The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07262006 - SD2.C .A&___ Cor+r.-, TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CO DATE: FROM: JOHN CULLEN, County Administrator s _ — ��:�� DATE: JULY 26, 2006 .County c°SrA�o�K SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0608, ENTITLED "CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES: Try Walking in a Deputy's Shoes" SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE response to Grand Jury Report No. 0608, entitled " CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES: Try Walking in a Deputy's Shoes", and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to forward the response to the Superior Court no later than August 18, 2006. BACKGROUND: On June 1, 2006, the 2005/2006 Grand Jury filed the above-referenced report, which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County Administrator and Sheriff-Coroner, who jointly prepared the attached response that clearly specifies: A. Whether a finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented; B. If a recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and by what definite target date; C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within a six-month period; and D. The reason for not accepting or adopting a findi g r recommendation. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES - SIGNATURE_ - -- --- --- - -- -- - ------------ - ---- ---- _✓RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM E DATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE �APPROV _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BO--- - N-- ®$fie-`--� b` - ----------------–----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ce APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED ZD OTHER— VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN': ATTESTED: AUGUST 1,2006 CONTACT: JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE GRAND JURY GRAND JURY FOREMAN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ` SHERIFF-CORONER B , DEPUTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0608: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES: Try Walking in a Deputy's Shoes FINDINGS 1. All three County adult detention facilities have had an annual fire, medical/mental health, environmental/nutritional health inspections, conducted by CSA, and have passed each inspection. Any minor infractions have been addressed. Response: Agree. 2. All facilities were found to be clean and well operated,particularly the kitchen areas. All facility's kitchen food storage areas are locked (including knife storage) when not in use. Response: Agree. 3. Fire and evacuation drills are held on a regular basis at all facilities. This was last tested at the MCDF during the January 2006, heavy rains. The vehicle bridge over the creek was found to be unstable. In the event of flooding and instability of the bridge, detention management decided to have all inmates transported to the WCDF. Inmates had to walk out over the bridge to waiting transportation. The transfer of inmates was without incident. The bridge was repaired and the inmates returned. Response: Agree. 4. As the MCDF is a campus-style facility, inmates must form lines outside when going to classrooms or dinning/visitors hall. During inclement weather, the inmates have no protective rain gear. Response: Agree. 5. When individuals are first arrested, the detention staff in the intake area may not know their true identity or criminal record, and violent detainees'may be placed in the general population. Individuals are either coming down or high on alcohol or drugs, this makes the intake area a dangerous phase of incarceration. Response: Agree. 6. The detention facilities' daily average population for December 2005 was as follows: E;= d gam" MDF = ' WCDF MCDF T,ota1 I. Male 655 683 103 1,441 Female 9 177 ---- 186 Contra Costa County Adult Detention Facilities: Try Walking in a Deputy's Shoes July 26,2006 County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0608 Page 2 Total 664 860 103 1,627 CSA Capacity 695 1,104 256 2,055 Response: Agree. 7. MDF is near capacity. The problem is exacerbated by staff having to deal with gangs and gang disorder. As the inmate population increases and reaches capacity at each facility this may create more problems. Response: Agree. 8. No deaths by Tasers were recorded at any of the three facilities. Deputies are following policy regarding the use of Tasers. Response: Agree. 9. The Sheriff has 80 open positions, of which 60 are funded. From July 2005, through January 2006, the Sheriff hired 26 deputies, yet lost 46 deputies. New deputies are currently required to spend their first 33-35 months of service in the Custody Services Bureau (detention facilities) and serving as liailiffs in criminal courts. Response: Agree. 10. Detention facility staffing and overtime hours for the months of December 2004 and 2005 are as follows: k k "` g 1"" a_1VICDF= ,Total; 'N,ykIM eta t.�dC"6: m + 5 m �a.. d .d mr. n . .R 4. II. Full-time Staff 134 111 20 265 Dec 2004 Overtime Hours 2,221 1,563 456 4,240 Dec 2005 Overtime Hours 4,439 21815 356 7,610 Detention facilities must rovide 24/7 security. The shortage of personnel requires many hours of overtime, which can cause stress and burnout. Response: Agree. 11. Many counties use Correctional Officers, who are responsible for overseeing individuals in detention facilities. They work under the direction of deputy sheriffs to maintain security and inmate accountability. They have no law enforcement responsibilities outside the institution where they work. Response: Agree. 