Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06031997 - C113 i C. 113 A THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 3 , 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report No.9706 IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the 1996-1997 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9706, "What Value Do We Place On Contra Costa County's Youth?",. "The Probation Dilemma" is REFERRED to the County Administrator and the Internal Operations Committee. 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 3 , 1997 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County_ Administrator By eputy cc: CAO Grand Jury Probation RECEIVED MAY 2 2 1997 A REPORT BY CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. THE 1996-97 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street Martinez, California 94553 (510) 646-2345 Report No. 9706 WHAT VALUE DO WE PLACE ON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S YOUTH? THE PROBATION DILEMMA APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: j DATE: IR GRAND JURY FOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR FILING: r i DATE: JOHN-F. AN DE POEL Y r( b SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations (c) No later than 90 days after 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 agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file 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. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963 ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980 ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221 §1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297. Cross-References Admissible evidence. Penal Code §936.6 "Grand Jury" defined. Penal Code §888. Grand Jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal Code §939.9. 1 What Value Do We Place on Contra Costa County's Youth? The Probation Dilemma Prologue This report focuses on the juvenile side of probation. However, since the resources of the Probation Department are intertwined with both adult and juvenile issues, the two cannot be totally separated. Pressures for the limited resources of the Probation Department come from both adult and juvenile needs. As a result, information is presented here from both the perspective of the total Department as well as that of the juvenile issues alone. Background The Contra Costa County Probation Department has the responsibility to provide supervision for adults and youths who have been placed on probation or in detention by the courts. In the supervision of youths, this includes operating the two Countyjuvenile detention facilities: the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility(Byron Boy's Ranch) and Juvenile Hall. For several years, the resources of the Probation Department have been significantly reduced while the number of adults and youths for which it has responsibility has continued to grow. On the juvenile side, the need for both locked and unlocked juvenile detention facilities has grown and no additional facilities have become available. Findings A. Budget and Staffing "Total Department 1. From 1990 through 1996, the number of budgeted field probation officers has declined over 31% (129 to 89). 2. The public is largely unaware of the number of Probation Officers and does not readily see the reductions when they happen. Conversely, the public is aware when the number of Police Officers and Sheriff's Deputies is reduced,- therefore, it is politically safer to make reductions in Probation Officers. 3. Budget reductions have forced the termination or demotion of many Probation Officers. As a result, the average length of service exceeds 20 years. Despite changes in methodology within the juvenile justice system, it has been extremely difficult to effect change within the County Probation Department due to a resistance to change and lack of acceptance of new ideas by some of the "old guard". 4. A new Chief Probation Officer arrived in December 1995 and has made significant changes in the Department. This Chief Probation Officer has earned the respect of the judiciary, of law enforcement, County administration and most of the Probation Department's staff. 5. For Contra Costa County to be at the State average for probation staffing per 10,000 population, another 113 Probation Officers would have to be added. (Source: 1996 Salary Survey of California Probation Departments). Juvenile 6. The number of youths in the county probation system increased over 30% in the last four years. At the end of 1996, there were 2,155 juveniles in the system. 7. The number of staff required at Byron Boy's Ranch and Juvenile Hall is dictated by State law. To meet these State staffing criteria, cuts in budget have to be achieved by reducing other staff and programs in the Probation Department. 8. Excluding youths who are in detention facilities, there are still over 1,900 juveniles to supervise. Because of the shortage of Probation Officers, between 500 and 600 youths are placed on a"service on demand" list. Those on this list are seen by a Probation Officer only if they do something that brings them to the Department's attention. 9. Excluding the "service on demand" cases, case loads of the juvenile Probation Officers range between 25 and 90 depending of the seventy of the cases. Currently, there are only 11 field Probation Officers to carry the juvenile workload, including three assigned to school campuses. The Department estimates that 30 juvenile Probation Officers are needed to do a proper job of supervision and intervention. 10. At the end of 1995, the Department lost $4.2 million when the Federal Title IV-A funding was discontinued. The effect of this was not felt until July 1996 because of a lag I n billing and payment. This necessitated a reduction in the 1996-97 budget which resulted in staff and program cutbacks. 