Home
Grand Jury reports and responses
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
Grand Jury reports and responses
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
2006 - 2007
SOLANO COUNTY
GRAND JURY REPORT
AND
AGENCY RESPONSES
Honorable David Edwin Power
Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California
County of Solano
Page 2 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report
Grand Jury Final Report
Honorable David Edwin Power
Presiding Judge
Solano County Superior Court
600 Union Ave
Fairfield CA 94553
Dear Judge Power:
On behalf of the 2006- 2007 Solano Grand Jury I present its final
report. Each and every member of the jury contributed substantially to
the reports’ totality. These citizen Grand Jurors volunteered tirelessly of
their time on behalf of the community.
Special note must be made of the juror contributions of Mr. Terry
Riddle, Foreman Pro- Tem, Mrs. Peggy Sherrod, Grand Jury Scribe and
Mr. John Gales, Computer Director. The continued support of Mrs.
Jamielynne Harrison of Department Two of the Superior Court with her
inherent skills provided many necessary administrative
functions which enabled the jury to focus on its primary objectives of
service to the Solano County community.
The final report of the Grand Jury was
accomplished successfully during
changes in administrative process for the
Grand Jury.
Upgrading of the electronic process was
accomplished. Special thanks is due to
the county for providing the jury with
requested hardware, software and
projector which enabled the jury to write,
edit and finalize reports.
The attempt to transfer administrative
support from the Superior Court to the
county counsel’s office was not accom-plished.
Future juries will await, with a
positive outlook, a successful filling of
this important position that meets the
requirements of the jury, courts and
county.
The 2006- 2007 Grand Jury began July
2006 with 19 jurors. During the year the
jury lost five members due to various
reasons. Four jurors selected from the
alternative list joined the jury and each
brought with them additional assets
which enhanced the jury.
It has been a pleasure working with my fellow jurors for the citizens of
Solano County.
Sincerely,
D. J. Tobias
Foreman
2006- 2007 Grand Jury
2006- 2007
SOLANO COUNTY
GRAND JURY
First Row: Vern Griffith, James Stewart- 2006 Foreman,
Presiding Judge David Edwin Power, Terry Riddle, Thomas Kreisman
Second Row: Jamielynne Harrison, Administrative Assistant, Sherry
Kelly, Ralph Petty, Julie Majewski, Ronald Bryant, Jacqueline
Ramos, Peggy Sherrod, Joel Van Westerhuyzen
Third Row: Thomas Johnson, John Gales, Donald Basso, Bernard
Sanders, DeWayne Tobias- 2007 Foreman, Bettye Gonzales, Richard
Schumacher, Karl Uebel.
I CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Grand Jury Report - Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Office –
Office of Emergency Services – Sheriff’s Office Dispatch
Center
Sheriff’s Office, Office of Emergency Services and Sheriff’s
Office Dispatch Center Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Grand Jury Report – Solano County Justice Center Detention
Facility Inspection
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Grand Jury Report – Solano Justice Building Court Holding
Facility – Vallejo
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Grand Jury Report - Claybank Detention Facility
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Grand Jury Report - Solano County Probation Department -
Juvenile Detention & New Foundations Facilities
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Solano County Presiding Juvenile Court Judge’s Response . . .10
Grand Jury Report - California Medical Facility
State of California, Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Grand Jury Report - California State Prison Solano
Grand Jury Report - Benicia Police Department and Holding
Facility
City of Benicia Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Grand Jury Report - Dixon Police Department Holding Facility
City of Dixon Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Grand Jury Report – Fairfield Police Department Holding
Facility
City of Fairfield Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Grand Jury Report – Rio Vista Police Department
City of Rio Vista Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Grand Jury Report – Suisun City Police Department Holding
Facility
Suisun City Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Grand Jury Report – Vacaville Police Department Holding
Facility
Vacaville Police Department Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Grand Jury Report – Vallejo Police Department and Holding
Facility
Vallejo Police Department Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Grand Jury Report – California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation Delta Fire Camp
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Response . . . . . . .18
Grand Jury Report – Fouts Springs Youth Facilities
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Fouts Springs Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors’
Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Solano County Presiding Juvenile Court Judge’s Response . . .20
Grand Jury Report - Permission to Carry a Concealed Weapon
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
City of Benicia Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
City of Dixon Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
City of Fairfield Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
City of Rio Vista Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
City of Suisun Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
City of Vacaville Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
City of Vallejo Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
II EDUCATION AND LIBRARY
Grand Jury Report - Travis Unified School District Emergency
Safety Plans
Travis Unified School District Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Grand Jury Report - Solano County Office of Education
Solano County Office of Education Response . . . . . . . . . . .25
III TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
BUILDINGS
Grand Jury Report - Solano County Veterans’ Buildings
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Grand Jury Report - City of Vallejo and Mare Island Historic
Park Foundation Preservation of St. Peter’s Chapel and . . .
