Section I: Substance Abuse on Campus

Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 1-4 through 1-7

Grand Jury Findings

1. Studies show that a majority of high school students are either currently using alcohol and/or drugs, or have used these substances in the past. Even as early as 7th grade, 52% of these youngsters have been or currently are using drugs or alcohol. The data cited are from the “Healthy Kids Survey of Santa Cruz County,” a study conducted by the County’s school districts, and include alternative schools, The Ark, Loma Prieta and Renaissance High Schools, but not the County Office of Education Alternative Education schools. The data represent lifetime use.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding

2. Heroin use has shown a frightening rise among students at the 9th grade level. By 11th grade, another 4% of students are new heroin users. The 4% of the student population who are heroin users in 9th grade do not stay in regular public schools. By the 11th grade, these students have either dropped out of school, are in alternative schools, are in drug treatment programs or juvenile detention, or are deceased. This represents approximately 8% of the total high school student population who use heroin.

County Response: The County disagrees with these findings.

The 2001 Santa Cruz County Youth Survey indicates that 4% of youth in 9^th grade self report lifetime (using at any time) use of heroin. In 11^th grade the figure is 5%.

The 2001 Survey also indicates heroin dependency for 1% of the youth surveyed in 9^th grade and 1% of the youth surveyed again in 11^th grade.

These figures cannot be combined to indicate that all of the 4% of 9^th graders who self report any amount of heroin use drop out of high school and an entirely new 4% self report in 11^th grade.

In addition, the County disagrees with the blanket statement that the 4% of students who have ever tried heroin either drop out of school, are in alternative schools, are in drug treatment programs or juvenile detention, or are deceased.

Heroin use is, indeed, a local problem. It is important that information on this problem be accurately and appropriately used to develop effective prevention and intervention responses.

5. School officials and law enforcement officers both report that public and parental apathy contribute to a lack of meaningful consequences for substance abuse and juvenile crime incidents. Surveys show Santa Cruz County leads the state in support of medical and recreational marijuana use. Some parents shrug off what they consider to be “minor” drug incidents.

County Response: The County can neither agree nor disagree with statements by unnamed school officials and law enforcement officers.

The County is not familiar with any surveys regarding levels of support of medical or recreational marijuana use.

The County Juvenile Probation Division has found that there is a range of concern from parents whose children are involved in the juvenile justice system. Most parents are extremely concerned over the discovery of their child’s drug use, and some parents suffer from substance abuse themselves.

6. Due to the rise in school violence, a full time SRO is assigned to each high school campus. These peace officers have to deal with every type of criminal behavior including vandalism, substance abuse, physical violence and weapons on campus. The SRO is ultimately responsible for the physical safety of students and faculty.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with this finding.

The County is unaware of any statistics which indicate that there has been a countywide rise in school violence. School Resource Officers assist school personnel in their responsibility to provide a safe school environment.

12. A youth apprehended for selling drugs on campus is put under arrest and removed from the school campus. The youth is taken to Juvenile Hall for processing, and may or may not be held in custody depending on the risk assessment performed at Juvenile Hall. (See the second section of this report for further details on risk assessment.)

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

Each case is individually assessed for risk to determine whether detention is appropriate. If the youth is not detained, conditions of release to protect students and school staff may be imposed. When a minor is not detained for possession for sale of drugs on a school campus, the Probation Intake Supervisor makes contact with the appropriate school official to inform him/her of the conditions of release. A standard condition includes the directive not to return to school without first contacting the school official handling discipline, so that the school administrative sanctions (e.g., suspension or expulsion) are coordinated with the Juvenile Justice System response.

15. It can take up to three months from the time of an incident until a probation officer meets with the juvenile and his or her parents.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with this finding.

In most cases where a juvenile is detained, Juvenile Probation Intake Officers conduct intake interviews with the juvenile and his or her parent within 24 hours from detention. It takes an average of 32.5 days from the receipt of a police report to the completion of an intake interview on juveniles who are not detained.

While it is possible that a case may occasionally be delayed for up to three months, this is not typical. Delays can occur when circumstances beyond the Probation Department’s control exist, such as the law enforcement investigation was not completed, or a youth and parents failed to keep the appointment for an interview. The Juvenile Probation Division is presently working on ways to further streamline the process.

16. The SRO can request information from the Juvenile Probation Division regarding specific individuals. The SRO is not provided with a list of students at their schools who are on probation, and is not informed of the disposition of pending cases.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with this finding.

Information is available to law enforcement on an “as needed” basis. A list is not provided because it would immediately become outdated, given the daily number of changes in probation status. By statute Juvenile Court dispositions are provided to school personnel on most crimes and are available to law enforcement by request.

17. Many programs that provide care or counseling for youths involved with substance abuse or with the juvenile justice system exist throughout the county. However, a consolidated referral list of these programs has not been developed.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

The bi-lingual English/Spanish “Resource Guide for Youth in Santa Cruz County published by the Community Foundation is a comprehensive list of all community services to youth. This list includes substance abuse services available to youth and families. In addition, the Health Services Agency has also produced a comprehensive list of all referral agencies providing youth alcohol and drug prevention, intervention and treatment. Finally, the Santa Cruz County Children and Families Commission has developed an on line Information and Referral Directory which contains this information at helpscc.org .

Grand Jury Recommendations

1. Santa Cruz County law enforcement agencies, the Juvenile Probation Division, and Santa Cruz County high school administrators must work together to ensure swift and effective consequences for drug abuse and juvenile crime.

County Response: The recommendation was implemented years ago and continues to be implemented through the Criminal Justice Council’s Juvenile Justice Task Force, which contains School, Law Enforcement and Probation representation, and through a variety of joint grant programs. The Probation Department is presently involved in two projects within the Juvenile Justice Task Force. One project is focusing on truancy in order to improve and coordinate efforts between probation, education and law enforcement, and the purpose of the other project is to improve and coordinate efforts on repeat juvenile offenders.

5. The Juvenile Probation Division should provide a monthly list to the SROs identifying students at their respective schools who are on probation, and the disposition of pending cases involving students from these schools.

County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented.

Juvenile Court dispositions are provided to school superintendents by the juvenile court on a broad range of offenses outlined in the Welfare and Institutions Code. Law enforcement officers have access to information for all youth on probation. Dissemination of monthly lists containing confidential information on probationers is not good practice and could lead to confusion and the possibility of action taken by officers based on outdated information. The Probation Department is committed to collaboration and partnership with law enforcement, education, and community based service providers and consistently works to develop better ways to communicate and work together effectively toward common goals.

6. The County Board of Supervisors should prepare and maintain a comprehensive list of all community resources available to aid youths with substance abuse issues and/or involvement with the juvenile justice system. This list should be made available to school administrators, law enforcement officers on- and off-campus, Juvenile Court personnel, Santa Cruz County health agencies and providers, parents and other concerned citizens.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented as described in the response to finding # 17 above.

Section I: Juvenile Probation Division

Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 1-9 through 1-15

Grand Jury Findings

1. The Probation Department operates on an annual budget totaling $13,138,054. The annual budget of the Juvenile Probation Division is $6,370,722. In addition, the annual budget for Juvenile Hall is $3,092,262. The remaining funds are allocated to the Adult Probation Division.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

2. The Santa Cruz County Probation Department reports that it expects a $2.5 million cut in its budget due to the current California state budget crisis.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

At the time of the Grand Jury investigation, the department anticipated losses of this size. The state budget for 2002-2003 has now been approved, and it appears that the Probation Department will lose approximately $1 million in State funding.

3. Staff for the Juvenile Division consists of the Division Director, 2.5 Assistant Directors, 34 Probation Officers, and 7 Probation Aides.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. The Juvenile Probation Division has five distinct areas of responsibility:

A. The Intake Officer determines whether to detain or release an alleged offender

based on the “Risk Assessment Form.”

B. The Investigation Unit reports to Juvenile Court.

C. The Field Supervision Unit ensures that probation terms are carried out.

D. The Home Supervision Unit follows a youth’s compliance with the terms of his or

her probation, makes residential inspections, and supervises electronic monitoring.

E. Placement Services explores alternative housing or placement in a county ranch or

camp outside Santa Cruz County. Santa Cruz County does not have ranch or camp

facilities.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

In addition to the above, the Intake Officer also conducts a social study and assessment to determine the risk and needs of the youth and develops a case plan and service plan. The supervision unit also delivers services that promote accountability. These services include victim awareness education, parent education and “Thinking For A Change,” an evidenced based program that promotes accountability by teaching the cause and effects of behavior.

5. There were 2,517 total referrals to the Juvenile Probation Division for the year 2001.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

6. There were 536 juveniles placed on supervised probation in 2001. Approximately 100

were placed on informal probation.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

7. Many youthful offenders on probation state that from month to month, they are unaware of who their probation officer is.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

A survey taken of all youth in the Juvenile Hall on August 6, 2002, revealed that 83% could accurately give their probation officer’s name.

8. After an arrest for an alleged offense, a youth between the ages of 12 and 18 may be detained at Juvenile Hall. This detention in Juvenile Hall may be for public or personal safety or to ensure the juvenile will attend his or her court appearance.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

9. Except in cases of extremely violent crime, most youths under the age of 12 who are arrested are turned over to Child Protective Services for placement in an appropriate facility or foster home.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with this finding.