11. The Federal Title 1V-A money is now being given to the State as a block grant. Whether or not the County will again receive these funds depends on what the State legislature decides in its 1997-98 budget. Even if the money comes to the County, it will not be available until the State budget is passed and signed by the Governor. 12. The Probation Department has prepared a request for a Challenge Grant from the State and feels strongly it will be approved. Ifthis request is successful, eight Probation Officers will be added and all will be assigned to school campuses by August 1997. B. Emphasis and Direction 13. The Probation Department is placing its emphasis on youth and intends to apply whatever additional staff it may get to the juvenile side. 14. It is the consensus of County judicial, law enforcement, probation and school officials that the major probation resources must be used for juveniles. The expressed viewpoint is that there is still a chance to intervene and change a child's behavior. There I s limited success in changing behavior at the adult level. 15. It is the consensus of County judicial, law enforcement, probation and school officials that having a Probation Officer in each high school, and in some middle schools, would be effective in early intervention to mitigate the factors, including truancy, that lead to long-term and often criminal problems. 16. Currently, no schools in Contra Costa County share any of the costs of campus Probation Officers. 17. A Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Program has been developed by the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC). To implement this Continuum in its entirety requires additional funding for staff and programs as well as capital dollars for detention facilities (see Attachment 1 for Continuum graphic and Attachment 2 for the key components that are missing today). C. Comparison with Sacramento County 18. Sacramento County, with a population of 1.l million vs. Contra Costa County's almost 900,000, has: • a Probation Department staff totaling 496, while Contra Costa County has 286. • a budget that is almost double that of this County's Probation Department. • 25 field Probation Officers working with juveniles, more than twice the number in Contra Costa County. • only 23% more juveniles in its system. four juvenile detention facilities with a 431 resident capacity. Contra Costa has a capacity of 234 in two facilities. • juvenile facilities that are a little over 30 years old compared to this County's Juvenile Hall which is more than 50 years old. 4 D. Juvenile Detention Facilities 19, The Probation Department operates two juvenile detention facilities: Byron Boy's Ranch and Juvenile Hall. Between the two, 234 beds are available. 20. At any one time, between 50 and 70 boys are in Juvenile Hall awaiting a vacancy at Byron Boy's Ranch. 21. The capacity of Byron Boy's Ranch can be enlarged by adding another unit which would house an additional 26 boys for a total of 100. 22. The Juvenile Hall is an old structure and has a great number of deficiencies which affect both security and program. The State has rated the facility as one of the five worst in California. 23. Juvenile Hall's architectural, electrical, mechanical, security and communications systems have reached the end of their useful lives. It is not feasible to add capacity to this facility. 24. The 160 bed capacity of Juvenile Hall is inadequate today. The JSPAC projection of capacity requirements for 2005, a mere seven years away, is for 348 beds at Juvenile Hall (see Attachment 3 for detailed breakdown). 25. The Juvenile Hall: Design Program Report, dated October 14, 1994, outlines three options for the replacement of Juvenile Hall. The cost of the three options range from $43 to $47 million. 26. These cost figures were reviewed in the County sponsored value hngineering Workshop, September 1996 This review concluded that a 20-30% savings could be achieved by revising and eliminating certain elements of the original design. 27. A state-wide bond issue for new prisons and juvenile facilities was narrowly defeated in 1996. County Administration hopes that another bond issue focusing only on juvenile facilities will be on the ballot in 1998. Conclusions A. Budget and.Staffing %oral Department 1. The Contra Costa County Probation Department is badly underfunded and, as a result, is unable to do the complete job that is its responsibility. 5 2. The morale of the Department suffered badly with the layoffs and demotions caused by the budget reductions. This has improved significantly since the arrival of a new Chief Probation Officer in December 1995. 3. The County needs to increase significantly the number of Probation Officers authorized and funded. It is appalling that Contra Costa County is near the bottom of California's 58 counties in the staffing of Probation Officers per 10,000 population. As stated in the Finding 5, the County would have to add 113 Officers to meet the State average. Juvenile 4. The number of juveniles in the system is increasing significantly and will continue to grow. Not only are more Probation Officers needed just to catch up, more are needed to handle this increasing number of juveniles. 5. While the Title IV-A funds that were lost at the end of 1995 have been given to the State in a block grant, it is not assured that these funds will flow to probation. First, the State budget must be passed and provide these funds to the County. Second, even when the funds come to the County, there will be pressure from other County departments and the County Administrator to use them for other programs. B. Emphasis and Direction 6. Keeping juveniles in school is a strong deterrent to juvenile problems. To place a Probation Officer on the campus of those schools that need one would be effective in achieving the goal of keeping juveniles in school. 7. The Challenge Grant, if received, will be used to place eight new Probation Officers on school campuses. As with all grants, this one is for a finite period, three years. To continue beyond that, funding will have to come from the County, another grant or some other source. 