Other Historic Properties
City of Vallejo Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Mare Island Historic Park Foundation, Inc. Response . . . . .34
IV LAND PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENT
Grand Jury Report - Solano County Food Establishment
Inspection
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
V HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Grand Jury Report - Solano County Health and Social Services
Department - In Home Supportive Services
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
VI AD HOC
Grand Jury Report - Solano County Animal Care Services
County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
City of Benicia Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
City of Dixon Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
City of Fairfield Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
“ For more information or to see complete copies of agency
responses, please visit the Grand Jury website at
http:// www. solanocounty. com/ GrandJury”
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 3
Table of Contents
MEMBERS OF THE 2006- 2007
SOLANO COUNTY GRAND JURY
Donald Basso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia
Ronald Bryant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suisun City
John Gales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfield
Bettye Gonzales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfield
Vern Griffith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfield
Thomas Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suisun City
Sherry Kelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia
Thomas Kreisman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfield
Julie Majewski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Winters
Ralph Petty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vacaville
Jacqueline Ramos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia
Terry Riddle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vacaville
Bernard Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dixon
Richard Schumacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia
Peggy Sherrod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfield
James Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vallejo
DeWayne Tobias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia
Karl Uebel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia
Joel Van Westerhuyzen . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vacaville
California Penal Code § 933.05 is summarized as follows:
Findings § 933.05 ( a)
For each finding in the Grand Jury Report, the responding party must give
one of the following two responses:
Responding party agrees with the finding.
Responding party disagrees wholly or partially, in which case the
response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and
shall include an explanation of the reasons for disagreement.
Recommendations § 933.05 ( b)
For each recommendation in the Grand Jury Report, the responding party
must state that one of the following four actions has been taken:
Recommendation has been implemented with a summary of imple-mented
action
Recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented
in the future, with a timeframe for implementation
Recommendation requires further analysis or entity requires detailed
explanation of analysis or study with timeframe not to exceed six ( 6)
months; analysis/ study submitted to officer, director or governing body of
the agency being investigated.
Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted, is
not reasonable, with an explanation included.
Budgetary and Personnel Matters § 933.05 ( c)
If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or per-sonnel
matters of a county department head by an elected officer, both the
department head and Board o f Supervisors shall respond if requested by the
Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only
budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making
authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all
aspects of the findings and recommendations affecting his/ her department.
Advance release of a report is prohibited before public release.
Response Time and Responding Party
Public Agency: governing by of any public agency must respond within 90
days.
Elected Officer or Agency Head: elected officers or heads of agencies and
department heads are required to respond in 60 days.
City or County: The mayor shall also comment on the findings and recom-mendations.
Page 4 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report
Note to all Affected Agencies
Index of Affected Agencies
Benicia
Benicia City Manager
Benicia City Council
Benicia Police Department
Dixon
Dixon City Manager
Dixon City Council
Dixon Police Department
Fairfield
Fairfield City Manager
Fairfield City Council
Fairfield Police Department
Rio Vista
Rio Vista City Manager
Rio Vista City Council
Rio Vista Police Department
Suisun City
Suisun City - City Manager
Suisun City - City Council
Suisun City Police Department
Suisun City Fire Department
Vacaville
Vacaville City Manager
Vacaville City Council
Vacaville Police Department
Vallejo
Vallejo City Manager
Vallejo City Council
Vallejo Police Department
Vallejo Architectural Heritage and
Landmarks Commission
Education
Solano County Office of Education
Board
Solano County Office of Education
Transportation Service
T. C. McDaniel Center
Irene Larsen Center
Golden Hills Education Center
Travis Unified School
District
Travis Unified School District School
Board
Foxboro Elementary School
Golden West Middle School
Vanden High School
TUSD- Director of Transportation
Additional Agencies
California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation
California Department of Forestry
California Medical Facility
California State Prison Solano
Colusa County Board of Supervisors
Fouts Springs Board of Supervisors
Fouts Springs Superintendent
Placer County Board of Supervisors
Solano County Administrative Officer
Solano County Animal Care Services
Solano County Board of Supervisors
Solano County Department of General
Services
Solano County Department of Health
& Social Services
Solano County Department of Human
Resources
Solano County Department of
Probation
Solano County Department of Resource
Management
Solano County Juvenile Court
Solano County Juvenile Detention
Facility
Solano County New Foundations
Facility
Solano County Office of Emergency
Services
Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Office
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 5
Criminal Justice
SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF/ CORONER’S OFFICE
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
SHERIFF’S OFFICE DISPATCH CENTER
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Report
Reason for Investigation
Under the authority of the California Penal Code § 925, to investigate and report
on the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments, or functions
of the county, the Grand Jury elected to review the Solano County Office of
Emergency Services and the Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Center.
Grand Jury Actions
• Visited Solano County Office of Emergency Services
• Toured Office of Emergency Services’ Mobile Command Vehicle
• Visited Solano County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Center
• Interviewed Sheriff’s Office Employees
Background / Summary
Office of Emergency Services
The Solano County Office of Emergency Services ( OES) is located at 530 Clay
Street in Fairfield. The OES is used by county staff to coordinate emergency
activity during natural disasters, terrorism, and rescue missions among all
seven cities and the special districts in the county. Mutual aid for neighboring
counties is also coordinated through OES. During emergency situations, OES
uses the Solano County Sheriffs Office Dispatch Center ( Dispatch Center) to
coordinate activities of the OES and other emergency agencies on various radio
frequencies. OES is also responsible for planning and conducting emergency
training exercises and tabletop emergency strategy sessions. The OES facility
is well organized; however, it is located approximately 50 yards from a
Fairfield watershed levee. This levee, on occasion, floods and causes damage
and inconvenience within the OES facility.
The OES has purchased a state- of- the- art Mobile Command Vehicle that has
become an integral part in responding to emergencies within the County. A crit-ical
feature of the vehicle is a radio communications system, thereby permitting
all agencies within the County to share certain frequencies with the command
vehicle. This unit is currently used during emergencies to coordinate communi-cations.