Youth under the age of 12 are assessed individually with regard to the offense behavior and social history. Appropriate action pending court may include juvenile hall detainment, release to parent, release to parent with home supervision, or a referral to Child Protective Services if the matter meets their criteria.

10. The Juvenile Probation Division, in order to reduce the number of juveniles being detained in Juvenile Hall, has developed a system referred to as “Risk Assessment.” Risk Assessment uses criteria for the Juvenile Probation Division to either release or detain a juvenile offender. These criteria measure the amount of risk to the community, to the victim (if any), and to the youth himself, posed by releasing the detainee.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with this finding.

The purpose of the risk assessment is not to reduce the population of the Juvenile Hall; it is to provide an effective and objective decision-making process for determining who should be held in custody pending due process. State law, federal requirements, and judicial rules mandate that arrested juveniles who are pending court proceedings must be evaluated using specific detention criteria and be released to the least restrictive setting. Detention is to be used when all reasonable efforts to release have been tried or considered. The Juvenile Court Judge makes the final decision regarding detention status.

11. When a sheriff or other law enforcement official arrests a juvenile offender, the Juvenile Intake Officer completes a “Screening Risk Assessment Form.” (See Figure 1.)

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

However, the Figure 1 shown in the Grand Jury Report is a Risk Assessment form that has not been utilized for the past seven years. The current Risk Assessment has been in use since late fall of 2001 and is provided (Attachment A). This is the second full revision of this instrument in the last five years.

12. The form was developed by the Juvenile Probation Division and sent to law enforcement agencies.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

The risk assessment is an internal document used by the Probation Department and was therefore not distributed to law enforcement agencies.

However, information on booking criteria has been agreed upon and distributed to law enforcement agencies. All of the chiefs of the local police agencies agreed to booking criteria approximately three years ago. A document entitled “Suggested Booking Criteria” was distributed to law enforcement agencies to assist law enforcement personnel in making decisions whether to release or book juveniles. Training was conducted by the Juvenile Assistant District Attorney, the Supervising Intake Probation Officer, and the Assistant Division Director of Juvenile Hall for all local law enforcement agencies where the risk instrument was reviewed and questions and feedback were addressed.

13. Law enforcement officials were not included in the development of this system. Currently, a third draft of the Screening Risk Assessment form is being discussed. Law enforcement officials have been asked to participate in this revision. No date has been set for the review and acceptance of this revision.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

The risk assessment tool is an instrument which is entirely within the purview of the Probation Department to develop and administer. Law enforcement input has been included in the latest revision and will be sought in future revisions. The Probation Department constantly maintains and evaluates data to determine the effectiveness of detention alternatives and the validity of the risk assessment tool.

14. School administrators, law enforcement officials, juvenile court staff and the District Attorney’s Office have not been regularly consulted regarding risk assessment procedures.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with this finding.

All of the above personnel have been consulted, except school administrators, who do not make decisions to arrest. The Assistant District Attorney assigned to juvenile court was actively involved in the development of the detention risk instrument used today. The District Attorney and Law Enforcement are represented at Detention and Crowding meetings where the risk instrument is a regular discussion topic and the outcomes of detention are tracked. Regular trainings have been offered to law enforcement to assist them in their decision to arrest or cite. The District Attorney’s office, Public Defender and law enforcement representatives have attended conferences at the Probation Department’s invitation, at which information on objective decision-making criteria was presented. The Juvenile Probation Division would be pleased to provide a description of the risk instrument and detention process to any interested school administrators.

15. The Juvenile Probation Division has expressed pride in its success in reducing occupancy at Juvenile Hall through the use of the Risk Assessment Form.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

The Probation Department is extremely proud that it has been able to fulfill its mandate to keep the appropriate youth at home during court proceedings without jeopardizing public safety. The Board of Supervisors wholeheartedly applauds these efforts.

16. Figure 1 presents the Santa Cruz County Screening Risk Assessment form in use as of March 2002 by the Santa Cruz County Juvenile Probation Division.

A. In Areas 1 and 4, scoring for offenses is not cumulative.

B. In Area 1-C, Felony Possession of Narcotics/Drugs scores at 4.

C. Probation violations receive no score at all.

D. In Area 2, a juvenile arrested five or more times in the last six months is given only five points.

E. Area 3 demonstrates the Juvenile Probation Division’s low-priority attitude toward drug and alcohol offenses.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding and strongly disagrees with the characterization of the Probation Department’s attitude towards drug and alcohol offenses as “low-priority.”

The risk instrument used today has been validated and is extremely successful based on public safety outcome measures. As mentioned above, the risk instrument presented in Figure 1 has not been used by this agency for over seven years. The following corrections to the findings are submitted:

A. The risk instrument is cumulative.

B. In the updated instrument, both misdemeanor and felony possession of drugs score 3 points. Possession of drugs for sale scores 5. It should be noted that this is one of 9 areas to be scored.

C. Although the actual probation violation does not score points, often the behavior associated with this violation does - for example, use of drugs or runaway behavior. On any given day over a third of the juvenile hall population is composed of probation violators.

D. This score is directly related to current court status. If the minor is pending court, he/she scores 6 points and if it has been over a year since his/her last criminal offense, he/she receives 2 points. This is one of 9 areas that are cumulatively scored.

E. Drug and alcohol use is addressed in area 9. This area is research based and was developed with the assistance of the drug and alcohol counselor assigned to Juvenile Hall. A minor admitting to intravenous drug use or showing signs of IV drug use in the past 72 hours scores a 10, causing them to be held in Juvenile Hall regardless of the scores in the other 8 areas.

17. Although substance abuse cases including heroin, methamphetamines, hallucinogens, cocaine, marijuana and alcohol make up the vast majority of juvenile referrals, these rarely result in a stay at Juvenile Hall, based on the Screening Risk Assessment.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

Substance abuse cases do not make up the vast majority of juvenile offense referrals; however, substance abuse is frequently identified as a factor in a significant number of referrals. Over 80% of the youth detained in juvenile hall have some level of substance use, abuse or dependency, even though they may be in custody for another crime. At the same time, a small percentage of these youth require medical intervention for detoxification symptoms due to drug addiction caused by prolonged and uninterrupted use of drugs and addiction. For youth detained in the juvenile hall, level of use, abuse and dependency of drugs and/or alcohol is assessed along with criminogenic factors, social history, and detention criteria as outlined in the Welfare and Institutions Code. All youth who pose significant risk to self or others are detained based on this assessment. Other youth are directed to the appropriate outpatient service. The Juvenile Hall is not and cannot be a residential substance abuse treatment center, but will continue to provide substance abuse assessment, programs and transitional services to the appropriate level of care.

18. Staff at Juvenile Hall report that youths who have substance abuse problems are not placed in substance abuse programs as a matter of need, but rather as a reward for good behavior.

County Response: The County strongly disagrees with this finding.

Probation Department policy does not allow participation in substance abuse programs to be used as a reward, and any staff using substance abuse treatment as a reward is in violation of departmental policy.

Drug and alcohol counseling is offered to detainees in both group and individual formats and is an integral part of Juvenile Hall programming. Juveniles whose behavior is too dangerous or disruptive for group counseling are allowed to receive individual drug counseling.

19. Crimes against property are on the rise, but generally do not result in detainments.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

According to the most recent available data, crimes against property are not on the rise. Statistics provided by all county law enforcement agencies on juvenile arrests, show that property crimes (including burglary, robbery, theft and motor vehicle theft) fell by 4% in 2001 as compared to 2000. Juvenile felony arrests, which tend to involve injury or substantial property loss, have steadily declined since 1995. At the time of this response, 22% of youth detained in the juvenile hall on a law violation are in custody for a property crime. Property offenders are held in custody when they meet the detention risk criteria or upon judicial order.

20. Reports and citations are referred to the Juvenile Probation Division for review and/or actions. Investigations are conducted and include meetings with the parents and the juvenile. Some cases are forwarded to Juvenile Court.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

21. The delay between the time of arrest and initial contact with a probation officer is typically two to three months.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

All youth who are arrested and brought to the juvenile hall have immediate contact with a probation officer.

For youth cited and referred by law enforcement (i.e. not in detention), reports are processed and assigned to an intake probation officer, reviewed by the district attorney if appropriate or mandated, and an appointment is set to meet with the youth and family at the soonest possible time. The average amount of time taken to complete an intake interview from the time the law enforcement report is received is 32.5 days.

22. The Juvenile Probation Division interacts with the several law enforcement agencies conducting “Juvenile Diversion Programs.”

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

23. The Sheriff’s Department has no diversion programs in unincorporated areas policed by that agency. (See report on Review of Initial Alcohol and Drug Intervention with High School Age Youth.)

County Response: The County agrees with this finding. However, all eligible youth living in the unincorporated area receive diversion services offered by the Probation Department and community providers.

24. The Juvenile Probation Division reports that law enforcement officers can access any of the division’s information but that it does not routinely provide the information to officers.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

25. The average length of stay in Juvenile Hall has been reduced. In 1999 the average length of stay was 32 days. At the close of fieldwork, the average length of stay was 8.9 days.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

In 1999, the average length of stay was 12.3 days. In 2000 the average length of stay was 9 days. In 2001 the average length of stay was 10 days.

26. Some parents have reported the Juvenile Probation Division has a very lax attitude toward marijuana use. Some parents stated they were told by the Juvenile Probation Division, “At least it’s better than cocaine or methamphetamines.”

