Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06151996 - 1.74 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on ,_June 15, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report Inmate Welfare Fund The Board received Report No. 9311 dated June 8 , 1993 , entitled "Use of the Inmate Welfare Fund" , from the 1992-1993 Contra Costa County Grand Jury. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforementioned report is REFERRED to the County Administrator and the Internal Operations Committee. I hereby certify ttwt this is a true and correct copy of cc• County Administrator an action taken and entered on the minutes of the • Internal Operations Committee Boarr+ of Supervisyl on the date sh . Grand Jury Foreman ATTESTED: PHIL BAAHELOR,Clerk of t e Board Of perisors and County Administrator gy ,Deputy ' 7y • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUN 9 OFFICE OF A REPORT BY COUNTY ADMINISTRATCR THE 1992-1993 CONTRA COSTA GRAND JURY 1020 ward Street Martinez, California 94533 (510) 646-2345 REPORT No. 9311 USE OF THE INMATE WELFARE FUND 'The County's &%me Welfare Fund policy requires that 6wen4turra for purchases be solely for the benefit, education and wrlfare of the inn xes. Approved by the Grand Jury: Date: r1 j"UL emarie Grand Jury Fman Accepted for Filing: Date: I ci 4 Richard S. Flier Judge of the Superior Court 03ti'i3.;3f� , c jr, -1^ .i,;1 SECTION 9 3"s (c) OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE Sec. 933. Findings and recornaendations; cam— ment of governing bodies, elective officers, or agency heads (c) No Iatec than 90 days aftc the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency Subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public ageccy shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and raommendariot:s pertaining to matters uade.• the control of the governing body,and every elective county office or ag=cy head for Which the grand jury has responsioffity pursuant to Section 914.1 Shall cotament within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court,with an information copy seat to the board of supervisors.,on the findings and reco==datlonS permftxiug to matters under the control of that county off cs or agency head and nay agency or agencies which that office or agency head supervises or controls. .In any city and county, the mayor shaU also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such commects and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior wart who impan- eled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand Jury reports shall be placed on file with the cleric of the public agency and the office of the county deck, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on Me with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by Starz 1961. a 1284, ¢1. Amended by Stam 1963, a 674, § 1; Srau1974, c 393, § 6: Sta=t1974. c 1396. 13; Scars 1977, c 107, 16. Stars 1977, c 187, 11.- Scars 1980, c 343, 11. Scars 1981, c 203, 11. Stasi 1982 c 140$ § S: S=1985. c 22L 11. S=1987. c 690, 1; Stan 1988, c 1297. § S.) Forma § 933. added by Stats1982. e. 14M 16. amended by Sat:.1985,e'=1.3 Z operative Jan. 1.1989.was repealed by Stats1987. C. 690. § = . Forma 1 933. added by Stats.19539, a 5301. § = was repealed by SM=1959, c. 1912. § 3. Summary: The Inmate Welfare Fund was designed by the state legislature to provide money to supply indigent inmates personal items such as confectionery, postage and writing materials, and toilet articles and supplies. Income in the past was negligible, but in the last few years has'it grown to large amounts because the legislature ordered that any money, refund, rebate, or commission received from a telephone company or pay telephone provider be deposited into the Inmate Welfare Fund when the money was attributable to the use of pay telephones which are primarily used by inmates while incarcerated. Years of budget limitations have made the Fund more and more attractive to the Sheriff, County Administrator, and Board of Supervisors. The Grand Jury has found a number of expenditures made in the last few years were not solely for the welfare benefit or education of the inmates. Requests for Proposals have been issued by the Sheriff to a number of phone companies. It is likely that new contracts will produce even larger amounts of revenue for the Fund. . It is imperative that policies and procedures that protect the Fund from inappropriate uses be followed by the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors. FIndings: 1. Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations sets the standards for an accounting of the Inmate Welfare Fund in Section 1043. 2. Section 1043 requires that each facility administrator develop a written policy regarding the appropriate use of the Inmate Welfare Fund in accordance with Penal Code Section 4025. 