Gran Jurado del Condado de Santa Cruz
2026-2027
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 (4)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
The County Executive Office and County Behavioral Health did not complete the requested financial plan (Operations Plan #550) by December 31, 2025, depriving the Board of Supervisors and the public of critical information needed to make informed decisions about program sustainability, resource allocation, and performance expectations.
F2:
The County Executive Office and County Behavioral Health do not have an aligned understanding of baseline requirements for Federal funding, resulting in allocations from the General Fund that might be more than needed.
F3:
County Behavioral Health has not implemented a Level of Care (LOC) tool, resulting in missed opportunities to efficiently manage high-cost beneficiaries.
F4:
County Behavioral Health has not applied actuarial tools concerning the utilization and severity of the Medi-Cal population receiving behavioral health services, resulting in an inability to plan for its key cost drivers.
F5:
County Behavioral Health has not applied financial measurements to Quality Improvement Initiatives, resulting in an inability to make informed decisions about where to invest resources, which interventions produce the greatest measurable impact, and which services may require redesign.
F6:
Santa Cruz County has not implemented the CalAIM Justice Involved Reentry System, potentially resulting in the loss of Care Management services through Medi-Cal and costly gaps in care as people transition from the justice system.
F7:
County Behavioral Health has several projects that are not essential to core services, resulting in expenditure of resources that might be better directed to addressing more urgent core priorities.
F8:
A review on the outcomes of the Sheriff’s Office Focused Intervention Team has not been completed, resulting in a lack of knowledge on whether the program has achieved the goals concerning recidivism or a reduction in emergency resources.
F9:
The current jail facilities are not physically designed to address the incarcerated population experiencing severe behavioral health and/or substance used disorder illness, resulting in ineffective treatment and recidivism.
F10:
Incarcerated individuals who may have been patients seen through County Behavioral Health experience gaps in treatment plans, resulting in resource duplication.
Recomendaciones adicionales
10
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Executive Office and County Behavioral Health to complete the financial plan report no later than September 30, 2026. Required Respondent: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Executive Office and County Behavioral Health to complete a report to the Board of Supervisors on the minimum County funding requirements for meeting federal and state matching fund requirements for behavioral health services by December 31, 2026. Required Respondent: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors directs County Behavioral Health, in conjunction with its system conversion to SmartCare, to implement the LOC tool within 90 days after the go-live of the SmartCare system, as recommended in the 2023-2024 External Quality Review for the California Department of Healthcare Services. Required Respondent: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Behavioral Health publish a report that summarizes the utilization and costs of the assigned Medi-Cal population for the fiscal year ending June 2026 by December 31, 2027. The report can be used as a tool to identify targeted improvements for the 2027-2028 fiscal period. Required Respondent: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Behavioral Health to apply targeted financial measurements that demonstrate potential reductions in costs and/or increases in revenues for each of its Quality Initiatives beginning with the reporting period ending on December 31,2026. Required Respondent: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Behavioral Health, in collaboration with the Santa Cruz County Sheriff to prepare a report no later than December 31, 2026 to the County Board of Supervisors summarizing the steps taken to support the implementation of the CalAIM Justice Involved Reentry Program (which has a state mandated implementation date of September 30, 2026). The report shall provide a summary of key metrics that will be measured and regularly reported on to demonstrate program effectiveness or areas of opportunity. Required Respondent: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Behavioral Health to prepare a report to the County Executive Officer that identifies non-core projects, the associated costs, and the earliest timeframe for elimination of the non-core service by December 31, 2026. Required Respondent: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff produce a report to the County Board of Supervisors summarizing the progress of the Focused intervention Team in achieving its stated goals concerning recidivism and impact on emergency services by December 31, 2026. The report shall also include a discussion of future resource deployment of the FIT considering the CALAim Justice Involved Reentry program. Required Respondent: Sheriff, Santa Cruz County
