Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2024-2025
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 (17)
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
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) 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) 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) 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) 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 (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) 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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,
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)
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
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] 2023-24 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] 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] 2023-24 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] 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 (2)
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,
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] 2023-24 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] 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.
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] 2023-24 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] 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.
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 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.
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
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 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
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) 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
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)
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
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)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
While handcuffing is discretionary, Watsonville Department police officers tend to
F2:
The WPD handcuffs and transports a much higher percentage of misdemeanor
F3:
All local law enforcement agencies handcuff individuals transported to police
F4:
In Watsonville, second or third breath testing is done at the Police Department,
F5:
De-escalation training reduces the use of force, including handcuffing.
F6:
Instead of “Protect and Serve”, Watsonville Police say their motto is now "Protect
F7:
The WPD has a lower retention rate of officers with more than five years of
F8:
The WPD salaries are at least 17% lower than the San Jose Police Department
F9:
Officers with more years of service in the department have better relationships
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Watsonville Police Department should update training materials and provide
R2:
While the WPD does include de-escalation training in some courses, the
R3:
The Watsonville Police Department should update training materials and provide
R4:
The Watsonville Police Department should install in every patrol car a certified
R5:
The Watsonville City Council should add incentives and raise officer total
R6:
The Watsonville Police Department should institute quarterly meetings with
R8:
Santa Cruz County BoS should direct the Building Department and any other
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
There is currently no consolidated data being collected on Santa Cruz County
F2:
The potential passage of AB 379 may provide grants for the District Attorney’s
F3:
The tri-county CSEC steering committee for the prevention of human trafficking
F4:
The County Family & Child Services CSEC-required monthly multidisciplinary
F5:
Staff and administration of the County Office of Education report they are not
F6:
Very few businesses in Santa Cruz County are in compliance with SB 1193
F7:
Existing human trafficking signs at farm worker contractor sites are not readily
F8:
The mix of County and local municipal ordinances regarding the licensing and
F9:
Annual inspections are required of massage businesses in jurisdictions with
F10:
Calls to the National Human Trafficking Hotline on existing signs have
F11:
Local nonprofit organizations have 24/7 hotline numbers that are staffed, and
F12:
There has been a lack of human trafficking presentations to law enforcement.
F13:
Law enforcement task forces focused solely on human trafficking are very
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Department of Human Services should designate a qualified staff member to
R2:
The Program Manager of Family & Child Services should coordinate with
R3:
The Program Manager of County Family & Child Services should resume and
R4:
Each law enforcement agency in Santa Cruz County, including the Sheriff’s
R5:
The County Office of Education should come into compliance with AB 1227,
R6:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should adopt an umbrella countywide
R7:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require that county-specific
R8:
The Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner should come into compliance
R9:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should adopt a countywide ordinance
R10:
Local law enforcement agencies, including the Sheriff’s Office, Santa Cruz
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Data: The Health Services Agency has not developed and deployed analytic,
F2:
Administrative: The Jury finds that many programs, such as the Focus
F3:
Clinical: Santa Cruz County does not have a Level of Care Tool to track and
F4:
Administrative: Santa Cruz County programs and resources for High-Cost
F5:
Data, Clinical & Administrative: The Central California Alliance for Health
F6:
Administrative: The Jury finds that the Serving Communities Health
F7:
Compassion: Throughout the Grand Jury investigation, the Jury found that the
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Administrative Integration. The Board of Supervisors recently adopted
R2:
Ongoing External Reporting. Given the urgency of diminishing funding, the
R3:
Ongoing External Reporting: In order to leverage their partnership with the
R4:
Ongoing External Reporting: At least bi-annually beginning no later than
R5:
Clinical Integration. Annually, beginning January 1, 2026, the Santa Cruz
R6:
Administrative, Financial & Clinical. By July 1, 2026, the Santa Cruz Health
R7:
Administrative Integration. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency
R8:
Financial Integration. On or before July 1, 2027, the County Health Services
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Excessive delays in the building permit process increase costs to applicants in
F2:
The permitting process has become so detailed and intricate that it often requires
F3:
Homeowners are often unaware that ordinary household maintenance requires a
F4:
Some people willfully ignore obtaining a building permit because they think it's
F5:
Ignoring obtaining building permits causes a loss of revenue for the County, both
F6:
Professionals in the county can be difficult to find for a project because the
F7:
Applicants have a hard time tracking their project’s progress because
F8:
The services of an Ombudsman could be utilized by tradespeople and
F9:
The BFCA Board was disbanded, and the Appeals process, as currently
F10:
The DIYer and the small contractors need the support and/or instant answers
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BoS should have staff review best practices from other jurisdictions and then
R2:
The BoS should direct staff to adopt software that removes barriers to applicants
R3:
The County of Santa Cruz should separate the Ombudsman duties from
R4:
The Ombudsman function should be clearly identified and publicized to make the
R5:
Santa Cruz County should develop a plan to educate the population about
R6:
Santa Cruz County should establish a walk-up front desk service four hours per
R7:
Santa Cruz County BoS should reconvene the Building and Fire Code Appeals