3. Penal Code Section 4025 dictates that "money and property deposited in the inmate welfare fund shall be expended by the sheriff solely for the benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail." (emphasis added) 4. Contra Costa County Detention Facility Policies and Procedures -Inmate Welfare Fund, issued September 22, 1988, governs the use of this county's Inmate Welfare Fund and provides guidelines for the Committee that controls its expenditure. 5. The nine-member Inmate Welfare Fund Committee is composed of Sheriff s Department employees, including the Director of Inmate Services, and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Corrections and Detention Services Advisory Commission. A simple majority is required to pass motions to approve expenditure of funds. 6. The Director of Inmate Services is a Sheriffs Department employee whose compensation of$75,625 is paid with Inmate Welfare funds. 7. There are no inmates or former inmates on the Committee. The Sheriffs Department maintains that the transient nature of the population prevents any direct involvement on the Committee by inmates. 8. Upon release, former inmates are not allowed to return to the facility. If an inmate were on the Committee he or she would not be able to attend the quarterly meetings which are held in the detention site. 9. There is no formal method for inmates to forward their suggestions for expenditures of the Welfare Fund to a staff member for forwarding to the Committee. A Fund-financed video shown to all inmates at intake makes no mention of the fund,how expenditures are allocated, or how inmates can make suggestions for possible purchases by the fund. 10. Sheriff Department policy requires that the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee meet during the first month of each quarter of the year, and more often as necessary. Minutes of each meeting are to be maintained in the Inmate Welfare Fund file and a copy forwarded to the Sheriff. That policy and the one requiring that minutes being posted on living units and in public area of the facilities are not always observed. 11. There were only five meetings held between October 1989 and May of 1993. 12. The Sheriff Department's Inmate Welfare Fund policy requires that expenditures for purchases be "solely for the benefit, education and welfare of the inmates." 13. The Committee has the responsibility of reviewing prices charged; considering profit margins; establishing and reviewing inmate spending limits; planning and recommending major expenditures; recommending an annual budget to the sheriff; and examining the accounting practices and procedures employed. 14. The Committee is required to prepare an itemized annual report of all Inmate Welfare Fund expenditures for approval by the Sheriff and review by the Board of Supervisors. 15. The Director of Support Services (a Sheriff's Department employee) is required to do an annual inventory of Inmate Welfare Fund property. 16. Article 8, Section 1105 of Penal Code Section 6030 [Design Requirements] sets the standards for design and construction of housing area in jails so that the average noise level does not exceed 70 decibels during the day or 45 decibels during sleeping periods. • The minutes of the meeting held October 2, 1989 state that$7,800 was requested to install acoustical material on E module in the Martinez Detention Facility. The request was approved by the Committee. The minutes of June 5, 1990 Committee meeting report that it was agreed that the Inmate Welfare Fund would spend "up to $75,000 for partial replacement of the carpet at the Martinez Detention Facility. The facility commander will decide which areas are to be given priority." The justification for this expenditure was that the existing 11-year-old carpets were worn and smelled bad. • In the last six months of 1992 the Inmate Welfare Fund paid $82,709 for the partial replacement of carpets in the Martinez.Detention Facility. 17. At the meeting of June 5, 1990, it was agreed that the Inmate Welfare Fund would pay $20,000 "to study the effects of the DEUCE program, recidivism, etc.' DEUCE is a 90-day class room program on substance abuse taught by the County Office of Education staff. • The "Management Information Study" contract was issued August 16, 1991 and was due to terminate August 31, 1992. • At the meeting of September 3, 1992, it was agreed to continue funding the DEUCE research project and to make the final payment of $5,000 in fiscal 1992/93. • The project is now scheduled to be finished in October 1993. It will provide research material based on a study of only 50 inmates. 18. The Inmate Welfare Fund paid $106,065 in fiscal year 1991-92 for the construction of a parking lot at the Marsh Creek Facility. The parking lot was dedicated to the use of visitors of the inmate population. The Sheriff reported that the previous small parking lot was inadequate because "it was unpaved and downhill from the visiting center so that ,it was used only by those who were physically able to make the climb and excluded the elderly and handicapped." 