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff, in collaboration with County Behavioral Health produce a report concerning the current condition of the jails where the physical space may be deficient in the treatment of incarcerated individuals experiencing severe behavioral health issues by March 31, 2027. The report should include: a. A list of the current physical space deficiencies b. An estimate on the number of inmates who might be served on a typical day. c. A discussion on how County Behavioral Health might collaborate on the use of a facility. d. An estimate of the potential benefits of the facility (such as reduced recidivism or reduction in high-cost cases for County Behavioral Health). e. A discussion on potential sites that are currently operated by local government agencies that might be repurposed. f. A discussion on potential alternative sources of capital funding (if needed) such as Medi-Cal Managed Care initiatives or Housing for Health initiatives. Required Respondent: Sheriff, Santa Cruz County
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Behavioral Health, in collaboration with the Sheriff, to author a report to the County Board of Supervisors concerning the identification of the barriers preventing the ongoing mutual sharing of clinical data between the jail and County Behavioral Health and possible solutions, by March 31, 2027 Required Respondent: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Commendation County Health Services and Sheriff’s office leadership, staff and associated service providers are dedicated individuals who are devoted to the principles of compassionate care.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
17 hallazgos
F1:
regulatory constraints that are most limiting to construction
F2:
adjustments that would materially increase the number of units being built
F3:
the extent to which the County’s current approach can actually achieve its housing targets The risks of inaction are substantial. Continued underperformance will expose the County to increasing State intervention, including further loss of discretionary control over land use decisions. More importantly, it will perpetuate the ongoing housing shortage which is already pricing out large segments of the County’s workforce and risks fundamentally altering the character of the community. The County faces a clear choice: it can continue to rely on a framework that achieves compliance on paper while falling short in practice, or it can take bold action to align its policies with economic reality and enable housing to be built at scale. The tools to do so are available. What is required is the willingness to act. Absent strong leadership willing to use the tools at their disposal, Santa Cruz County will continue to merely satisfy statutory requirements while failing to address the housing crisis confronting its residents and workers. FINDINGS
F4:
F1. Over the past 40 years, the County of Santa Cruz has adopted land-use and growth- management policies designed to limit the pace and location of development. These policies have limited housing production, exacerbating severe housing affordability challenges for residents and workers who are increasingly priced out of living in the County.
F5:
F2. Despite adopting a State-certified Housing Element, the County of Santa Cruz has fallen significantly behind on progress toward permitting sufficient housing production to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets. As a result, the County is unlikely to adequately address the housing needs of County residents and workers increasingly priced out of living in the County.
F6:
F3. The County of Santa Cruz has failed to create a housing plan likely to generate sufficient housing production to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets. As a result, the County faces an increased risk of State-imposed consequences. 12
F7:
F4. The County of Santa Cruz has not conducted and published a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis of housing development in the County. As a result, the extent to which zoned capacity will ultimately be converted into new housing units is not reliably known.
F8:
F5. Because the County of Santa Cruz has not performed a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis, the County lacks an important tool to identify and remedy regulatory constraints impeding its ability to achieve its housing goals.
F9:
F6. The failure of the County of Santa Cruz to publish a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis means that the public is deprived of a concrete way to judge the County’s use of its regulatory power to address the housing crisis.
F10:
F7. The County of Santa Cruz has not created an easily accessible public dashboard for tracking progress towards meeting its Regional Housing Need Allocation. As a result, the public must piece together data from multiple sources to understand what progress is being made to meet the County’s housing goals.
F11:
F1. Over the past 40 years, the County of Santa Cruz has adopted land-use and growth- management policies designed to limit the pace and location of development. These policies have limited housing production, exacerbating severe housing affordability challenges for residents and workers who are increasingly priced out of living in the County.
F12:
F2. Despite adopting a State-certified Housing Element, the County of Santa Cruz has fallen significantly behind on progress toward permitting sufficient housing production to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets. As a result, the County is unlikely to adequately address the housing needs of County residents and workers increasingly priced out of living in the County.
F13:
F3. The County of Santa Cruz has failed to create a housing plan likely to generate sufficient housing production to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets. As a result, the County faces an increased risk of State-imposed consequences. 12
F14:
F4. The County of Santa Cruz has not conducted and published a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis of housing development in the County. As a result, the extent to which zoned capacity will ultimately be converted into new housing units is not reliably known.