A continuing challenge facing all emergency response agencies has been a lack
of ability to communicate efficiently with all agencies during emergency situa-tions.
In the past, each agency would design its own communications system, on
its own set of frequencies. OES has received funding for a communications sys-tem
within the County. The first of six broadcast towers, supporting the com-mand
vehicle, is currently in place. The balance of the towers is to be installed
by June 2007 permitting all agencies to share certain frequencies during emer-gency
situations.
In the event of a local emergency, OES has the capability to automatically call
all residents in a designated area within a ten- minute period. The OES is also
working with radio station KUIC ( 95.3 FM) to develop the ability to cut into any
program at any time to announce any emergency to the public.
Dispatch Center
The Dispatch Center is part of the Solano County Sheriff’s Department and is
housed within the Sheriff’s Office building in Fairfield. Dispatchers receive,
evaluate, and summarize calls for service for the Sheriff’s Office, Isleton Police
and Fire, Dixon Police and Fire, Cordelia Fire Protection District, Suisun Fire
Protection District, Rio Vista Fire Districts, Montezuma Fire District, Solano
Community College Police, and California Medical Facility on a 24- hour basis.
In addition, dispatchers provide service to Suisun City Police and Fire on
graveyard shift, coordinate air ambulance for scene calls to all areas of the
County, and coordinate all mutual aid for county and out- of- county requests.
They handle after hours problems for Solano Irrigation District, Animal
Control, Coroner, County Roads, Public Works communications, Building and
Grounds, SWAT, Chaplain, District Attorney, Probation, Parole, and Sheriff’s
Reserve.
Dispatchers assist law enforcement officers in the field by asking the California
Law Enforcement Telecommunications System for information on vehicles, peo-ple,
and law enforcement information. Dispatchers transmit on three radio chan-nels,
seven secondary channels, and several law/ fire radios for other agencies.
They also access twelve business lines, four Nextel phones, six 911 lines, alarm
panels, fax requests, and mobile data computer messages. The Dispatch Center
is often the first point of contact for emergencies, providing the citizens of
Solano County 24- hour service.
The dispatchers must perform many tasks simultaneously while maintaining a
high level of accuracy. Their job is demanding and highly stressful. Each dis-patcher
must have a working knowledge of public safety procedures, terminolo-gy,
and code systems. They must make critical decisions, using their independ-ent
judgment. The dispatchers are classified and paid at the county clerical rate.
The Dispatch Center often trains new employees, only to have them leave coun-ty
employment for a similar job with a city public safety agency which pays
higher wages while working with less stress.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 - The Solano County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Center and Office of
Emergency Services are presently housed in an area where flooding occurs.
Dispatchers must be able to perform their critical duties when any state of emer-gency
exists.
Recommendation 1 - The Solano County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Center and
Office of Emergency Services should be housed in an area that is physically
secure and safe. This becomes critical when a disaster occurs.
Finding 2 - The dispatcher job and pay classifications are included with the cler-ical
employee classification within the County pay system.
Recommendation 2 - The County should conduct a job function audit and eval-uation
of the dispatchers’ positions. Their salary should be competitive with
agencies elsewhere in the Public Safety environment.
Finding 3 - The County Dispatch Center is not able to communicate by radio
with other public safety agencies in an emergency.
Recommendation 3 - A continued effort should be made to complete the addi-tional
five communication towers needed for the new communication interoper-ability
system by June 2007 as scheduled.
Finding 4 - At the time of our visit, the Solano County Office of Emergency
Services had been working with the owners of radio station KUIC ( 95.3 FM) to
develop the capability to cut into regular programming at any time to make
immediate emergency announcements to the public.
Recommendation 4 - Complete the ongoing negotiations with KUIC for this
valuable public service.
Comments
The Office of Emergency Services also conducts emergency preparedness
training for Community Emergency Response Teams ( CERT). This training
provides citizens and organizations a better understanding of what they should
do before, during, and after a disaster or major emergency. We believe this to
be a valuable asset for the citizens of this County.
The Grand Jury believes that the dispatch employees should be compen-sated
at a higher level based on their job responsibilities and the stress level asso-ciated
with their duties. The residents of Solano County deserve highly compe-tent
employees working as dispatchers to deal with emergencies. To maintain a
high level of competence, the County must compensate dispatchers at a level
consistent with other public safety agencies in the area.
Affected Agencies
Solano County Sheriff’s Office
Solano County Office of Emergency Services
Solano County Department of Human Resources
Solano County Board of Supervisors
COUNTY OF SOLANO RESPONSE
Sheriff’s Response to Finding 1 – The Sheriff’s Office agrees with the finding.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding 1 – The Board of Supervisors
agrees with the finding.
Sheriff’s Response to Recommendation 1 – The Sheriff’s Office recognizes the
importance of housing the Office of Emergency Services in a location that pro-vides
the maximum ability to response in all disaster situations. While a location
not subject to flooding would be ideal, this recommendation will not be imple-mented
because it is not warranted at this time. The Department is working with
the County Administrator’s Office to explore options for an expanded Office of
Emergency Services as part of the County’s overall capital project planning
process.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Recommendation 1 – The Board of
Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s recom-mendation.