8. Currently, schools provide no funding for on-campus Probation Officers. The County and the Probation Department need to act aggressively to persuade the schools to share an appropriate part of the cost. 9. The Probation Department's policy of placing the main resources of the department on youth services and rehabilitation is the right thing to do. 10. Adult criminals have usually had along juvenile record of problems that become , continuously more serious. If scarce resources are not allocated to intervene at the 6 juvenile level, they will have to be applied later when it becomes more expensive to increase law enforcement and to build more jails and prisons. 11. The Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Program, developed by JSPAC, is a complete and excellent approach to solving the problems of juveniles. However, significant key elements are not in place since they have not been funded. C. Comparison with Sacramento County 12. It is tragic that Contra Costa County is so far behind Sacramento County. This is not to say that the Sacramento County should be worse off, but that Contra Costa County could have done much better, since both counties face the same fiscal constraints. Obviously, the saving of youth (and assisting adults) has been of less importance in the minds of Contra Costa County's politicians and County administration. D. Juvenile Detention Facilities 13. The present juvenile facilities, Byron Boy's Ranch and Juvenile Hall, are inadequate to meet today's juvenile needs. 14. As interim relief, pending a total solution to the shortage of juvenile detention facilities, the new unit to house another 26 boys at Byron Boy's Ranch is essential. 15. The Juvenile Hall must be replaced. The Juvenile Hall: Design Program Report, dated October 14, 1994, provides the information and direction to accomplish this. A new study is not necessary, although the study would need to be updated to reflect current costs and other factors. 16. The passage of a juvenile facilities bond issue in 1998 is critical and the County should support it. However, other creative options for financing a new Juvenile Hall need to be explored now, in case the bond initiative fails. Recommendations The 1996-97 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that: A. the Board of Supervisors make the provision of additional resources*for the Probation Department the number one priority in the 1997-98 budget. B. the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator to apply the Title 1V-A money, if it is received from the State, only to the Probation Department and that no off-setting funds be taken away from the Department. G b Q N 40 L U OryC. Baa .71 O ? a o G O v► � ; � UO G � yd -� • �U m� o OUV 0 � Z Zc � �' 0 G u w an - Z o OV GO: � W O �0 �o v �.0 oI-A GG0 00 aim (� O d • d ad �a 6o Who 0 o o u U .t"' G Z G O t53 dj 7 Q GO n'vtp� ON 6> O 'd 4� ao Q v N O G ., � O `� G $ i � o� p O 9� v n ,J a- �Zcv�o� o Vl 0O � O0- .o , o g� G pZNUO � °� % o� p a o-'OO� U 90° a6 G CO -�'d ?S4 Nus o (D` � / N 00 O j LO M • U � 7 C. the County Administrator and the Probation Department jointly initiate a public awareness program to educate the people of Contra Costa County on the state of the current probation capability and the dire need for additional financial resources. D. the Board of Supervisors endorse the Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Program by fully funding all of its elements. E. the Board of Supervisors formally endorse the policy of allocating more of the County's probation resources to the juvenile side and, by so doing, show the value it places on the youth of this County. F. the Board of Supervisors immediately direct the County Administrator to find the funds to build and staff the new unit at Byron Boy's Ranch. G. the Board of Supervisors put its full weight behind the proposed new juvenile facility bond issue and endorse its passage in 1998. H. the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator to begin developing creative alternatives to fund a new Juvenile Hall. This concurrent planning would position Contra Costa County to take immediate action should the bond measure fail, and should include such alternatives as the formation of a private corporation to build and lease back the facilities, a county-wide parcel tax, a sales_tax increment, etc. Comments The 1996-97 Contra Costa County Grand Jury commends the Probation Department for its attempts to impact positively the lives of troubled youth. In an era of dwindling funding and staffing, the Probation Department is correct in its direction of focusing on juvenile offenders where the possibility of successful intervention still exists. The Grand Jury believes that the County must commit adequate resources to support this worthwhile focus on youth being made by the staff and administration of the Probation Department. Attachment 2 Key Elements Lacking in the Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care a. "trackers" (community workers supervising juveniles) b. electronic monitoring(in sufficient quantity) c. non-secure detention (transition centers) d. intensive post-disposition supervision e. mentors f. day treatment g. locked mental health unit (for girls) h. boys and girls treatment centers Source: JSPAC's Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Document, December 1994 Attachment 3 Capacity Requirements - 2005 Glacier Drive Type of Unit Year 2005 Secure Detention (Hall) 200 Commitment Programs Locked Mental Health 20 Boy's and Girl's Treatment 80 Transition Center 48 Total Beds 348 Courtrooms 3 Source: JSPAC's Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care Document, December 1994 C. 113 B THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 3 , 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report No.9707 IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the 1996-1997 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9707, "Sheriff's Dispatch Center" is REFERRED to the County Administrator and the Internal Operations Committee. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 3 , 1997 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator • r By ,Deputy cc: CAO Grand Jury Sheriff R ECE��'E MAY 2 2 1997 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. A REPORT BY THE 1996-97 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street t`ke RECEIVED Martinez, California 94553 (510) 646-2345 :mAy2 2 1997 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA_ COSTA CO. Report No. 9707 'l SHERIFF'S DISPATCH CENTER APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: DATE: RAMIRO AROSEMENA G Y FOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR FILING: ------------- DATE: _.__DATE: JOHN-f: VAN DE POEL JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT r SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations y01 3VI333 N later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final reporton the operations of any public agency subject to its c,�1a reviewing Authority, the governing body of the public agency shall ' comment io the presiding judge of the superior court on the --findingsuand recommendations pertaining to matters- under the control of-the governing body, and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file 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. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963 ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980 ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221 §1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297. Cross-References Admissible evidence. Penal Code §936.6 "Grand Jury" defined. Penal Code §888. Grand Jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal Code §939.9. I Sheriffs Dispatch Center 9707 BACKGROUND The Contra Costa County Sheriffs Dispatch Center operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The primary mission of the center is to provide communications to and from County safety personnel and to direct equipment to areas requiring irnmediate assistance. FINDINGS 1. Since January 1991 the number of available dispatchers never has met the Sheriffs Department staffing requirements. For example, between August 1996 and January 1997 there was an average of 20 dispatchers available, while the center required 48. 2. The process of hiring new dispatchers is complicated and has taken up to a year to complete. The process includes advertising the position, processing applications, scheduling and administering an examination, grading and ranking the examination results, documenting typing skills, conducting (several) oral interviews, conducting psychological interviews and establishing final ranking for selection. Parts of this process are carried out by the Sheriffs Department and other parts by the Human Relations Department. The hiring process must start several months prior to a training class to ensure a full class. 3. The Dispatch Center started one training class of nine in October 1996 and another of five in January 1997. No long term plan is in place to reach the required staffing level. 4. The size of a training class is limited to eight positions by the available facilities unless other capabilities are curtailed. 5. Dispatchers have to work high levels of mandatory and often unscheduled overtime. 6. The Dispatch Center suffers from excessive attrition of personnel and complaints of low morale. 7. Shift assignments are selected solely b_y seniority. Junior people are left the least desirable night and weekend shifts. Alameda County and some other nearby Dispatch Centers use a modified seniority shift preference selection system that allows junior dispatchers periodic rotation to more desirable shifts. 8. In addition to its primary mission, the Dispatch Center provides communications services on a contract basis to the cities ol'[W Vista, Pittsburg, Moraga and Clayton, to the Housing Authority, AC Transit Police (in Contra Costa County) and Animal Control. These additional responsibilities provide revenue but increase the responsibilities of each dispatcher and increase the training requirements of every dispatcher. The manpower and equipment requirements to provide these services have not been determined. 9. The Dispatch Center has struggled to function despite the continuous understaffing and high overtime workload. CONCLUSIONS 1. The planning and management of recruitment and training for Dispatch Center personnel is inadequate. 2. The coordination between the Sheriff's Dispatch Center and the Human Relations Department for hiring dispatchers is inadequate. 3. The level of overtime required of the dispatchers is unreasonable and contributes to lowered morale and increased attrition. 4. The rigid "seniority only" shift assignment procedure contributes to high turnover and lowered morale among the junior staff. 5. The Sheriff's Dispatch Center does not have the ability to properly handle the workload generated by other agencies while it is significantly understaffed, even though these contracts generate revenue. RECOMMENDATIONS The 1996-97 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff: A. improve the recruitment and training management capabilities of the Dispatch Center. B. prepare a long-term plan for hiring and training of dispatchers. C. provide a copy of the plan to the Human Resources Department and coordinate the hiring process to ensure that sufficient qualified candidates are available to fill projected dispatcher training classes. D. modify the shift assignment procedure to allow junior staff rotation from the*least desirable shifts. E. reevaluate the contracts with Rio Vista, Pittsburg, Moraga, and Clayton to determine whether the burden of these additional dispatch services is justified by the additional revenue produced.