F15:
F5. Because the County of Santa Cruz has not performed a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis, the County lacks an important tool to identify and remedy regulatory constraints impeding its ability to achieve its housing goals.
F16:
F6. The failure of the County of Santa Cruz to publish a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis means that the public is deprived of a concrete way to judge the County’s use of its regulatory power to address the housing crisis.
F17:
F7. The County of Santa Cruz has not created an easily accessible public dashboard for tracking progress towards meeting its Regional Housing Need Allocation. As a result, the public must piece together data from multiple sources to understand what progress is being made to meet the County’s housing goals.
Recomendaciones adicionales
6
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure to take all steps necessary or appropriate to increase the likelihood that the number of housing units identified in the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation will actually be built.
R2:
R2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure to conduct and publish a comprehensive financial feasibility analysis. We recommend the analysis: (i) determine how many housing units are likely to be built in the County of Santa Cruz during the 6th Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycle; (ii) identify key local regulatory barriers to building; (iii) provide policymakers with recommendations regarding which changes to local regulations would spur actual construction; (iv) provide the public with reliable measurable information regarding the County’s progress toward, and commitment to, addressing the housing crisis. The analyses should be initiated no later than February 1, 2027, and completed and published by September 30, 2027.
R3:
R3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors (i) formally identify the recommendations it wishes to adopt from the comprehensive financial feasibility analysis, (ii) adopt those recommendations, and (iii) direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure to implement the adopted recommendations. The Board of 13 Supervisors should do so no later than 90 days following completion of the analysis.
R4:
R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure (CDI) to publish online the County’s Annual Progress Report (APR) once it has been submitted to the State. The Board of Supervisors should direct CDI to do so by December 31, 2026, and complete such publication for subsequent years no later than April 15th, 2 weeks after the APR is due to the State.
R5:
R5. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure (CDI) to ensure that the existing affordable housing and major projects dashboards are updated quarterly. The Board of Supervisors should direct CDI to begin doing so no later than December 31, 2026.
R6:
R6. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Community Development and Infrastructure (CDI) to explore options for creating a single, regularly updated dashboard for all new housing units being developed in the County of Santa Cruz linking the newly permitted units to Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets that can utilize existing and future planning workflows. The Board of Supervisors should direct CDI to do so no later than December 31, 2026, and CDI should report back to the board on these options no later than April 1st, 2027.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
14 hallazgos
F1:
The County of Santa Cruz County has not implemented Vision Zero plans, possibly resulting in more pedestrian deaths and serious injuries than would have otherwise occurred.
F2:
Public awareness of reporting procedures for sidewalk hazards and faded paint issues is lacking, resulting in dangerous conditions for pedestrians.
F3:
The County of Santa Cruz does not take an active role in identifying sidewalk hazards and faded safety paint, resulting in dangerous sidewalks and crosswalks.
F4:
Because sidewalk repairs can be expensive, repairs may be delayed or hazards go unreported, resulting in dangerous sidewalks for pedestrians.
F5:
Many pedestrians are unaware of how to walk safely, resulting in higher rates of pedestrians killed and seriously injured.
F6:
The City of Watsonville has not implemented Vision Zero plans, possibly resulting in more pedestrian deaths and serious injuries than would have otherwise occurred.
F7:
Public awareness of reporting procedures for sidewalk hazards and faded paint issues is lacking, resulting in dangerous conditions for pedestrians.
F8:
The City of Watsonville does not take an active role in identifying sidewalk hazards and faded safety paint, resulting in dangerous sidewalks and crosswalks.
F9:
Law enforcement has prioritized enforcement of Driving Under the Influence laws over speeding violations, resulting in an imbalance that may lead to more pedestrian injuries and deaths.
F10:
The City of Santa Cruz has not implemented Vision Zero plans, possibly resulting in more pedestrian deaths and serious injuries than would have otherwise occurred.
F11:
Public awareness of reporting procedures for sidewalk hazards and faded paint issues is lacking, resulting in dangerous conditions for pedestrians.
F12:
The City of Santa Cruz does not take an active role in identifying sidewalk hazards and faded safety paint, resulting in dangerous sidewalks and crosswalks.