Sheriff’s Response to Finding 2 – The Sheriff’s Office disagrees with the find-ing
as the dispatcher job and pay classification is not aligned with clerical
employee classification. The Public Safety Dispatcher job classification is an
independent classification, unrelated to clerical positions within the County. The
only area of commonality shared by Public Safety Dispatchers and clerical
employees is with organized labor representation. Both are currently represent-ed
by SAGE/ SEIU but are in separate bargaining units.
Human Resources’ Response to Finding 2 – Human Resources disagrees with
this finding because the information is inaccurate. The job series of Public
Safety Dispatcher is assigned to bargaining unit # 7 ( SEIU Local # 1021), which
is the “ Regulatory, Technical & General Services Employees” unit, not the
“ Clerical” unit, which is bargaining unit # 9 ( SEIU Local # 1021).
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding 2 – The Board of Supervisors
agrees with the departmental responses to the Grand Jury’s finding.
Sheriff’s Response to Recommendation 2 – The recommendation has been
implemented as the Solano County Department of Human Resources has con-tracted
with Fox Lawson to conduct a comprehensive classification and compen-sation
study of all county job classifications. The Public Safety Dispatcher clas-sification
is currently under review.
Human Resources’ Response to Recommendation 2 – Human Resources has
implemented this recommendation with the initiation of a comprehensive classi-fication
and compensation study of all County job classifications in February
2007. The Public Safety Dispatcher classification series is currently under
review. Following completion of the classification study the County will con-duct
a compensation study of the appropriate labor market to determine what
modifications to salary are necessary, if any.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Recommendation 2 – The Board of
Supervisors agrees with the departmental responses to the Grand Jury’s recom-mendation.
Sheriff’s Response to Finding 3 – The Sheriff’s Office partially disagrees with
this finding. The Solano County Sheriff’s Dispatch Center is able to communi-cate
by radio with the majority of the public safety agencies in Solano County.
Currently the Sheriff’s Dispatch Center is unable to communicate by radio with
two local agencies, the Vacaville Police Department and the Rio Vista Police
Department. The Vacaville Police Department utilizes a system of radio frequen-cies
that are incompatible with those radio frequencies utilized by other public
safety agencies in Solano County. The Rio Vista Police Department contracts for
services with another county, utilizing radio frequencies that are incompatible
with Solano County radio frequencies. Once the first phase of the county- wide
emergency radio interoperability project has been completed, a limited number
of common radio frequencies will be available for emergency use county wide.
Because the Rio Vista Police Department receives communication services from
another county, it is likely their inability to effectively communicate by radio in
Solano County will continue.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding 3 – The Board of Supervisors
agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding.
Sheriff’s Response to Recommendation 3 – The recommendation has not yet
been implemented, but the first phase will be implemented as soon as the upgrad-ed
radio equipment is delivered and installed by the County’s vendor. The devel-opment
of the infrastructure necessary to support a county- wide interoperable
radio communications system is continuing and the communication towers men-tioned
in the Grand Jury report are part of this planned infrastructure. Funding
for the first phase of this project has been identified, contracts are in place and
timelines for deliverables have been established. The contractor for this project
is approximately 90 days behind in deliverables.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Recommendation 3 – The Board of
Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s recom-mendation.
Sheriff’s Response to Finding 4 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the find-ing.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding 4 – The Board of Supervisors
agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding.
Sheriff’s Response to Recommendation 4 – This recommendation has been
completed and the Solano County Office of Emergency Services now has the
capability of immediately providing emergency announcements to the public by
utilizing radio station KUIC.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Recommendation 4 – The Board of
Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s recom-mendation.
SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER
DETENTION FACILITY INSPECTION
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason For Inspection
California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Solano
County Justice Center Detention Facility and Court Holding Cells.
Grand Jury Actions
• Met with Solano County Sheriff and senior administrators
• Viewed a power point presentation of the department’s operation
and interviewed staff at the detention facility
• Toured and inspected detention facility and Superior Court holding cells
• Reviewed Corrections Standards Authority facility inspection
evaluation report
Background / Summary
The Solano County Justice Center Detention Facility is a 260,000 square foot
facility located at 530 Union Avenue, Fairfield, California. The detention facili-ty
is commonly known as the main jail. It became operational June 1989 and was
given a Corrections Standards Authority ( CSA) bed capacity rating for 705 beds.
After remodeling the facility, bed capacity rating increased to 740. According to
CSA standards, the facility is classified as a type II facility, which means it is a
local detention facility used for the detention of individuals awaiting arraign-ment,
trial, sentencing and fulfilling commitment. On the day of inspection, the
inmate population was 733. The facility is operated by, under the control of and
commanded by the Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Department.
The Sheriff and staff launched a successful recruiting campaign that addressed
personnel shortages and overtime usage throughout the department. All areas are
now fully staffed and overtime has been dramatically reduced.
In 2006, 19,602 individuals were booked into the facility; 8,864 for misdemeanor
offenses and 10,738 for felony offenses. Every 60.6 minutes an individual was
booked for a misdemeanor offense and every 48.9 minutes an individual was
booked for a felony offense. In 2006, there was an overall increase in felony
bookings for homicide, assault and sex crimes.
The Sheriff’s Department administers several programs that assist the inmates
while incarcerated. Some examples of the programs are:
Youth and Family Services Jail Outreach
Religious Services
Alcoholic Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous
Institutional Homeless Case Management
Youth and Family Services Outreach Jail Program
This program assists sentenced inmates with drug and alcohol problems. It pro-vides
group and individual counseling. Recovery 2, is also a part of the program.