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

The Juvenile Probation Department places a high priority on enhancing, expanding and improving substance abuse treatment, including partnership with Health Services Drug and Alcohol staff to provide drug assessment in the Juvenile Hall; the addition of $250,000 in drug and alcohol services to expand the partnership with Health Services Agency to STAR and other local residential treatment providers to enhance and expand residential drug treatment services for court wards; the award of the Robert Wood Johnson, Reclaiming Futures initiative to identify system needs for substance abuse treatment; and collaboration on three grants to the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. With additional resources and better assessment, probation officers have become more sophisticated at differentiating between use, abuse and dependency and using this information to form service plans.

27. The County judicial system is evaluating juvenile detention reform.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with this finding.

The County is aware of and appreciates the excellent work of the presiding Juvenile Court Judge who is involved in the continual evaluation of the detention system, however, the County is not aware that the judicial system is conducting an evaluation of detention reform.

28. The Watsonville Police Department has been instrumental in initiating dialogue between the Juvenile Probation Division and other law enforcement agencies.

County Response: The County appreciates the input of all law enforcement departments.

Grand Jury Recommendations

1. The Juvenile Probation Division should re-examine the length of stay at Juvenile Hall to ensure that juveniles not only stay at the Hall for a time commensurate with their offense, but that juveniles actually are detained long enough to benefit from the interventions offered at Juvenile Hall.

County Response: This recommendation was implemented years ago and will continue to be implemented.

For the past five years, the Probation Department has continually examined the length of stay at the Juvenile Hall and the appropriate use of detention and juvenile hall commitment in each case. While the Juvenile Hall offers a variety of programs to promote accountability, skill development and treatment progress, the juvenile hall is a detention center, not a residential treatment program. The Probation Department has worked closely with Children’s Mental Health, County Drug and Alcohol Services, and Community Treatment Providers to create a seamless service delivery from the detention center to residential treatment or outpatient community treatment and probation supervision. This is considered best practice, based on treatment research, detention standards and System of Care principles.

2. First-time offenders and recidivists should be managed in different ways.

County Response: This recommendation was implemented years ago and will continue to be implemented.

The Probation Department has a long history of managing first-time offenders and recidivists differently.

3. Mandatory substance abuse programs, not tied to behavior rewards, should be instituted at Juvenile Hall.

County Response: This recommendation was implemented years ago and will continue to be implemented.

Drug and alcohol assessments are provided for all youth in Juvenile Hall. The Juvenile Hall provides mandatory substance abuse treatment for those youth for whom the court has ordered substance abuse treatment, and voluntary treatment is provided for those who elect to attend. Provision of treatment is not tied to behavior rewards nor is treatment withheld as a consequence for misbehavior.

4. The Juvenile Probation Division must develop distinct and effective ways of dealing with youthful repeat offenders in order to make the consequences of recidivism unappealing.

County Response: This recommendation was implemented years ago and will continue to be implemented.

The Santa Cruz County Probation Department had been recognized as a national leader in implementing best practice. The Juvenile Probation Division actively reviews the research literature and participates in program evaluations to ensure that evidenced based interventions which yield the best results are implemented. All of the recent programs have been developed utilizing best practice literature as well as a local analysis of system gaps and needs. Additionally, the Probation Department has implemented evaluations to measure the successful outcomes, including completion of restitution, completion of community service and reduction of recidivism. The Probation Department has written descriptions of these programs that cite the research upon which the programs are based, which are available for review.

5. The Juvenile Probation Division should stop focusing on their perceived success at moving juveniles out of the juvenile justice system and concentrate on strong behavior modification efforts to prevent recidivism.

County Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because the County disagrees with the recommendation.

The Juvenile Probation Division does not move juveniles out of the probation system unless youth 1) discontinue offense behavior 2) pay restitution 3) complete work or community service 4) comply the other terms of probation. Given these requirements, moving youth away from the justice system means moving youth into law abiding and productive citizenship. The Juvenile Probation Division and its community and agency partners provide a behavioral-cognitive program that teaches youth to anticipate the risks and consequences of behavior, develops the thinking skills needed to avoid impulsive and deviant action, and promotes accountability and victim empathy. These are the changes in behavior which prevent recidivism. The County disagrees with the characterization set forth in this recommendation.

6. The revision process for the Risk Assessment system should include school administrators, law enforcement officials, the District Attorney’s Office, and the presiding Judge of Juvenile Court.

County Response: This recommendation has been partially implemented. Some components will not be implemented because they are not warranted.

Although input is sought, the Risk Assessment is an internal document which is based on legal criteria for detention, and the ultimate decision is legally vested in Probation and the Court. In the Fall 2001, the process of revising the risk assessment instrument included representatives from the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defenders Office, the Drug and Alcohol Department, Watsonville Police Department (other agencies were invited but did not attend), Juvenile Probation, Juvenile Hall, and the presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court. While school issues are considered, it is not within the scope or responsibility of school personnel to make detention decisions. Revisions to the instrument are based on outcome data, such as successful court appearances and no additional offenses pending court.

7. The Juvenile Probation Division should lead the way in revising the Risk Assessment system to ensure that juveniles realize there are consequences for illegal behavior. The Juvenile Probation Division should especially consider:

A. Scores on the Risk Assessment Form should be cumulative.

B. Probation violations should receive points.

C. Repeat offenders should receive high scores for recidivism.

D. Drug and alcohol offenses should receive higher scores than the current system

allows.

County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.

It is not the purpose of the Risk Assessment to ensure that juveniles realize there are consequences for illegal behavior. As mentioned above, the purpose of the Risk Assessment is to provide an effective and objective decision-making process for determining who should be held in custody pending due process. It is inappropriate and illegal to make detention decisions in order to impose consequences or to teach a lesson regarding illegal behavior. Juveniles are entitled to due process through the court. Detention is only appropriate when necessary to protect public safety and to ensure court appearance. The judge has the sole authority to impose Juvenile Hall commitment time as a punitive consequence for illegal behavior as part of a dispositional order.

The A through D Grand Jury recommendations are already incorporated in the current Risk Assessment system, as shown below:

A. The scores for the 9 areas on the risk instrument are cumulative.

B. Probation violators receive points for the actual behavior, not the violation itself. For example, drug and alcohol use, new criminal behavior, or runaway behavior from home, all score points on the instrument. Over a third of the juvenile hall population, on any given day, is comprised of probation violators.

C. Offenders score more points depending on the number of sustained offenses in the last year (See area 3 on the attached risk instrument).

D. There is an entire drug and alcohol section in the latest revision (See area 9 on the attached risk instrument).

8. The Juvenile Probation Division should provide monthly data to law enforcement officials detailing the status and disposition of cases under their jurisdiction.

County Response: This recommendation was implemented years ago.

All County law enforcement agencies have Affidavits for Juvenile Court Petition forms which are to be filled out, attached to police reports and provided to the Probation Department. The affidavits trigger a response from Probation and the District Attorney in which the disposition of the case is delineated. Additionally, law enforcement has 24-hour access to current information on any and all court probation cases. Generating confidential lists on a monthly basis could result in inappropriate action by law enforcement officials based upon inaccurate or out of date information.

9. The Juvenile Probation Division should formulate policy and procedures as well as participate in the development of a countywide diversion program.

County Response: This recommendation was implemented years ago.

Diversion services are presently available countywide. Diversion services have been available countywide for the past five year. They include Teen Peer Court, Neighborhood Accountability Boards and Educational and Youth Service diversion options, as well as the Assets program at Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance and Police Diversions. All youth who are eligible for diversion have the opportunity to be diverted.

10. The Juvenile Probation Division should assign a specific probation officer or contact person to interact with administrative personnel and SROs at each public high school in the county.

County Response: This recommendation was implemented years ago.

The Juvenile Probation Division has assigned a probation supervisor to attend SRO meetings. SRO’s are encouraged to communicate with probation staff assigned to students at their school assignment. These probation officers are available to meet with SRO staff on a periodic basis. The Probation Department has expressed its interest to school and law enforcement personnel in being included in the funding opportunities to provide probation partnership when funding School Resource Officers.

11. The Juvenile Probation Division should look for every possible means of reducing inefficiency, waste and duplication of efforts in response to pending budget cuts while maintaining necessary services provided to juveniles in Santa Cruz County.

County Response: This recommendation will continue to be implemented as it always has been.

General Comments by the County

Unlike other areas of this report, the section of the report on the Juvenile Probation Division is replete with inaccuracies and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of the Probation Department as distinguished from the roles of the Court and law enforcement. The report also fails to recognize the outstanding efforts of the department to reform the system based upon the best research-based data available in the nation. The Probation Department’s efforts have been recognized by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for their excellent Juvenile Probation system. In addition, staff from the agency are frequent presenters on Restorative Justice, Disproportionate Minority Confinement, and Detention Reform at local, state, and national Juvenile Justice conferences. These efforts should be applauded.

Section I: Santa Cruz County Law Enforcement Agencies

Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 1-16 through 1-19

Grand Jury Findings

2. Countywide, 2,517 juvenile referrals were forwarded to the Juvenile Probation Division in the year 2001. These include reports or citations forwarded to the Juvenile Probation Division for disposition.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

5. A recent study by the Watsonville Police Department reports several flaws in the current Santa Cruz County Juvenile Probation Division philosophy:

A. Repeat offenders are processed with a revolving door philosophy. They are

continually placed on probation and released to parents.