F13:
Because sidewalk repairs can be expensive, repairs may be delayed or hazards go unreported, resulting in dangerous sidewalks for pedestrians.
F14:
Law enforcement has prioritized enforcement of Driving Under the Influence laws over speeding violations, resulting in an imbalance that may lead to more pedestrian injuries and deaths.
Recomendaciones adicionales
14
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors direct their Public Works Department to work with the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency to develop and publish multi-disciplinary Vision Zero Action plans no later than June 1, 2027.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors direct the County Health Services Agency to provide more outreach to educate the public on how to report sidewalk hazards and faded paint by March 1, 2027.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors direct their County Public Works Department to develop a policy to actively identify sidewalk hazards and markings with faded paint and initiate the repair process by June 1, 2027.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors direct their Public Works Department to create and publish a policy to financially assist homeowners with sidewalk repairs by June 1, 2027.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors direct the County Health Services Agency to provide more public outreach to educate pedestrians on how to walk safely, including the hazards of walking while intoxicated, by March 1, 2027.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Watsonville City Council direct their Public Works and Police Departments to work with the County Health Services Agency to develop and publish multi-disciplinary Vision Zero Action plans no later than June 1, 2027.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Watsonville City Council direct their Public Works Department to provide more outreach to educate the public on how to report sidewalk hazards and faded paint by March 1, 2027.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends the Watsonville City Council direct their Public Works Department to enact a policy to annually review and identify sidewalk hazards and markings with faded paint and initiate the repair process by June 1, 2027.
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends the Watsonville City Council direct the Chief of Police to annually review Office of Traffic Safety pedestrian Killed and Seriously Injured data to ensure enforcement priorities are balanced based on the Vision Zero Plan. The annual review should be published and updated each year beginning June 1, 2027.
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council direct their Public Works and Police Departments to work with the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency to develop and publish multi-disciplinary Vision Zero Action plans no later than June 1, 2027.
R11:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council direct their Public Works Dept. to provide more outreach to educate the public on how to report sidewalk hazards and faded paint by March 1, 2027.
R12:
The Grand Jury recommends the Santa Cruz City Council direct their Public Works Department to develop a policy to actively identify sidewalk hazards and faded paint and initiate the repair process by June 1, 2027.
R13:
The Grand Jury recommends the Santa Cruz City Council direct their Public Works Department to create and publish a policy to financially assist homeowners with sidewalk repairs by June 1, 2027.
R14:
The Grand Jury recommends the Santa Cruz City Council direct the Chief of Police to annually review Office of Traffic Safety pedestrian Killed and Seriously Injured data to ensure enforcement priorities are balanced based on the Vision Zero Plan. The annual review should be published and updated each year beginning June 1, 2027.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
Santa Cruz County’s June 2025 implementation of the ParkMobile app in its parking lot at 701 Ocean Street did not include adequate signage concerning paid parking hours, options for people without smartphones, language translations, and ADA placard exemptions. This created confusion and frustration for visitors trying to engage in County business.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the General Services Division to adopt a simpler methodology for all parking at 701 Ocean Street. The new requirements document should take into account the following: A. When a driver parks for 1 or 2 hours, the parking should be free of any data gathering. B. Beyond the free period, an alternative payment method needs to be devised to pay for parking that does not result in storage of personal data (license plate, credit card, email, or phone number) either at the county or a third-party vendor. C. Payment should not require the use of personal technology devices. D. Drivers should not have to enter the buildings in order to secure their parking. E. The rules about parking charges (for example, exemption for Board of Supervisors Meetings) should be posted publicly in the lot. F. Signage in appropriate languages other than English for any population segment above 10% of the total population. The requirements document should be completed by December 31, 2026 with a new system implemented by July 1, 2027. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F2:
