DATE: April 30, 1997
TO: Honorable Judge William L. Gordon
Presiding Judge, S.B. County Superior Court
FROM: Susan J. Gionfriddo, Chief Probation Officer
RE: RESPONSE TO 1996-97 GRAND JURY
REPORT ENTITLED "JUVENILE FACILITIES"
I appreciate the thorough review by the Grand Jury of our facilities and
their recognition of the additional needs that our increasing referrals
and subsequent caseloads present. In particular, I appreciate the Grand
Jury's commendations for the quality of staff employed in both Juvenile
Halls and at Los Prietos Boys' Camp. Please accept the following as my official
response to the 1996-97 Grand Jury Report regarding Juvenile Detention Facilities,
which was released on March 12, 1997.
FINDING 1: There is a high potential for risk to life and property
due to the extensive transporting of North County juveniles to their detention
in Santa Barbara Juvenile Hall and then back to court appearances in Santa
Maria Juvenile Hall.
RESPONSE: I agree with the finding in that the frequency and
regularity
of transportation of minors to and from the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall
does present a potential risk to life and property. We are fortunate to
have
highly trained Juvenile Institutions Officers, who are ,as commended in
your report, "conscientious in their duties and who are well equipped
to
handle emergencies". With these Officers and some good fortune, we
have thus far been able to avoid any major incidents resulting in injury
to
minors, our staff, or county property.
RECOMMENDATION 1: In spite of the failure of Proposition 205 in
the November 1996 election which would have provided funds for new jails
and juvenile halls, the Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors
should work together to immediately formulate a plan to operate a juvenile
hall in the North County.
RESPONSE: I concur with the recommendation and it will be followed,
at
least in the preliminary stages, by means of the development of a
financing plan and the development of a formal needs assessment
process. Since the defeat of Proposition 205 in November, we have
participated in a collaborative effort with the Sheriff and the County
Administrator to identify funding options for a North County Juvenile
Facility in conjunction with the North County Jail. Included in these
discussions were meetings with the Treasurer-Tax Collector to explore
local funding alternatives. We plan to request funding for a North County
Juvenile Hall Needs Assessment as part of the County Capital
Improvement Plan. In addition, I will continue to work through the Chief
Probation Officers of California Association to advocate for legislation
which includes funding for a Juvenile Institutions Capital Bond measure.
FINDING 2a: The exterior programs operated by the Probation Department
are a limited solution to the inadequate size of the juvenile facilities.
As a result, potentially dangerous juveniles are being released back into
the communities of Santa Barbara County.
RESPONSE: I agree with the finding that the Home Supervision
and
Electronic Monitoring programs are a limited solution to the inadequate
size of our juvenile facilities. Even with the expanded utilization of our
Community Confinement programs (referenced as "exterior programs"
in
the report), we still have experienced consistent daily population levels
that exceed our Halls' rated capacities. For instance, our March, 1997
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) was 84 with a rated capacity of 76.
During this same period of time, our use of Community Confinement
programs reached an ADA of 74 and in the month of April, it has grown to
an ADA of 96. Our allocated staffing pattern allows for 75 minors on the
Community Confinement programs. Because of the statutory minimum
staffing requirements for those caseloads, we have routinely augmented
our staffing with the use of extra help and/or overtime to adequately cover
these caseload increases.
I do not agree with the finding that "potentially dangerous juveniles
are
being released back into the communities of Santa Barbara County".
All
minors placed on either Home Supervision or Electronic Monitoring are
carefully screened by the use of a Risk Assessment instrument to
determine eligibility. High risk minors who have been charged with serious
violent felony offenses and/or any minors who present an immediate
danger to the community or to themselves are excluded from Community
Confinement programs and are being detained securely in the Juvenile
Halls.
FINDING 2b: The increasing number of juveniles on exterior programs
is straining the limited staff resources of the Probation Department. In
1989 the ratio of probation officers to the number of juveniles on exterior
programs was 1:10. It is now 1:25 (see Appendix C).
RESPONSE: I agree with the finding that the continued increase
in the
number of minors placed on Home Supervision and Electronic Monitoring
has strained the staff resources of the department. However, we assign
Juvenile Institutions Officers, not Deputy Probation Officers, to this
function. The change in staffing requirements and our staffing practice
is
explained below.
Prior to 1992, Welfare and Institutions Code Section 841 mandated a
maximum 1:10 staff to minor ratio on Home Supervision. With the advent
of Electronic Monitoring, the code was amended to permit a maximum
1:15 staff to minor ratio if Electronic Monitoring is included as a
component of the Home Supervision program. In 1992, the Probation
Department added Electronic Monitoring and adjusted the staff to minor
ratio to 1:15. Currently we have five Juvenile Institutions Officers assigned
to Home Supervision countywide. This provides the mandated coverage
for a caseload of 75 minors on a 5 day per week basis for 8 hour shift
coverage. When the caseload exceeds this ADA in either of the Juvenile
Halls, the facility Manager has the authority and has been directed to
bring in Extra-Help staffing to cover this caseload. Extra help is also
deployed for full 7 day shift coverage. Given the current ADA trends for
the program, we plan to request additional permanent staffing in our FY
97/98 budget.
RECOMMENDATION 2b: The Probation Department should request and
the Board of Supervisors should fund an increase in staff in order to lighten
the caseload of probation officers supervising juveniles on exterior programs.
RESPONSE: The recommendation will be followed by the Probation
Department. As outlined in my response to Finding 2b, due to the
increase in the ADA for the Home Supervision and Electronic Monitoring
programs, we will request additional staffing for Community Confinement
programs in order to maintain the mandated 1:15 staff to minor ratio.