B. 17% of juveniles arrested account for 52% of the crimes committed in the county.

C. This same 17% of juveniles averaged 3–15 arrests in a three-year period.

D. 47% of juveniles were on probation at the time of an arrest for another offense.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

The Watsonville Police Department (WPD) research given to the Grand Jury was both inaccurate and incomplete. WPD shared their research and methodology with the Probation Department in January 2002. The Probation Department was able to assist the WPD in correcting errors in methodology and findings, and the Watsonville Police Department issued revised figures in February 2002. The Probation Department presented additional information to the police chiefs in May 2002. Unfortunately the Grand Jury apparently did not have access to the corrected information in preparing this report. Below is a point-by-point correction.

A. “Repeat offenders are processed with a revolving door philosophy. They are continually placed on probation and released to parents”.

The Probation Department review of the cases cited in the Watsonville Police Department Study did not support this conclusion. The review showed a continually increasing level of sanctions with each new sustained law violation. The study revealed that 48% of the arrests of offenders selected for study by the WPD were ultimately sustained in court, meaning that 52% did not hold up in court as charged by Watsonville Police. When an offense is sustained, the youth are continued as wards of the court. If youth are returned home by the court, they are given greater levels of supervision. Levels of supervision are increased to daily contact with probation for some youth.

B. “17% of juveniles arrested account for 52% of the crimes committed in the county”.

In its review of the data, the Probation Department concentrated on actual “crimes committed” and, therefore, did not count technical violations of probation. Making that adjustment, results showed that 8.2% of juveniles arrested accounted for 29% of arrests for new crimes (the revision of methodology is consistent with studies conducted of repeat offenders in other jurisdictions and in Santa Cruz County). It should be noted that these figures are for Watsonville, not for the entire county, however the figure is consistent with the national studies on recidivism and is not considered unusual.

C. “This same 17% of juveniles averaged 3-15 arrests in a three-year period”.

The Probation Department and the WPD studies both reflected a range of 4-16 arrests rather than 3-16 arrests. The WPD revision of their data showed that 12% of the youth in the three year study committed 39% of all arrests. The Probation Department further refined the study to reflect only arrests for new criminal offenses, and the results showed that 8% of the youth in the study were arrested for 29% of all arrests for criminal offenses.

D. “47% of juveniles were on probation at the time of an arrest for another offense”.

The Probation Department shows that 34% of youth were arrested more than once. Fewer than that were on formal probation at the time of their subsequent arrest, since first time offenders were diverted when appropriate.

8. Substance abuse is a major factor in all categories of juvenile crime.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

9. Law enforcement officers state they are reluctant to take action in cases of alcohol or cigarette possession by a minor because no consequences will be imposed by the Juvenile Probation Division.

County Response: The County has no basis upon which to evaluate the accuracy of this anecdotal statement, but disagrees with the characterization of the consequences imposed by the Probation Department.

The Juvenile Probation Division has and will continue to collaborate with Law Enforcement and School Administrations to provide diversion and pre-diversion responses to cigarette and alcohol possession.

10. Some parents have reported that the Juvenile Court System’s attitude toward marijuana use is very lax.

County Response: The County has no basis upon which to evaluate the accuracy of this anecdotal statement, but disagrees with the characterization of the Juvenile Court System’s attitude towards marijuana use.

Each first offender is seen with his or her parent(s) for an intake interview, and action is taken commensurate to the offense. Youth who have gone through the Juvenile Court System and are involved in substance use are court ordered to abstain from drugs and alcohol and are ordered to submit to drug and alcohol testing. When there is a positive drug test the probation officer investigates the use and works with parents to determine an appropriate response, which may include further court action and/or treatment.

11. Some parents stated that despite repeated requests to initiate consequences or diversion for their child after a first offense, these requests were ignored both by the Juvenile Court and Juvenile Probation Division officials.

County Response: The County has no basis upon which to evaluate the accuracy of this anecdotal statement.

Each first offender is seen by the Probation Department with his or her parent(s) for an intake interview and action is taken commensurate to the offense. The Juvenile Probation Division presently provides early referral to assessment and diversion programs for first-time offenders.

13. There is no countywide process for the administration of juvenile diversion programs.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

The Probation Department administers juvenile diversion programs, and every youth who is eligible in this County receives diversion services.

Grand Jury Recommendations

1. The Juvenile Probation Division should develop and implement a method of providing SROs at each public high school with a list of juveniles who have come into the Juvenile Probation system. The Juvenile Probation Division should distribute an up-to- date list containing information on the terms of a juvenile’s probation on a monthly basis to the SROs.

County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented, as it is unreasonable and not warranted.

As stated above, all County law enforcement agencies have Affidavits for Juvenile Court Petition forms which are to be filled out, attached to police reports and provided to the Probation Department. The affidavits trigger a response from Probation and the District Attorney in which the disposition of the case is delineated. Additionally, law enforcement has 24 hour access to current information on any and all court probation cases. Generating confidential lists on a monthly basis could result in inappropriate action by law enforcement officials based upon inaccurate or out of date information.

5. The Juvenile Probation Division, in conjunction with the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department and the police departments of the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should cooperate to develop a plan for the administration of countywide diversion programs.

County Response: This recommendation was implemented five years ago and is in operation at this time.

Section 3: Affordable Housing

Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 3-14 through 3-24

Grand Jury Findings

1. A Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan of a city or county or a city and county including the County of Santa Cruz.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

2. California law requires that the Housing Element (plan) of each county be certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as meeting legal requirements. Failure to comply results in Santa Cruz County being ineligible to apply for millions of dollars per year in State funding.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

State law does not ‘require’ the County to have a certified Housing Element; it requires that the County submit a Housing Element that is consistent with State law. To this end, the Board of Supervisors has approved the Housing Element and has determined that the Element was prepared in accordance with State law.

3. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, as the responsible executives of the County, with full knowledge and understanding are, and for a number of years, have been out of compliance with California and Santa Cruz County housing laws. Even in the face of repeated memos from high level County officials advising the Supervisors of same and recommending corrective actions, they failed to vote as a majority to bring the County into compliance.

County Response: The County disagrees with the finding.

The Board of Supervisors has certified the County’s Housing Element per the requirements of state law, according to County Counsel and maintains that the approved Housing Element complies with State law. Furthermore, the County continues to implement a multitude of State housing laws, (e.g. laws pertaining to density bonuses, second units, and the approval of low income housing developments, etc.) and County programs to promote affordable housing opportunities.

4. Many employed individuals and families in the very low-income category live in condemned structures, abandoned vehicles, sheds, storage bins and camps for the homeless. They endure living with unacceptable health and safety violations: without plumbing, without sanitary facilities, without electricity, without heat and with infestations of vermin.

A quoted response from the 2001 Farmworker Housing and Health Survey:

“...some people were living in a hotel room with one bedroom, a small bathroom, kitchen...there

were eight people there...they were in wretched conditions, dead cockroaches, rats, and the roof in

bad condition.”

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

5. The crisis is not limited just to those with very low incomes. The drastic rise in the cost of housing, and the lack of remedial action, has forced an exodus of people in the public and private sectors with essential skills and an inability to attract replacements. Included are medical providers, educators, law enforcement and firefighting personnel, other professionals and service workers, all of whom are vital to a healthy community. Also, many of the professional and highly skilled individuals have accepted higher salaries in nearby counties, but continue to occupy their Santa Cruz County residences, thus increasing the problem.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

6. One Supervisor produced an affordable housing proposal to help public employees only. Although not adopted, the proposed remedy was to provide public employees with (a), preferential treatment in affordable housing opportunities and (b), financial assistance using County funds. Santa Cruz County Code 17.10.100 describes this practice as an illegal Conflict of Interest.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

The proposal was developed in the context of a wide range of programs to address affordable housing needs. Clearly, the lack of affordable housing has become a critical issue for local public employers, and it is appropriate for those entities to explore how they might be able to use their assets to stabilize their workforce through providing housing affordable to their workers. In the event that such a program were to proceed, it would not be illegal as suggested by the Grand Jury. Chapter 17.10 simply refers to conflict of interest for staff directly involved in the administration of the Measure J program and would have no bearing on these new programs.

7. The ongoing failure of the County Supervisors to take actions that would result in meeting affordable housing laws has resulted in Santa Cruz County being ineligible to apply for millions of dollars per year in State funding for:

A. Acquisition, development, rehabilitation and financing of rental or ownership

housing for low-income families.

B. Assistance for first time homebuyers.

C. Infrastructure improvements, community facilities and some community services.

D. Business attraction, retention and revitalization activities.

E. Capitalization of a loan fund for local businesses for working capital, revolving lines of credit, equipment renovation and other.

F. Economic development and related infrastructure improvements.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding.

While it is true that the County was in a position to be non-competitive for various funding sources due to the lack of certification of the Housing Element, it is not correct to suggest that the County Supervisors were taking no action. In fact, the Board made numerous efforts to negotiate with State HCD to receive certification of the Housing Element.

8. When questioned in public debates about the loss of these funds, high-level County officials have asserted that no loss of funds has occurred because such funds can, and have been obtained by non-profit organizations and that grants of such funds could not be received by both non-profits and the County. A closer examination of the facts revealed these assertions to be misleading.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with this finding.