12. Correctional officers are not used in Contra Costa County detention facilities. 2 Contra Costa County Adult Detention Facilities: Try Walking in a Deputy's Shoes July 26,2006 County Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0608 Page 3 Response: Agree. 13. In October 1995,the Sheriff prepared a study regarding the use of Correctional Officers. The County took no action at that time. Response: Partially disagree. The proposal to utilizing correctional officers in the detention facilities was initiated in 1985. Since that time, several studies have been conducted. 1985, 1987, 1989, and 1995. As a result, the Sheriff replaced or supplemented 59 sworn positions with civilian positions. Three new civilian job classifications were created for the Sheriffs Custody Services Bureau: Sheriffs Aide, Sheriffs Specialist, and Sherif/'s Ranger. Additionally, two sworn Lieutenant positions were replaced with civilian manager/director positions. 14. As of January 2006, the Sheriff did not code incident reports so suicide attempts and Taser use statistics could be easily obtained. Response: Agree. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2005-2006 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that: 1. The Sheriff and the County Board of Supervisors work together to alleviate capacity problems at MDF. Response: Requires further analysis. A Request for Proposals (RFP) is being prepared by the Sheriffs Office for the purpose of conducting a needs assessment study for the County's detention facilities. The study will analyze local trends and characteristics that influence planning assumptions about future corrections,population projections, staffing levels, and the job classification system. 2. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff update the 1995 Sheriff's study of the possibility of hiring Correctional Officers. Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted. In 1989, the Board of Supervisors created the Correctional and Detention Services Advisory Commission. This commission was to advise the Board of Supervisors on current and proposed adult detention facility programs. This commission was specifically tasked to study "The Analysis of the Feasibility of Using Correctional Officers in the Detention System." After studying the issue, the Commission made a strong recommendation to the Board to continue the policy of staffing the County detention facilities with Deputy Sheriffs (sworn), except for non-safety related functions. The Commission Chair wrote: 3 Contra Costa County Adult Detention Facilities: Try Walking in a Deputy's Shoes July 26,2006 County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0608 Page 4 "In 1985, the commission studied the Detention Staffing Analysis study prepared by the County Administrator's Office, including responses from the Contra Costa Sheriffs Office, the Taxpayers'Association, Local One, and the Deputy Sheriffs Association. After studying this latest analysis, dated January 18, 1989 by Hughes,Heiss and Associates, the commission found the two studies arrived at the same conclusion. Namely, that the risk of converting detention system staffing to correctional officers exceeds the benefit. Any direct cost savings may be short lived because the trend throughout the State is for compensation parity between Deputy Sheriffs and Correctional Officers. Indirect costs could also erode any savings, such as administrative personnel costs associated with the higher turnover rate resulting in additional staff to recruit, test, run background checks, and train correctional officers. Other arguments against the transition from deputy to correctional officers are: ■ Correctional officer staffing would institute a limited class of employment while reducing career opportunities for deputy sheriffs. ■ Another department of County government would be created if the County separated the administration of the detention system from the Sheriff. This could make control and integration of the criminal justice system more difficult. Adult Corrections has become even more complicated since this report was published. Contra Costa County has experienced an increase ofgang, alcohol, and drug dependent inmates, as well as an increased population of inmates with mental health issues. The Detention system in this County is one of the best run systems in the state, doing more with less staff than neighboring counties. In recent years, the Sheriff has seen the population in the Martinez Detention Facility approach 900 and,yet, has managed to run a safe and secure facility. Contra Costa County has never had a court-imposed population cap on its adult detention facilities. In other counties, such caps have cost enormous sums of money. While the County is always exploring opportunities for cost efficiency, it is essential that facility safety and security not be compromised by operating with personnel whose job qualifications do not match those required to effectively manage and operate the jail facilities. 3. The Sheriff code incident reports so suicide attempts and Taser use statistics can be easily obtained. 4 Contra Costa County Adult Detention Facilities: Try Walking in a Deputy's Shoes July 26;2006 County Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0608 Page 5 Response: Has been implemented. Incident reports for both suicide attempts and Conducted Energy Devices (aka "Tasers') have been coded for easy retrieval from the Sheriffs Jail Management System. 4. The Sheriff provide rain gear for inmates at Marsh Creek. Response: Has not been implemented but will be implemented at the Marsh Creek Detention Facility immediately upon inclement weather. 5