19. In fiscal year 1991-92 the Inmate Welfare Fund started the year with $404,369 and increased its assets by $558,804 during the year. The Fund expended $163,253 for maintenance and repair of county-owned and operated facilities and equipment. During that same time it spent $5,640 on personal care items for the inmates of the three facilities. 20. Over the last 30 years the Sheriff has asked for the County Counsel's opinion when considering purchasing equipment or making improvements to various facilities under his jurisdiction. The County Counsel has cautioned the Sheriff to be certain that the primary and direct benefit of any purchase not flow to the Sheriff rather than the inmates. In 1970, the Sheriff asked the County Counsel if Inmate Welfare Funds could be used to purchase a cash register to assist in proper accounting for personal monies removed from prisoners when being booked into the jail. County Counsel replied that the Sheriffs statutory duty to account for the property and money of inmates overrides any incidental benefit to the inmates who already have a right to any benefits that may indirectly ensue to them from the purchase of a jail cash register. Conclusions• 1. Seven of the nine members of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee are employees of the Sheriff. Authorization for expenditures requires a simple majority of the Committee. 2. Theme is not a prescribed method for suggestions from the inmate population to get directly to the Committee, nor does a video prepared for new inmates and paid for by the Inmate Welfare Fund, mention the Fund or how it is to be used. 3. The Inmate Welfare Fund Committee does not hold meetings at the frequency required by the Sheriff's Department Policy and Procedure manual;nor are minutes of Committee meetings posted in the living units or in the public areas of the facilities as required. .4. Carpet replacement is a facility maintenance responsibility of the Sheriff and should have been funded from his budget. The original carpets were installed as part of the structure when the building was erected. Without carpets the State would not have approved the jail for occupancy. It is no more reasonable to use Inmate Welfare Funds for carpet replacement than it would be to use them for replacement of water heaters or air conditioners. 5. The State requires that buildings and facilities be accessible to physically challenged persons. Using Inmate Welfare Funds to pay for a parldng lot is beyond the "solely for the benefit, education and welfare of the inmates" limitation. 6. The "Management Information System" research project of the DEUCE program is not solely for the benefit or education of the inmates and should have been funded by some other source. 7. The expenditure of less than $6,000 in.fiscal year 1991-92 on personal items for the inmates of all three facilities ' out of the $558,804 generated by the inmates is unconscionable. 8. Over the last thirty years the Sheriffs Department has sought direction from County Counsel on the expenditure of Inmate Welfare Funds. County Counsel has consistently advised the Sheriff to use the Fund only when it will be solely and directly for the benefit, education or welfare of the inmates. Recommendations: The 1992-93 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff: 1. Immediately remove four Sheriff Department employees from the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. 2. Within the next 90 days recruit both a Municipal and a Superior Court Judge to serve on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. 3. Through the offices of Friends Outside or a similar organization, begin a recruiting process to find two former inmates to serve on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. The recruitment and selection of new members should be completed within 120 days. If necessary, arrange that meetings of the Committee be held in a location that will allow the attendance of former inmates. 4. Immediately establish an on-going system of review with the County Counsel's office to assure the Committee that future purchases are for the sole benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates of the County facilities. 5. Immediately stop the use of Inmate Welfare Funds for facility maintenance. 6. Within 60 days design, promote, and institute a formal method for inmate suggestions to be forwarded for consideration by the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. The system should include a process for decisions made by the Committee to be communicated back to the inmate making the suggestion. .7. Through proper over-sight and supervision, be certain the Committee is following its own policies and procedures governing meetings, posting of minutes, and capital purchases.