The State supports a wide variety of housing and economic development programs which, through a competitive process, make available funds to local communities either directly through municipalities or through other third parties. A small portion of these funds require a State-certified Housing Element prerequisite prior to submitting funding application. The County has been extremely effective in obtaining competitive State housing funds. Since 1988, the County has leveraged almost $60 million in State housing funds, which has assisted over 435 units of affordable housing from State-funded sources.

9. The number of primary and 2nd or vacation homes created for moderate income (fewer than 15% of County households) and high income has been disproportionate to the economic ratio of those in need. In parallel, according to County documents and the testimony of County housing officials, the number of affordable dwelling units has actually been declining. Among the reasons for the decline:

A. Builders are permitted to demolish affordable dwelling units and replace them with larger, market rate homes.

B. Construction of expensive single-family dwellings is being permitted in areas zoned for affordable multifamily dwellings

C. The number of dwelling units carrying time limited affordable deed restrictions by agreement with landlords is shrinking. The agreements are expiring at a higher rate than they are being replaced.

D. Funding mandated for affordable housing is being excessively used on rehabilitation of existing dwelling units, instead of being used to increase the overall number of dwelling units.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with these findings.

A. Existing, non-restricted, housing stock is often demolished to make way for new construction, either as a replacement house on a single-family lot or to facilitate the construction of a number of new houses approved as a part of a development project. County Code Chapter 12.06 requires that these units-to-be-demolished be offered for relocation to another lot prior to demolition. The County has recently amended the Affordable Housing Ordinance to remove a feature of the ordinance that allowed developers to be exempt from affordable housing requirements for demolished units.

B. The County recently adopted an ordinance to better ensure that project approvals comply with the minimum General Plan density range, which would, discourage the construction of expensive single-family dwellings in areas zoned for multi-family dwellings.

C. The County monitors units with expiring affordability restrictions and, when appropriate, helps facilitate the extension of affordability restrictions within existing legal parameters.

D. Funding mandated for affordable housing is being used to support new construction, rehabilitation and the preservation of expiring affordable housing subsidies. In the last two years alone, projects involving over 120 new units have been built utilizing local affordable housing funds, with another 140 units about to begin construction.

10. Affordable housing has not been attractive to developers and realtors. Given the ample opportunities to build and sell very expensive homes, there have been no economic incentives to consider affordable housing.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding.

High housing prices in our community are a result of many complex regional and macro-economic factors far beyond the purview of the Board of Supervisors. Because of those factors, it is not practical to expect developers to construct a substantial number of affordable housing units. In this economic environment, it is essential that developers access federal, state, and local special housing funds to provide the critical financing needed to make affordable housing work. The County Redevelopment Agency has an active program to work with non-profit housing provider, which have the most direct access to these special funds, to build and rehabilitate affordable housing.

11. There is a widely communicated misconception – touted by those who advocate it – that encourages the false belief that meeting legal requirements for affordable housing mandates high rise developments and/or unacceptable growth. The law requires neither. It merely says if a county or city plans to increase (or decrease) the number of dwelling units, the housing element must address the needs of all income segments of the community and cannot unfairly favor certain income groups at the expense of others.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding.

The issue of state-mandated housing requirements and unacceptable growth is very complex. On one hand, the State requires that all jurisdictions maintain a General Plan that reflects the goals and policies of the community regarding future land use development, and specifically states that each jurisdiction is free to decide how it will develop under the General Plan, as long as all requirements of the State law are met. On the other hand, the law allows the State to forecast housing needs numbers for the cities and counties of the state without consideration of their General Plans and other adopted local land use policies. For the County, the issue is how the mandated housing requirements will be met given the policies of the General Plan and the availability of developable residential land. The County agrees with the statement contained in this finding that the State law says that the Housing Element must address the needs of all income segments of the community and cannot unfairly favor certain income groups at the expense of others.

12. According to the findings of experts with detailed knowledge of the County and all the constraints therein, there are numerous options for relieving the affordable housing situation and substantially bringing the Plan into compliance. These can be achieved without compromising essential health and safety requirements, environmental or coastal protections, agricultural lands or services important to the quality of life. These options, sometimes individually, sometimes collectively, have been proposed to the Supervisors on many occasions but no action has been taken. Instead, the Supervisors, while publicly voicing support for affordable housing, have instead, directed further studies, directed additional analysis, requested additional reports, directed economic modeling, directed exploration of possibilities and routinely deferred considerations to future dates – often repeatedly – until they eventually failed to appear on subsequent agendas. In contrast, a number of housing officials within the

County commended the City of Watsonville for conscientiously addressing their affordable housing needs and obligations.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding and refers the Grand Jury to Attachment B, the Implementation Schedule for the Housing Action Plan approved by the Board in November 2001. The Implementation Plan shows that several key ordinances and policy initiatives were approved and are now in the implementation phase.

13. Housing projects, which violated affordable housing laws, have been approved by the County Supervisors. County law (“Measure J”) requires 15% of new residential developments to be affordable or, satisfy one of several alternative options such as ‘in-lieu’ fees, or transfer credits based on the value of property or dwellings in the development (County Code Section 17.10.034) These fees or other options accrue for the creation of affordable housing. The minimum in-lieu fee, as shown in the Code, is $160,000. Examples of violations found by the Grand Jury are Tan Heights at 13% and Calabria Heights at 10%.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

All affordable housing agreements approved by the Board have been consistent with Board approved programs and policies. The examples cited involved developers complying with the transfer of credit program, which was an option available to developers at the time to comply with Measure J. That program has been eliminated.

14. According to the testimony of more than three local housing officials within Santa Cruz County, urban services boundaries in the County have historically been determined by anti-growth actions directed by elected officials rather than based on suitability of location for housing development.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding.

The urban services boundaries are based on sound planning principles and are designed to encourage development in already developed areas, rather than in outlying areas that do not have access to services (water, sewer, etc.). The boundaries of the USL conform to the boundaries of the Sanitation District, as the provision of municipal sewer service coincides with the development of ‘urban’ densities.

15. The root of many County problems can be traced to the lack of affordable housing:

A. Many workers are forced to commute long distances, often two hours or more. Typically those who must make the longest commutes to more affordable places are those who can least afford to those with lowest incomes. This puts additional traffic on already badly deteriorated roads, but Community Development Block Grant funding from the State that would help the situation has been denied, due to the Supervisors’ decision not to comply with affordable housing laws.

B. A shortage of employees is hurting businesses and public agencies. Both have experienced an outflow of people and fruitless recruiting programs because the ratio of income to housing affordability is better elsewhere.

C. Strained sanitary facilities of public buildings and local businesses, because unemployed and working homeless people living in vehicles or moving from one temporary shelter to another are forced to use them.

D. Health and Safety Code violations. According to testimony by a County employee, inspectors are overloaded with work in this area and illegally built living quarters of various kinds.

County Response: The County partially agrees and partially disagrees with these findings.

The County agrees that the lack of affordable housing is a significant issue, however, the County is unaware of the data used to support the statements in A-D above. As indicated elsewhere in this report, the Board of Supervisors has complied with all Affordable Housing laws.

16. The lack of affordable housing for low-income individuals is having a particularly serious impact on low-income individuals receiving treatment for mental illness, substance abuse and other problems and on their caregivers as well. Because these patients have no fixed address or telephone, it is a serious concern to physicians and other caregivers who cannot locate and maintain necessary contact with their patients to monitor efficacy of treatment and progress.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

17. As stated in this Grand Jury report on County schools, nearly all of the schools in the County have experienced a decline in enrollment, and a resultant loss of State funds. County educators interviewed by the Grand Jury have pointed directly to the lack of affordable housing as the reason.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding.

The lack of affordable housing is one of several critical reasons— not “the” reason - why the school districts are experiencing decreasing enrollment

18. A number of County officials have testified that the University of California, Santa Cruz has not provided its ‘fair share’ of on-campus housing.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding

Grand Jury Recommendations

1. The Supervisors should implement the options identified in the Affordable Housing Action Plan authored by the County Administrative Officer, the County Planning Director and the County Redevelopment Director and submitted to the Board of Supervisors in November 2001. This would significantly help to bring the Housing Element into compliance with California and Santa Cruz County laws now, and in the future.

County Response: As indicated in Attachment B, the Implementation Schedule and Timeline for the Affordable Housing Action Plan, the Board has proceeded with Plan implementation on a variety of measures, including ordinance changes to establish the minimum General Plan density program, to expand the second unit program to include agricultural land and a $15,000 per unit subsidy program, removing incentives from the County Code Section 17.10 which excluded the demolition of existing units from affordable housing requirements, and adding flexibility to 17.10 in a variety of ways, and numerous other initiatives as enumerated in the Action Plan.

2. The County Supervisors should immediately publish and prominently publicize, a clear disclosure of:

A. The facts regarding affordable housing laws.

B. The facts regarding a competently formulated housing element.

C. The facts regarding the consequences of failing to do so.

The Supervisors should then responsibly serve the citizens by mandating that such a

housing element is executed and administered on the basis of need, fairness and

compliance with the law.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

State law prescribes public notification regulations. In accordance with State law, the County has to complete a Housing Element update by December 31, 2002, covering the period of 2000-2007. Staff has been participating in the public review process for the distribution of the State’s mandated regional housing need for the Monterey Bay region to the counties and cities in the region. Until the County’s ‘fair share’ has been determined, County staff can only work on the preliminary sections of the Housing Element, including the beginnings of the outreach program. To that end, advertisements regarding the current Housing Element process were published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, the Register-Pajaronian, the Valley Press, the Scotts Valley Banner, the Mid-County Post, etc. These advertisements informed the public that the County was beginning its Housing Element update and gave e-mail addresses, phone numbers and postal addresses for the public’s use in contacting planning staff to get preliminary information and to be placed on a mailing list for future notification of public meetings and mailings.

