation or in a
F8:
The failure of the Crisis Intervention Team to issue a 5150 hold and transfer
F9:
The practice of placement in Administrative Separation (solitary confinement)
F10:
The failure of Jail administrators to transfer Inmates who are suffering from
F11:
Opening the closed unit at Rountree and increasing the number of re-entry
F12:
Increasing the number of programs that focus on rehabilitation, education, and
F13:
Jail programs like “Stepping Up” steers the mentally ill to community-based
F14:
The current practice of reviewing inmate classification monthly is too long of an
F15:
The failure of Wellpath to recruit and retain adequate staff adversely impacts the
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury was not permitted to interview inmates
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff
R2:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff
R3:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain
R4:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff retrain
R5:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff
R6:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff direct
R7:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff
R8:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff
R9:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff
R10:
By the end of fiscal year 2024-2025, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff
R11:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff
R12:
By the end of the calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff
R13:
By the end of calendar year 2024, the Grand Jury recommends the Wellpath be
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff begin to allow the Santa Cruz County