FINDING 3: The number of juveniles referred to the Probation Department
by law enforcement agencies is increasing annually (see Appendix D). The
Grand Jury would expect this trend to continue because juvenile offenders
will have little respect for the juvenile justice system when they know
that their chances of incarceration are minimal.
RESPONSE: I agree with this finding in that the percentage of
minors
who are referred to Probation by law enforcement and subsequently
closed at initial intake is entirely too high (40%). This lack of resources,
services and the resulting lack of follow-through has a negative effect
on
the overall impression that juveniles have of the criminal justice system.
In
some cases, it leaves the impression that further criminal activity will
be
ignored and/or tolerated by the system. It is for these reasons that the
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council included in our Local Action Plan
and Challenge Grant application major program components which will
target truants and early offenders. In terms of incarceration rates, our
statistics demonstrate a dramatic increase in both Juvenile Hall ADA and
Community Confinement Program ADA over the last 48 months. More
minors than ever are being placed on Home Supervision and Electronic
Monitoring and in some cases when those minors do not adhere to all of
the terms of their release agreements, we are unable to book them into
the Hall due to lack of available beds. Again, this is a very poor message
to send to these juveniles as it tends to overlook negative behavior rather
than providing immediate consequences.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Same as RECOMMENDATION 1.
RESPONSE: Same as RECOMMENDATION 1.
FINDING 4: The Probation Department is not currently living
up to its claim of emphasizing the importance of adjustment to home and
school following time spent at Los Prietos. The recidivism rate could be
lower, as reflected in the successful attention to after-care in 1991.
RESPONSE: I disagree with the finding in that we have spent a
great
deal of time and energy in trying to secure funding to strengthen the
Camp's Aftercare Program. We have applied for County Drug and Alcohol
Program funding to extend the alcohol and drug awareness program
which is currently at Camp to an Aftercare Treatment program. We have
included in the Department's Challenge Grant Application, funding for a
major Aftercare component which would include increase supervision
staffing, mental health counseling, vocational training/job placement and
a
Transitional School Program. The Santa Maria area component of the
program has been recommended for funding by means of this grant,
commencing July 1, 1997 and we have reached an agreement with
County Schools to provide the Transitional Schools in Santa Barbara,
Santa Maria and Lompoc commencing August 1, 1997 . As an interim
measure, we have supplemented the current Aftercare Supervision
Program which consists of three Deputy Probation Officers Countywide
with three extra help Juvenile Institutions Officers who will provide
supervision of Camp minors on weekends Countywide. In terms
of the Grand Jury's concerns about the Camp's recidivism rate, the
Probation Department has initiated a longitudinal tracking system to
monitor the behavior of Camp graduates. The 1996 rate of recidivism
indicates a dramatic reduction to 23% which is attributable to
enhancement of Camp programming particularly in the area of increased
mental health services, additional "12 Step" program meetings
and
Alcohol Education Programs. We are optimistic that with the enhanced
Aftercare services provided by the Challenge Grant in the Santa Maria
area that we will be even more successful in rehabilitating the minors
assigned to our care. In addition, we continue to negotiate with the State
Department of Social Services, Governor, and Legislature regarding the
ability to fund support services for the youths and their families with
California's block grant under Federal Welfare Reform.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The Probation Department should immediately
create and the Board of Supervisors should fund another Juvenile Institutions
Officer staff position at Los Prietos Boys' Camp. This JIO would have the
responsibility for the after-care of all graduates of Los Prietos beginning
while each boy was still resident at Los Prietos. The officer would have
intimate knowledge of each boy's case history, strengths and weaknesses
and would be better able to counsel the juvenile as he makes the difficult
transition back into his home environment.
RESPONSE: The recommendation will be partially implemented with
the
advent of the Challenge Grant on July 1, 1997. Included in the grant
proposal and recommended for funding by the Board of Corrections will
be an additional Juvenile Institution Officer assigned to Aftercare, as
well
as a Mental Health Therapist to serve the Santa Maria area. A Deputy
Probation Officer III will be redirected to provide programmatic oversight
to the Countywide Aftercare program. However, the Aftercare Program is
far more developed in the Santa Maria area with the benefit of Challenge
Grant funding. In addition, as mentioned in my response to Finding 4,
we have already assigned three extra help Juvenile Institution Officers
to
assist on weekend coverage of Aftercare cases.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: There are a few technical corrections to the
report that must be called to the attention of the Court. Under Detention
Facilities (Santa Barbara Juvenile Hall) on page 12, the Scholastic
Program is operated by four teachers. The medical services are staffed by
an RN for 30 hours per week, a Psychiatrist for two hours per week and an
MD for two hours twice per week. Food services are provided as follows:
Breakfast is served in the rooms, lunch is provided in the units' day areas
and dinner is served in the dining room in shifts. There are six Juvenile
Institutions Officers on duty for the morning and afternoon shifts; none
are "on call".
Under Detention Facilities (Santa Maria Juvenile Hall) on page 12,
the medical services are staffed by an RN for 30 hours per week and an MD
for two hours twice per week. A mental health counselor is provided by Mental
Health Services for twenty hours per week when personnel are available.
Food services are provided as follows: Vocational Training and Rehabilitation
Center provides ten meals per week (Monday through Friday lunches and dinners);
the remainder of the eleven meals are prepared by Hall staff in a small
kitchen located at the Hall. There are four Juvenile Institutions Officers
on duty for the morning shift, five Officers on the afternoon shift including
the Transportation Officer and two Officers on the graveyard shift.
SJG/cac
cc: The Grand Jury: Patricia A. Fillippini, Grand Jury Foreperson (w/disk)
Board of Supervisors
Michael Brown, County Administrator
G:\GROUP\ADMIN\WINWORD\GJRESPON.DOC