3. The Grand Jury recommends that complaint, pursuant to Section 65587 (a), (b) and (c) in their entirety, be filed with the Court by the Santa Cruz County District Attorney, or the State Attorney General by request of the County District Attorney, and/or by other interested parties as a class action, to ensure the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors breaks with their history of willfully failing to comply with duties and obligations required of them by law. California Government Code, Section 65587 provides:

(a) “Each city, county, or city and county shall bring its housing element, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 65302, into conformity with the requirements of this article on or before October 1, 1981 14 , and the deadlines set by Section 65588. 15 Except as specifically provided in subdivision (b) of Section 65361, the Director of Planning and Research shall not grant an extension of time from these requirements.”

(b) “Any action brought by any interested party to review the conformity with the provisions of this article of any housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the court's review of compliance with the provisions of this article shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of this article.”

(c) “If a court finds that an action of a city, county, or city and county, which is required to be consistent with its general plan, does not comply with its housing element, the city, county, or city and county shall bring its action into compliance within 60 days. However, the court shall retain jurisdiction throughout the period for compliance to enforce its decision. Upon the court's determination that the 60-day period for compliance would place an undue hardship on the city, county, or city and county, the court may extend the time period for compliance by an additional 60 days.”

County Response: These recommendations do not fall within the purview of the County.

The District Attorney is an independently elected office and independently determines what, if any, actions are appropriate. However, the County believes that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors has never failed to comply with duties and obligations required of them by law.

4. The County should retain a community planning firm with excellent credentials to work with the appropriate County entities to optimize the Affordable Housing Action Plan above, and produce additional creative solutions for the Housing Element to improve the quality of life in the County as a whole. If linked with cooperative efforts of the local cities, these actions can bring even greater benefits.

County Response: This recommendation requires further study.

The use of consultants for the preparation of the General Plan update is under review.

5. The supply of UC Santa Cruz on-campus student housing is inadequate to meet demand and is imposing an additional burden on an already critical situation. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Santa Cruz City Council should employ every reasonable means to induce UCSC to move forcefully in two areas:

A. Do more to build its fair share of student housing

B. Limit the student population to accurately reflect the current housing situation.

County Response: This recommendation will be implemented.

Section 4: Blaine Street Women’s Facility

Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 4-2 through 4-4

Grand Jury Findings

1. The Blaine Street jail is a minimum-security facility set in a home-like environment complete with a backyard, benches, children's sandbox and vegetable garden. The State Board of Corrections has rated the facility to house 40 female inmates. The average occupancy for the year ending 2001 was eighteen inmates per month. The accepted officer-to-inmate ratio is one to fifty/sixty inmates. Therefore, only one officer is required to be on duty.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. The rated capacity of Blaine Street is 32.

2. The County's Health Service Agency provides medical, pharmacy and diagnostic services. Doctors from the Main Jail attend sick call each weekday morning. A chaplain, Crisis Intervention Team and other service providers also come to the facility.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

3. The Supervising Correctional Officer from Blaine Street interviews inmates at the Main Jail at the time of booking. All persons arrested in Santa Cruz County are booked through the Main Jail. During the assessment interview the inmate is informed of house rules, behavioral expectations, work assignment and class attendance requirements that must be met in order to be assigned to Blaine Street. According to the supervisor, inmates must display a cooperative attitude and peaceful behavior if they are to remain at this facility.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. The female inmates move freely inside the facility and on the fenced grounds. There are no locked doors at the facility. Inmates detained at Blaine Street can walk away from their incarceration at any time. This rarely happens, however, because inmates understand the consequence for leaving or violating facility rules is a return to the Main Jail. Most of the women prefer to serve their time at the Blaine Street facility because of the special privileges available there.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

5. Blaine Street inmates have smoking privileges that are not available at the Main Jail. The back yard is the designated smoking area.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

6. Inmates can purchase candy, soda, cigarettes, playing cards and personal items from vending machines. They also have access to television, exercise equipment, videos, board games and a library.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

7. Inmates are allowed one two-hour visit with family each weekend.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

8. Many of the women return to this facility, as they are frequent offenders. At the time of the Grand Jury’s tour, staff at Blaine Street had no means of tracking the rate of recidivism.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

9. The most common offenses are related to substance abuse (drugs and alcohol).

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

10. The average inmate stay is three to four months.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

11. The inmates' day begins at 6:30 a.m. and lights out is at 10:00 p.m.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

12. Each inmate is assigned duties that may include kitchen chores, cleaning the facility and other household tasks. The inmates prepare meals in the small kitchen with menus developed by the Food Service Manager from the Main Jail. Some of the inmates also help prepare meals at the Main Jail under the Food Service Manager’s supervision.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

13. Some of the inmates participate in the Work Release Program, which permits participants to work during the day and return to the facility in the evening. In some cases, this allows inmates to continue in a job they held before their incarceration.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding, with the correction that the Grand Jury report is referring to Work Furlough rather than Work Release.

14. The jail provides some training classes and help in getting a high school diploma while the inmate is incarcerated. The following are some of the classes that are offered at the facility for the inmates:

Computer Classes
Narcotics and Alcoholics Anonymous
Smoking Cessation
Career and Job Development
GED Preparation
Art Classes
Parenting Classes
Knitting and Crocheting Classes.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

Grand Jury Recommendations

1. The inmates that meet the criteria to be housed currently at Blaine Street should be moved to another minimum-security facility such as a halfway house.

County Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because the County does not have jurisdiction over these decisions. In-custody placement of inmates is the decision of the court.

2. Blaine Street staff should develop a system for tracking recidivism.

County Response: This recommendation should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office.

3. The Blaine Street facility should be remodeled and made into a medium-security wing for housing women who need more supervision and restrictions but who do not need to be housed at the maximum-security Main Jail. This renovation would provide the alternative of removing from the Main Jail women inmates who are incarcerated for minor infractions and need only a medium-security facility. This would also separate female inmates requiring only a medium-security facility from the more violent and/or more criminally sophisticated female inmates.

A Blaine Street renovation would also relieve overcrowding at the Main Jail while more fully utilizing the Blaine Street facility and would also increase the available system capacity for male inmates at the Main Jail.

County Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.

The County believes that it is important to provide a minimum security facility for women which allows a number of benefits, including expanded visitation and educational programs. The Sheriff’s Office is pursuing ways of providing similar programs to the women currently housed in the Main Jail.

Section 4: Main Jail

Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 4-5 through 4-8

Grand Jury Findings

1. The jail system operates on a budget of approximately $16,338,000 a year.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

2. The Main Jail houses both male and female inmates who are awaiting trial and individuals sentenced to terms of one year or less for serious and/or violent crimes. In protracted cases, stays in the Main Jail may extend up to three and one half years. This includes time served in the county jail before, during and after trial.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

3. Substance abuse (drug and alcohol) is the leading cause of arrest involving both male and female inmates.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. Alcohol-only bookings in the Main Jail make up 20.1 percent of total bookings. These bookings are referred to as 647-Fs per the penal code section (Drunk in Public). Many individuals booked for 647-Fs are booked and released more than once in a 24-hour period.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

5. Male and female inmates have separate housing areas. There is no interaction between male and female inmates.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

6. Women at the facility are a growing population. The average number of females at the Main Jail is 45. The policy at the jail is to house less criminally sophisticated women apart from those who are more sophisticated or disruptive. The term “criminally sophisticated” is a term used in the detention industry to describe an offender’s familiarity with and adeptness in crime and the detention system. At the end of fieldwork, there were 32 less sophisticated female inmates and 14 more sophisticated women housed in two separate “pods.”