Poorly located new signage (in March 2026), has resulted in more confusion, not less.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the General Services Division to adopt a simpler methodology for all parking at 701 Ocean Street. The new requirements document should take into account the following: A. When a driver parks for 1 or 2 hours, the parking should be free of any data gathering. B. Beyond the free period, an alternative payment method needs to be devised to pay for parking that does not result in storage of personal data (license plate, credit card, email, or phone number) either at the county or a third-party vendor. C. Payment should not require the use of personal technology devices. D. Drivers should not have to enter the buildings in order to secure their parking. E. The rules about parking charges (for example, exemption for Board of Supervisors Meetings) should be posted publicly in the lot. F. Signage in appropriate languages other than English for any population segment above 10% of the total population. The requirements document should be completed by December 31, 2026 with a new system implemented by July 1, 2027. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the General Services Division to review contractual arrangements for any parking system, ensuring adequate security of personal information is in place to reduce County exposure to potential lawsuits. GSD to provide a written report back to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2027. (F2, F3, F4, F5)
F3:
People who park for free in the visitor area are directed to engage with a third- party vendor (ParkMobile app) resulting in unnecessary exposure of private data and inconsistent fees.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the General Services Division to adopt a simpler methodology for all parking at 701 Ocean Street. The new requirements document should take into account the following: A. When a driver parks for 1 or 2 hours, the parking should be free of any data gathering. B. Beyond the free period, an alternative payment method needs to be devised to pay for parking that does not result in storage of personal data (license plate, credit card, email, or phone number) either at the county or a third-party vendor. C. Payment should not require the use of personal technology devices. D. Drivers should not have to enter the buildings in order to secure their parking. E. The rules about parking charges (for example, exemption for Board of Supervisors Meetings) should be posted publicly in the lot. F. Signage in appropriate languages other than English for any population segment above 10% of the total population. The requirements document should be completed by December 31, 2026 with a new system implemented by July 1, 2027. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the General Services Division to review contractual arrangements for any parking system, ensuring adequate security of personal information is in place to reduce County exposure to potential lawsuits. GSD to provide a written report back to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2027. (F2, F3, F4, F5)
F4:
Those wishing to bypass the use of the ParkMobile app are penalized with the inconvenience of a trip to the third floor of the County Building. This workaround of ParkMobile is particularly onerous for people with mobility issues or small children.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the General Services Division to adopt a simpler methodology for all parking at 701 Ocean Street. The new requirements document should take into account the following: A. When a driver parks for 1 or 2 hours, the parking should be free of any data gathering. B. Beyond the free period, an alternative payment method needs to be devised to pay for parking that does not result in storage of personal data (license plate, credit card, email, or phone number) either at the county or a third-party vendor. C. Payment should not require the use of personal technology devices. D. Drivers should not have to enter the buildings in order to secure their parking. E. The rules about parking charges (for example, exemption for Board of Supervisors Meetings) should be posted publicly in the lot. F. Signage in appropriate languages other than English for any population segment above 10% of the total population. The requirements document should be completed by December 31, 2026 with a new system implemented by July 1, 2027. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the General Services Division to review contractual arrangements for any parking system, ensuring adequate security of personal information is in place to reduce County exposure to potential lawsuits. GSD to provide a written report back to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2027. (F2, F3, F4, F5)
F5:
ParkMobile has recently experienced a data breach to their system resulting in the unnecessary exposure of private user data to hackers.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the General Services Division to adopt a simpler methodology for all parking at 701 Ocean Street. The new requirements document should take into account the following: A. When a driver parks for 1 or 2 hours, the parking should be free of any data gathering. B. Beyond the free period, an alternative payment method needs to be devised to pay for parking that does not result in storage of personal data (license plate, credit card, email, or phone number) either at the county or a third-party vendor. C. Payment should not require the use of personal technology devices. D. Drivers should not have to enter the buildings in order to secure their parking. E. The rules about parking charges (for example, exemption for Board of Supervisors Meetings) should be posted publicly in the lot. F. Signage in appropriate languages other than English for any population segment above 10% of the total population. The requirements document should be completed by December 31, 2026 with a new system implemented by July 1, 2027. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the General Services Division to review contractual arrangements for any parking system, ensuring adequate security of personal information is in place to reduce County exposure to potential lawsuits. GSD to provide a written report back to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2027. (F2, F3, F4, F5)
F6:
Recent lawsuits naming local governments for lack of security and unintended use of private data have raised issues of governmental obligations and liability with regard to same, resulting in potential exposure of the County of Santa Cruz to lawsuits. (Appendix A). .