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

7. At the end of fieldwork, approximately ten female inmates would qualify for housing in a medium-security facility if such a facility were available.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

8. At the time of the Grand Jury’s tour, staff stated that it is too early to determine the long-term effects the passing of Proposition 35 will have on jail occupancy. The purpose of Proposition 35 is to divert substance abusers from a jail setting to community treatment programs.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

9. At the end of fieldwork, Main Jail staff had no system in place to track recidivism among inmates. Staff estimated the rate at 75% for both men and women.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

10. The monthly average occupancy of the Main Jail for the year 2001 was 348. This is well above the Board of Corrections rating of the facility for 249 inmates. The Board of Corrections has approved an upgrade of 62 beds. After remodeling, the board rated capacity will be 311. Inmates are assessed for various health issues (e.g., communicable disease, substance abuse issues, general physical and mental health) after being booked into the Main Jail. This evaluation establishes the inmate’s assignment to a housing unit as well as any appropriate medical care he or she may need.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

11. The facility contains a medical unit that is staffed Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. A medical doctor is on duty Monday-Wednesday and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. A nurse practitioner is on duty on Thursdays. There are also a dentist, psychologist, chaplain and a Crisis Intervention Team available at various scheduled times during the week or as the need arises. If there is a medical emergency during the night or weekends that the jail staff cannot handle, the inmate is transported to an emergency hospital. The medical facility is well maintained and there are brochures on crisis counseling and health-related matters available to the inmates.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

12. Some recidivist inmates admit to “checking in” periodically to avail themselves of medical and dental services available at the Main Jail.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

13. A full-time Food Service Manager is responsible for overseeing the preparation and distribution of all meals to the inmates in all four county detention facilities. The Manager supervises two cooks who are county employees as well as female inmates from the Blaine Street facility who assist in the preparation of all meals. Before coming to the Main Jail kitchen, inmate helpers are screened for communicable diseases at the Blaine Street facility by Health Services personnel. (The Blaine Street facility is a minimum-security facility for women located adjacent to the Main Jail.) The Main Jail also uses the services of a dietician. The kitchen is clean and well organized and feeds more inmates than it was designed to handle.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

14. The Main Jail is budgeted for a maximum of 94 employees. The actual number of personnel employed at the jails is 77. At the time of the Grand Jury’s tour, 17 positions were unfilled.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

15. Minimum staffing for the Main Jail is thirteen correctional officers during the day and twelve officers during the night shift.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

16. The facility has an average of three detention officer retirements each year that are work related (e.g., due to on-the-job injury or disability). These retirees receive a minimum of 50 percent of their salary and lifetime benefits.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

17. In order to meet the required staffing ratios, there is a policy of mandatory overtime, which, while it keeps the jails staffed, results in staff stress and fatigue.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

18. The starting salary for a detention officer is $3,149 per month plus benefits, not including overtime compensation.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

19. Training for detention officers is given at Cabrillo College if there are enough candidates to fill a class (minimum of seventeen trainees). The training consists of five weeks of classroom work and fifteen weeks of on-the-job training. Once training is successfully completed, the officer is then on probation for the remainder of their first year of duty.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

20. If there are not enough trainees to fill a classroom, candidates are sent to Sacramento for training. This increases the cost of training because expenses also include travel, housing and meals. The cost of the classroom training in Sacramento is also more than the cost of training in Santa Cruz.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

21. It costs Santa Cruz County at least $58,101 to train a new detention officer, which includes his/her first year’s salary.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

22. Staff at the Main Jail stated that turnover rate for detention officers is high because similar jobs are available in the areas surrounding San Jose and San Francisco at higher salaries. After training, many officers leave the area for the longer commute but higher salaries. Last year the department lost twenty-six officers, many of whom left to take higher paying positions. The number of detention officers leaving the County is approximately 40 percent annually.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

23. Low pay, jail overcrowding, and mandatory overtime all have a negative effect on morale among detention officers.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

Grand Jury Recommendations

3. The Board of Supervisors of Santa Cruz County must establish and implement a salary schedule for the Santa Cruz County Jail system that is competitive with the counties in the Bay area rather than other central California counties.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

Salaries and benefits for employees in the jail system are negotiated with employee bargaining units.

Section 5: Long Term Care for Seniors

Long Term Care Integration Pilot Project

Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 5-11 through 5-20

Grand Jury Findings

1. According to an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel regarding the 2000 Census, Santa Cruz County has about 36,000 residents who are 60 years or older comprising 14 percent of the total population. By the year 2020, it is projected that this number will more than double to 81,700 or 22 percent of the overall population as members of the “baby boomer” generation enter their sixties.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

2. The focus of the Long Term Care Integration Pilot Project is on low-income seniors who are in need of some form of long-term care assistance and who are eligible for both Medicare and Medi-Cal. This group must rely entirely on the government to meet LTC needs. Regular presentations by the Pilot Program leadership are made before the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to keep the Board current on the work of this project.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

3. The Pilot Project has identified the following deficiencies in local LTC services:

A. Fragmentation of long term care services

B. Duplication in financing of service programs

C. Unnecessary repetition of application procedures and client assessments

D. Inflexible regulatory requirements

E. Lack of continuing case management and unified medical records

F. Failure to assure an appropriate level of care and timely transfers to another level

of care

G. Hospital and nursing home admissions which are made due to shortages in

alternative treatment settings and the lack of a case management system capable of

dealing with all aspects of long term care

H. Lack of affordable intermediate and residential care beds

Leaders of the project believe that these deficiencies inflate costs and limit access to

care. The range of unsolved problems is also depicted in the matrix provided by the

Pilot Project entitled “County of Santa Cruz Long Term Care Integration Pilot Project

Service Survey Common Functions Grid.” See page 5-21.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

4. To clarify its mission, the Pilot Project adopted the following goals and objectives:

A. Develop a common vision for a more responsive and better integrated system.

B. Build consensus and support among stakeholders—consumers, providers,

advocates and public officials.

C. Gather pertinent data related to demographics, current service costs and projected

utilization and costs of services in the future.

D. Describe an optimum mix of these services and develop an adequate capacity to

meet projected needs, especially for housing, which includes assisted living

resources for low and medium income clients.

E. Develop a case management system capable of moving clients within the

continuum of local services when individual needs undergo change. Cut down on

the paperwork required now in filling out redundant applications and repetitive

needs assessments.

F. Design viable methods of financing, governance, administration and internal data

systems capable of contributing to the efficient management of operations, and to

the future planning and evaluation of long-term care in Santa Cruz County.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

Grand Jury Recommendations

The Health Services Agency should recommend to the Board of Supervisors that federal waivers be obtained in order to accomplish the following:

A. The pooling of all federal and state matching funds available to Santa Cruz County for LTC services for low-income seniors into a local public authority capable of using prepayment methods and quality assurance in the reimbursement of all service providers.

County Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.

Key stakeholders are developing a financial feasibility plan that will include how service providers can be reimbursed with the various federal and state funds allocated to the County’s low-income seniors. Pooling of state and federal funds requires waivers and/or legislation and is very challenging to obtain.

B. The designation of the Managed Medical Care Commission as the local public authority to carry out the integration of LTC services for low-income seniors on a prepaid capitation basis.

County Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.

The LTCIPP governance structure has not yet been determined and finalization of a system wide governance and administrative structure will be completed by end of the fiscal year. The Alliance is facing a serious challenge with the state budget.

C. Addition of seniors who are eligible for Medi-Cal and Medicare into the Alliance Plan and into the demonstration project recommended by last year’s Grand Jury relating to the expansion of health insurance coverage for low income families.

County Response: The recommendation will be implemented.

During the initial phase of integration, the long-term care integration pilot project will only concentrate on Medi-Cal/Medicare dual eligible recipients with plans to phase in Medicare-only eligible recipients at a later date.

D. Relief of the Alliance Plan from the assumption of financial risk during the time period of the demonstration. Benefits should cover the full range of alternatives to nursing home placement.

County Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.

The County is working closely with the Alliance Plan to complete the financial and data analysis by the end of October 2002, to help determine the level of financial risk and how much financial risk can be assumed during the demonstration project by the County, the Alliance and other partners.

2. If the federal waivers are granted, the Alliance Plan should strive to accomplish the following goals:

A. Provide a single point of entry to the service system with one consistent method of assessment of need.

County Response: This recommendation will be implemented.

A single point of entry has been part of the program design. The LTCIPP steering committee is also exploring various long-term care model designs which also include an on-line universal assessment tool. Recommendations for the model design most appropriate for Santa Cruz County will be determined by the end of 2003.

B. Make an initial referral to a single source of on-going case management in order to carry out an appropriate written treatment plan for each client.

County Response: This recommendation requires additional analysis.

The County agrees with this model but must work with partners on how to accomplish this.

C. As the individual’s needs change, assure easy transfer within the service system without requiring repetitive applications or assessments.

County Response: The recommendation will be implemented.

Easy transfer within the service system will be an integral part of the service delivery system that the LTCIPP will include in the design of the pilot project.

D. Whenever feasible revise the service system to foster independence by facilitating care in the home or in a residential facility located in the community. Offer organized programs of health education and chronic disease management in collaboration with public health personnel.

County Response: This recommendation will be implemented.

Health education programs and chronic disease management programs that support long term care goals will be recommended in the service delivery system that the County and local stakeholders decide upon by the end of the 2002-2003 planning grant.

3. The Board of Supervisors should undertake on-going development of manpower and community-based facilities sufficient to provide adequate care within defined geographical regions of the county.

County Response: This recommendation will require additional analysis.

The LTCIPP is working closely with stakeholders to list the scope of services that will be included in the design of the pilot project. The recommendation to expand facilities and staff resources is dependent on available resources.

4. Health Services Agency should lobby state and federal authorities for:

A. Promulgation of federal regulations to prohibit arbitrary and involuntary dis-enrollments from Medicare HMOs because of the adverse impact they have at the local level.

County Response: This recommendation will be implemented.

B. Protection of access by seniors to the advantages of HMO enrollment now and in the future, especially if the full coverage of alternatives in LTC services become a feasible benefit of membership in an HMO, as a result of the success of the PACE demonstrations now underway.

County Response: This recommendation will be implemented.

Consumer choice and access to care are principles supported by the County. Federal legislation and rates have a strong influence on this phenomenon.

Section 7: Burial of Indigents

Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 7-4 through 7-8

Grand Jury Findings

1. By law, a death certificate is required for every deceased person. The decedent’s physician completes this form if he/she has attended to the decedent during the past twenty days and can offer a plausible cause of death. The clause “death by natural causes” is not permitted on a death certificate. The decedent’s physician must record a definitive reason for death. If a death is caused by homicide, suicide, results from an accident (including drug overdoses), or if there is no attending physician, the case is turned over to the County Coroner.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

2. Decedents are identified by means of:

Personal viewing of the remains by a family member or friend
Identification card
Driver’s license
Fingerprints
Dental records
DNA testing.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

3. A cemetery authority, a licensed funeral director, a licensed hospital or its authorized personnel may initiate an autopsy of any remains in their custody with authorization by the deceased’s will or other recorded document, or by next of kin, or when required by law. The County Morgue has one physician who conducts all of the autopsies for Santa Cruz County.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

4. In the Indigent Burial Program, once the cause of death has been determined, a Sheriff-Coroner’s Deputy contacts one of the funeral homes to arrange transportation of the remains. After receiving written notice of the cause of death, the funeral director or cemetery authority has the responsibility for disposition of the remains within seven days. Usually the body is kept no longer than three days. During this time, preparation is made for showing or cremation. If family is available and can afford the costs of a service, the deceased is not considered to be indigent.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

5. In the Indigent Burial Program, due to the financial situation of the decedent, the body is typically placed in an approved cardboard box and transported to the crematory. At the crematory, the body passes through a detailed and rigorous system of identification. The cremation process is carried out according to standard protocol. The ash is then placed in an approved container, which is either returned to the responsible kin or to another responsible authority.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

6. If the decedent is part of the Indigent Burial Program, the ashes may be given to the next of kin. If there is no next of kin, the ashes will be spread at sea by authorized personnel from the Sheriff -Coroner’s Office. California Health and Safety Code §7117 requires that human ash must be dispersed 500 yards offshore. This procedure is highly regulated.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

7. The Deputy Public Administrator must determine whether or not the decedent had sufficient resources to pay for his or her cremation. To determine eligibility for the Indigent Burial Program, the Public Administrator will:

Use the Assessor’s files to see if the decedent (or relatives) owned property
Speak with the relatives of the deceased (if any), to determine the ability of the estate to pay for the cremation
Discuss the decedent’s source of income and any assets the person had (house, car, and belongings) that could be sold in order to pay for the cremation
Utilize available county indexes, i.e., court files, fictitious business names and voter registration, or Sheriff booking records
Consult with Parole Officers
Research state prison records
Search all computerized data resources
Search Veterans’ records.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the District Attorney, because this aspect of the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the District Attorney’s Office.

8. Annually, the County opens the bidding to determine the funeral homes that are willing to take bodies through the Indigent Burial Program. The funeral homes sign county contracts each fiscal year and receive the bodies on a rotational basis.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

9. During the course of the past several contracts, the following funeral homes and Soquel Cemetery and Crematory have contracted with the Santa Cruz County to be vendors for the Indigent Burial Program:

Benito & Azarro Pacific Garden Chapel, Santa Cruz
Davis Memorial Chapel, Watsonville
Mehl’s Colonial Chapel, Watsonville
Norman’s Family Chapel, Santa Cruz

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

10. The annual funds allocated to this program are approximately $25,000. As a courtesy, the Indigent Burial Program will pay an indigent’s final expenses and allow the family to repay the fund. Arrangements can be made for an affordable payment as low as $10 per month. A letter is mailed to the family as a reminder of their promise to repay the debt. If the family refuses to honor the loan, the case is forwarded to County Collections and the Treasurer’s Office for handling.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

11. During the 2000–2001 fiscal year, the Public Administrator received approximately fifty-seven referrals for Indigent Burial Program funding; forty-seven of these were actually processed through the Indigent Burial Program.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the District Attorney, because this aspect of the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the District Attorney’s Office.

12. The table below indicates the total number of decedents that were accepted through the Indigent Burial Program from 1999 through February 2002, and for whom the County paid cremation expenses.

	1999 – 2000	2000 – 2001	2001 – 2002
Number of Indigents	56	47	Open
Cost per Indigent	$548.50	$548.50	$595.50

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

13. At the end of fieldwork in February 2002, there were already sixty-two referrals to the

Indigent Burial Program for the current fiscal year, seventeen of which occurred after January 1, 2002.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

14. Typically, a funeral home will charge $1500 to $1800 for a cremation; the agreed County fee is $595.50. The cost breakdown for indigent cremation is as follows:

Item	Cost
Funeral Processing	$355.29
Carton	35.00
Sales Tax	2.71
Cremation	187.00
Processing Fee	8.50
Total	595.50

County Response: This finding should be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, because the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office.

15. Another service offered by the County is burial services for victims of violent crimes through the Victim/Witness Program. The County will pay a maximum of $5000 for a victim’s final expenses whether or not the family has sufficient funds. The Victim/Witness Program funds are not part of the Indigent Burial Program.

County Response: This finding should be referred to the District Attorney, because this aspect of the Burial of Indigents program is under the supervision of the District Attorney’s Office.

Grand Jury Recommendations

1. The Board of Supervisors should increase the budget for this program in order to cover the increased use and cost of the program.

County Response: This recommendation requires further analysis which will be conducted as part of the annual budget process.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION

SCREENING RISK ASSESSMENT

AREA 1. MOST SERIOUS INSTANT OFFENSE (choose highest one) (Arrest warrant for a new offense is scored as the offense)

a. Any 707(b)offense 10 (No Mitigation to apply)

b. Loaded Firearm 10

c. Felony Crimes of violence 8

d. Felony sexual offenses 7

e. Felony high speed chase (driver only) 7

f. Sale of drugs 7

g. Court Identified gang member who commits misdemeanor crime of violence 5

h. Other felony offenses except drugs 5

i. Possession drug for sale 5

j. Violent misdemeanor/possession of weapon 4

k. Possession of drugs 3

l. Misdemeanors 2

m. Probation violations 0

AREA 2. CURRENT ARREST ON WARRANT

a. Surrendered 0

b. Apprehended 1

c. Apprehended with resistance 2

AREA 3. LEGAL STATUS

a. Pending Court (petition has been filed or case is “off calendar for personal service”) 6

b. Ward – last sustained offense within 3 months 4

c. Ward – last sustained offense 3 months/1 year 3

d. Ward – last sustained offense > 1 year 2

e. 654/725 W&I (informal probation/6 months without wardship) 2

f. Transfer in-custody (score for sustained offense)

g. Open deferred entry of judgment 3

h. None 0

AREA 4. RISK OF FTA AND REOFFENSE

a. Previous 871 W&I (escape from a Juvenile Hall or Ranch Camp) 2 points each

b. Previous FTAs …………………………1 point each (never to exceed 3 points)

c. Pending referrals/citations ………………..0-3 points each (never to exceed 3 points)

AREA 5. RISK OF NEW OFFENSE

a. Previously arrested or cited for new offense while pending court……3 points

AREA 6. MITIGATING FACTORS (Can decrease by 1 to 3 points total – specify)

a. Family member or caretaker able to assume responsibility for minor

b. Stability in school and/or employment

c. First arrest at 16 or older

d. No arrests or citations within the last year

e. Other (please specify below)

AREA 7. AGGRAVATING FACTORS (Can increase by 1 to 3 points total – specify)

a. Runaway behavior from home

b. Poor or no attendance at school

c. Two or more sustained offenses involving violence in the last year.

d. Multiple Offenses

e. Other (please specify below)

AREA 8. VICTIM/WITNESS FACTORS

a. Threats of violence against current victim subsequent to offense ………… 3

b. Threats of violence to witness in current case subsequent to offense…… 3

c. Previously victimized same person/family member..……….. 2

d. Crime appears based on race, gender, sexual orientation, age, homelessness, disability or religion (hate crime)….. 2

e. Minor has easy access to victim and crime was of a violent nature or a residential burglary……… 2

AREA 9. SUBSTANCE USE FACTORS

a. Minor currently in treatment for alcohol/drug issues …………. (-2)

b. No known substance use in the last year………….. (-2)

PATTERN OF SUBSTANCE USE - PICK ONE BELOW:

c. Knowledge of recent, active substance use and/or one or more positive urine test in the past 30 days……… 1

d. Current IV drug use (within the past 72 hours) ………… 10

e. Daily use of a narcotic for at least 30 days (not marijuana) ………. 3

f. Drug or alcohol use 3-6x’s week for at least 90 days (must have documentation of this) ……….. 2

g. Daily use of alcohol or marijuana and minor is 14 or under……3

h. Daily use of alcohol or marijuana and minor is 15 or older…….2

DETENTION DECISION (CHECK)

Release without restriction (0-5 points)

Release without restriction or Home Supervision release (6-9 points)

Detain (10 or more points)

OVERRIDE: (STATE REASONS)

MANDATORY DETENTION CASES (Current Case)

THESE CASES ARE TO BE AUTOMATICALLY DETAINED BUT STILL SCORED

a. Escapee from county institution

b. Home supervision/E.M. arrest/Fresh arrest while on home supervision/E.M.

c. Abscond from placement

d. Placement failure

e. Pickup and Detain

f. Warrant without Judge previously agreeing to release by P.O.

Grand Jury Recommendations

Grand Jury Recommendations

Grand Jury Findings

Grand Jury Recommendations

Grand Jury Findings

Grand Jury Findings

Grand Jury Recommendations

Grand Jury Recommendations

Grand Jury Recommendations

Grand Jury Findings

GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS

Grand Jury Findings

Grand Jury Recommendations

Grand Jury Recommendations

Grand Jury Findings

Grand Jury Recommendations

Grand Jury Recommendations