Recovery 2 is a self- help therapeutic program presented in a group setting and is
facilitated by the Sheriff’s Department Chaplin, Youth and Family Services and
Case staff.
Religious Services Program
This program is conducted by 2 chaplains. The program provides church servic-es,
Bible studies, Bible correspondence, personal counseling, crisis intervention
and marriage services.
Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous Programs
These programs are available to all incarcerated individuals upon request.
Meetings are held weekly in a group setting.
Institutional Homeless Case Management Program
This program is for inmates that have been incarcerated for more than 30 days
and will be homeless upon release. The program provides assistance with tran-sitional
housing, finding financial aid and medical providers. The program also
provides assistance with finding drug/ alcohol treatment programs and mental
health providers.
The Sheriff’s Department has been under contract with the California Forensic
Medical Group since March 2004 to provide the inmates with in- house medical,
dental and outpatient mental health services. Based on information received,
medical staff had 48,645 contacts from January through June 2006 and mental
health staff had 635 contacts during the same period.
The Sheriff noted that Workers’ Compensation injury claims have been reduced
since the creation of the Custody Response Team. The CRT is deployed when
necessary to remove combative, uncooperative inmates and during emergencies.
The CRT receives approximately 100 call outs annually. Over 50% of the call
outs resulted in voluntary compliance.
The Sheriff’s Department Custody Division took the following actions to
improve overall operations:
Consolidated policy and procedure for the Fairfield and Claybank Facilities.
Implemented a Jail Management Team, Facilities Inspection Team and Facilities
Search Team.
Contracted with Legal Research Associates.
Consolidating policy and procedure
Policy and procedure consolidation for the Claybank and Main Jail Facilities has
Page 6 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report
Criminal Justice
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 7
Criminal Justice
standardized day- to- day operations and has addressed applicable California
Code of Regulations, Title 15 requirements.
Jail Management Team
The team meets monthly to identify any potential problems, classification issues,
personnel and inmate grievances, maintenance issues, policy, legal issues and to
discuss pilot testing of any new products prior to purchase.
Facilities Inspection Team
The team is responsible for inspecting all lifesaving equipment, all restraint
equipment, developing and updating fire evacuation plans, examining all facili-ty
locks once a month and conducting visual inspection of all smoke and light
detectors. When activated, the team is asked to search and find contraband,
weapons, narcotics and other illegal materials within the confines of the deten-tion
facilities.
Legal Research Associates
The Legal Research Associates provides the inmates with law library services
that give the inmates greater access to legal reference materials.
The Solano County Court Holding Cells are located in the Solano County
Superior Court Building second floor at 500 Union Avenue, Fairfield, California.
The holding cells are accessed from the rear of the main jail building and by ele-vator.
The general public does not have access to the cells. The holding cells are
used exclusively for detaining adult and juvenile inmates minutes prior to a
scheduled court arraignment or trial. No inmates are detained over night.
Whenever a juvenile is being detained, a probation officer is present. There are
occasions when adults and juveniles, although detained in separate cells, are
within hearing distance of each other, which is an apparent violation of the
California Code of Regulations, Title 15.
Findings And Recommendations
Finding 1 - Policy and procedure are consolidated into one operating manual for
the Fairfield and Claybank Detention Facilities.
Recommendation 1 – None.
Finding 2 - The Jail Management Team, Facility Inspection Team and the
Facility Search Team were created to enhance overall operations.
Recommendation 2 - The teams should remain in place as part of the overall
operations of the Sheriff’s Department.
Finding 3 – The Sheriff’s Department Custody Division entered into a contract
with Legal Research Associates, which has enhanced the inmate’s ability to
access legal material and reduced inmate complaints relating to legal material
access.
Recommendation 3 – The contract should remain in place allowing inmates to
continue to participate in the service.
Finding 4 - Occasionally adult and juvenile inmates are within hearing distance
of each other when detained at the Superior Court Holding Cells.
Recommendation 4 - Dialogue should continue between the Sheriff’s
Department, Probation Department and the Superior Court with the goal of cor-recting
this situation as indicated in the Corrections Standard Authority report.
Comments
The Solano County Sheriff has successfully addressed serious staff shortages, the
use of overtime, workers’ compensation injury claims and the overall day- to- day
operations of the department. Staffing shortages and the reduction of overtime
were overcome by launching and conducting a successful recruiting campaign.
Maintaining the Custody Response Team reduced the number of workers’ com-pensation
claims. Consolidating policy and procedure into one manual for the
day- to- day operations of the Fairfield and Claybank detention facilities made
overall operations more uniform and has addressed California Code of
Regulations, Title 15 requirements.
The Sheriff and Staff are to be complimented for improving overall day- to- day
operations and for exhibiting and providing a high level of safety, security and
service to the people of Solano County.
Affected Agencies
Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Office
Solano County Board of Supervisors
COUNTY OF SOLANO RESPONSE
Sheriff’s Response to Finding 1 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the find-ing
of the Grand Jury. The policies and procedures of the Sheriff’s Office are
continually being reviewed, updated and consolidated to reduce liability and
ensure consistent operation of the detention facilities.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation.
Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The Sheriff’s Office
concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. The teams have encouraged open
communications between the ranks enabling potential safety and security issues
to be addressed and corrected in a timely manner. These teams have become an
integral part of the Custody Division. Currently the Custody Management Team
is meeting on a monthly basis. The Facility Inspection Team is routinely walk-ing
throughout the facilities inspecting and documenting safety and security
issues that may arise. The Facility Search Team continues operations as needed.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation.
Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 3 – The Sheriff’s Office
concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. The contract with Legal Research
Associates ( LRA) has been in place since October 1, 2005. To date, we are sat-isfied
with the level of service and the working relationship that has developed
between staff and LRA. Provided the quality of service continues at present level
this contract will be reevaluated for renewal prior to the expiration date of
September 30, 2008.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 3 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation.
Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 4 – The Sheriff’s Office
concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. A dialog has been established
between the Sheriff’s Office, Probation Department and the Superior Court and
will continue with the goal of correcting the situation indicated in the Corrections
Standard Authority report. The Sheriff has formally noticed the Probation
Department that this situation must be corrected. In order for the appropriate
change to occur the Probation Department and the Superior Court must change
the location of juvenile hearings. Any independent action taken by the Sheriff to
prevent the Probation Department from utilizing existing holding facilities will
result in a significant disruption of the Juvenile Justice System. Our continuing
goal is to resolve this issue prior to our next annual inspection by Corrections
Standards Authority.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 4 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Grand Jury and Departmental response and
is supportive of continued dialog between the Sheriff, Probation and Courts to
mitigate issues concerning the safety of juvenile inmates awaiting Court appear-ances.
Ideally the County would like to see the Courts conduct juvenile hearings
at Juvenile Hall and is desirous of collaboration with the Courts to explore the
need for a juvenile justice center adjacent to Juvenile Hall.
SOLANO JUSTICE BUILDING
COURT HOLDING FACILITY – VALLEJO
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason For Inspection
California Penal Code § 919 subdivision ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Solano
Justice Building Vallejo Court Holding Facility located at 321 Tuolumne Street,
Vallejo, California.
Grand Jury Actions
• Met with the Captain in charge of in- custody operations and staff
• Interviewed staff
• Toured and inspected the holding facility
• Reviewed the California Standards Authority facility evaluation report
Background / Summary
This 5500 square foot holding cell facility is inside the Solano Justice Center
Building located at 321 Tuolumne Street, Vallejo, California. The facility is used
exclusively for the temporary holding and securing of inmates for their court
appearances. It is staffed, operated and under the command of the Solano
County Sheriff’s Department and is designated a court holding detention facility
by the Corrections Standards Authority. Inmates are transported from the
Claybank facility and the main jail in downtown Fairfield to this facility for court
appearances. Lunch is served to all inmates waiting for their court appearance if
present during the noon hour. Inmates are not housed overnight.
The facility inmate capacity is 85. There are nine holding cells, two of which are
large enough to hold and secure 32 individuals. In total, 34 female and male
inmates were present, the facility was neat, clean and odor free on the day of our
walk through. Seven deputies provide court bailiff duties and they assist three
correctional officers with monitoring and securing of inmates waiting for their
court appearance.
The holding cell area is equipped with warning lights and an audible alarm sys-tem.
There are security cameras in the holding cell area and in all of the court-rooms.
Judges, officers of the court and court employees can access courtrooms
from the holding cell area. An automatic door locking system is in place, which
is activated when inmates are escorted between the holding cells and court.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 – Inmates are transported daily from the main jail downtown Fairfield
and the Claybank facility to the holding cells in Vallejo. The number of inmates
that have court appearances dictate the number of trips made daily.
Recommendation 1 – The Sheriff’s Department coordinates activities with the
courts to minimize transportation of inmates within the county.
Finding 2 – Judges, officers of the court and court employees can access a court-room
from the holding cell area.
Recommendation 2 – Although adequate security appears to be in place, the
Sheriff’s Department should continue to be vigilant in monitoring safety and
security concerns of the judges, court officers and court employees when escort-ing
inmates from the cell( s) to the courtroom.
Comments
The facility appears out- dated in design. On the day of this review, the facility
commander and staff were diligent in providing security. The Sheriff’s
Department utilizes precautionary measures when transporting the inmates from
Fairfield and Claybank to the court in Vallejo and when escorting the inmates
from the holding cell to a courtroom. The Commander and staff are to be com-mended
for operating this facility in a professional manner.
Affected Agencies
Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Office
Solano County Board of Supervisors
COUNTY OF SOLANO RESPONSE
Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The Sheriff’s Office
concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. The Sheriff’s Office recognizes and
concurs with the need to minimize the number of transports made daily to Vallejo
for court proceedings. The Sheriff also recognizes that the ability to minimize the
number of inmates transported daily to the Vallejo Superior Court is completely
dependent on where the Superior Court decides to conduct in- custody hearings.
In order to maximize efficiency and assure safety and security the Sheriff’s
Office will continue a dialog with the Presiding Judge and Court Executive
Officer with the ultimate goal of reducing the number of inmates transported
daily to Vallejo.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation and would like to see expanded collaborative
efforts with the Courts ( i. e. video arraignments, calendaring of in custody mat-ters
in Fairfield) to minimize the cost and effort of transporting and holding of
inmates throughout County facilities.
Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The Sheriff’s Office
concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. The Sheriff’s Office recognizes and
concurs with the need to provide safety and security for the judges, court officers
and court employees. During the most recent remodel of the Vallejo Court
Facility the Sheriff was consulted for security. Specific recommendations were
made to establish a secure hallway for the transition of in- custody defendants. In
the final analysis it was determined that construction of a separate secure passage
for the transition of in- custody defendants was too costly and the recommenda-tion
was eliminated from the construction plan. The design of the existing court
facility is the result of that decision. The Sheriff’s Office has implemented pro-cedures
to provide safety during the movement of high risk, high security
inmates. The Sheriff’s Office utilizes existing resources including the deploy-ment
of the Custody Response Team to alleviate security concerns. Moreover,
high risk security issues are identified, assessed, and mitigated by the Sheriff’s
Office Threat Assessment Team.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation.
CLAYBANK DETENTION FACILITY
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason For Investigation
California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Claybank
Detention Facility.
Grand Jury Actions
• Met and received an overview of facility operations by the Commander and
staff
• Interviewed staff
• Toured and inspected the facility
• Received orientation on the following programs: Electronic Monitoring,
Work Furlough, After Release Work and the pending Global Positioning
Satellite Monitoring
• Reviewed the California Standards Authority facility inspection report
Background / Summary
The 91,000 square foot Claybank Detention Facility ( the facility) opened in
1979. The facility is staffed, operated and commanded by the Solano County
Sheriff’s Department. The facility is on 37 acres of land located at 2500
Claybank Road, Fairfield, California. It is a Type II facility, which means it is a
local detention facility used for the detention of persons pending arraignment,
trial, sentencing and fulfilling commitment. No bookings occur at this facility.
The facility is currently fully staffed with 46 uniform and non- uniform person-nel.
Current bed capacity is 411. Plans are currently in place to increase bed
capacity by 512. On the day of inspection, there were 74 female and 378 male
inmates in- custody.
Our inspection revealed that due to security concerns, the dining area and day-rooms
in two areas are not fully utilized. The facility was clean and neat. The
grounds were well maintained.
The Commander and staff established a Good Behavior Program for qualified
inmates. Inmates are given extra privileges in exchange for exhibited good
behavior over a specified period of time. Several programs are available for the
inmates. Minimum Security inmates can volunteer for landscaping, kitchen
duties and many other in- custody work activities. Courses are available for all
inmates interested in obtaining a General Education Diploma ( GED). Support
services are available such as Life Skills, Keys to Recovery, Nurturing and
Family Services.
With the cooperation of the Solano County Animal Shelter, a Kitten Raising
Program is available for the female inmates. Electronic Monitoring and Work
Furlough Programs are available for the inmates meeting certain criteria.
Electronic Monitoring allows low risk offenders the opportunity to work, attend
court ordered rehabilitation programs and to stay at home in lieu of going to jail.
According to the Sheriff’s Department data, the Electronic Monitoring Program
saved county taxpayers over $ 2 million dollars between September 2005 and
September 2006. Work Furlough provides eligible inmates a means to continue
school or work while incarcerated.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 – The designated dining area and dayrooms in the housing units
appear to be under utilized.
Recommendation 1 - The Sheriff and staff should find ways to utilize these
areas consistent with security concerns.
Finding 2 - The Electronic Monitoring Program appears to be cost effective.
The program contributes to reducing overcrowding.
Recommendation 2 - Continue to expand and monitor the program for cost
effectiveness consistent with safety and security concerns.
Finding 3 - The Life Skills Program and the Kitten Raising Program appear to
be beneficial to all participating inmates.
Recommendation 3 - These programs should be continued and enhanced when
possible.
Page 8 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report
Criminal Justice
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 9
Criminal Justice
Finding 4 – The Good Behavior Program was implemented and appeared to be
successful.
Recommendation 4 - This program should be monitored closely for potential
abuse to ensure that safety and security concerns are not compromised.
Comments
The Claybank Detention Facility is used for housing inmates pending arraign-ment,
trial, sentencing or fulfilling commitment. On the day of inspection, the
facility was clean, neat and odor free.
Construction of a 512- bed unit at the Claybank Detention Facility is scheduled
to begin in the fall of 2007. The additional beds should alleviate anticipated
overcrowding. The sheriff placed a priority on staffing throughout the depart-ment
and launched an aggressive recruiting campaign. As a result, the Claybank
Detention Facility is fully staffed.
The Grand Jury compliments the Sheriff’s Department for exhibiting an out-standing
effort in providing safety, security and service at the Claybank
Detention Facility.
Affected Agencies
Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Office
Solano County Board of Supervisors
COUNTY OF SOLANO RESPONSE
Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The Sheriff’s Office
concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. In the original design of the Claybank
Facility the dining room and recreation areas ( referred to as dayrooms in the
Grand Jury report) were intended for use by minimum security inmates. The
inmate population has changed and very few minimum security inmates are held
in custody. Effective utilization of the dining room and the large recreation areas
will require safety and security upgrades that may include security doors, locks,
security cameras and additional staffing. Moreover, upgrades to these areas may
not be tenable at this time because of the Claybank expansion project and the
planned remodel of the existing facility. Upon completion of the expansion the
inmate population housed at the Claybank Facility will be transferred to the new
facility and the existing facility will be remodeled. Once this occurs, use of the
currently under- utilized space will be reevaluated.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation. Underutilized areas at Claybank will be repro-grammed
as part of the jail expansion project in conjunction with the County’s
commitment to enhance resources to reduce recidivism and promote safe com-munities
through expanded projects aimed at crime prevention, intervention and
reentry activities.
Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The Sheriff’s Office
concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury and the recommendation has been
implemented. The Sheriff’s Office assumed responsibility for management and
operation of the Electronic Monitoring Program, from a private provider, in May
2004. Since that time, program compliance and participation has increased and
policies and procedures including fiscal procedures have been and continue to be
updated. In addition, we are starting a Global Positioning Satellite ( GPS) track-ing
program. Through Global Positioning we will have the capability to know
where participants are at all times. The Sheriff will continue a dialogue with the
Superior Court, encouraging Judges to permit additional defendants access to
electronic monitoring.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation. Board of Supervisors supports the development of
cooperative relationships between the Courts and Sheriff that maximize use of
cost effective sentencing alternatives that reflect sufficient consequences for
criminal activities.
Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 3 – The Sheriff’s Office
concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury and the recommendation has been
implemented. In partnership with Youth and Family Services and the Solano
County Animal Shelter inmate programming has benefited all involved. Inmates
participating in programs at the Claybank Facility have more than doubled, new
programs have been introduced and there are plans for improving and increasing
inmate programs in the future. In addition to drug and alcohol treatment pro-grams
we have life skills, nurturing skills, anger management and work closely
with Social Services to develop and maintain a good family relationship between
incarcerated parents and their children. We have two ( 2) dayrooms of pre- sen-tenced
inmates who are programming, with the focus being on drug and alcohol
treatment and behavior modification. Future plans for programs may include,
vocational training, operating a day reporting center and implementing a commu-nity
re- entry program.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 3 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation.
Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 4 – The Sheriff’s Office
concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury and the recommendation has been
implemented. Safety and security of the inmates, facility, staff and community
is our first priority. When we started the pilot program with pre- sentenced
inmates, we based it on incentives for positive behavior. Inmates are given
expectations and we hold them accountable. We have had a few inmates who
were unacceptable for this program and were a deterrent to our objective; these
inmates are re- classified to a higher security upon identification.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 4 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation.
Additional Comments from Sheriff/ Coroner:
In closing, I appreciate the effort put forth by those members of the Grand Jury
conducting the annual inspection of my custody and court holding facilities.
They were inquisitive, asked the important questions, addressed controversial
issues and produced what I believe is a valuable and objective report. The posi-tive
recognition by the Grand Jury of our efforts to maintain safe and secure jail
and court hold facilities is greatly appreciated.
SOLANO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT
JUVENILE DETENTION
& NEW FOUNDATIONS FACILITIES
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Inspection
California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Juvenile
Detention and New Foundations Facilities at 740 Beck Avenue, Fairfield,
California.
Grand Jury Actions
• Interviewed the Chief Probation Officer
• Met with the Superintendent, staff, and counselors of Juvenile Detention
and New Foundations Facilities
• Toured the Juvenile Detention and New Foundation Facilities
• Met and spoke with several minors in the facilities
• Reviewed the facilities’ policy and procedure manuals
Background / Summary
The Juvenile Detention Facility ( Juvenile Hall) and the New Foundations
Facility ( New Foundations) are divisions of the Solano County Probation
Department ( Probation Department). The purpose of these facilities is to provide
detention for youths charged with serious crimes, who otherwise cannot be safe-ly
released to the community and are likely to flee the jurisdiction of the Court.
They also provide post- disposition detention for youths awaiting placement to
other types of residential care, quality education, vocational assessment, and
learning opportunities. The facilities’ policies and procedures comply with the
standards in Title 15 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations pertain-ing
to juvenile offenders. Juvenile Court Law, Solano County, and the Probation
Department also establish procedures and guidelines for consistency and unifor-mity
in the day- to- day operation of the facilities.
Juvenile Hall
This facility houses minimum to maximum security level minors and has a
capacity of 90. On the day of our visit, there were 95 minors, 76 males and 19
females. The staff ratio was one duty staff member to 10 minors to include a
Senior Counselor and several Group Counselors as required by law.
All minors, age 12- 18 years, accepted for booking into Juvenile Hall, undergo a
pat- down search prior to placement in a holding cell. The facility has a Sally
Port for the transport of minors from police department holding cells. Visual
safety checks are conducted every 10 minutes and documented accordingly.
Within one hour of booking, minors are given the opportunity to make three
phone calls; to a parent or guardian, an employer, and an attorney. Juveniles
must have a court hearing within 72 hours after their arrest.
Every minor detained in Juvenile Hall must be entered immediately into the Case
Program as part of the intake process. This Program is a Solano County database
that contains information on minors that have been or are currently on probation
in the county. Additionally, all minors must be medically screened with written
medical clearance before being booked into the facility.
As of August 15, 2006, Solano County instituted policies and procedures requir-ing
every minor in Juvenile Hall to have a Medical CASE Identification printout
and picture. This confirms and identifies all incoming minors for medication
issuance by the nursing staff. The nurses are on duty daily between 7: 00 a. m.
and 11: 00 p. m. A doctor is present at various intervals, but is always on- call.
Mental health counselors, probation officers, and other professionals and staff
are available as needed and may take part in the processing and placement of a
minor into Juvenile Hall.
A minor is assigned to one of four Pods ( housing units within the facility) in a
manner that provides for their individual safety as well as the safety of other
minors, staff, and the public. Several factors are considered when assigning a
minor to a Pod, such as:
Security classification
Special modification or mental health needs
Gender, age, weight
Maturity level
Legal status
Suspected of having a communicable disease
Case is high profile/ type of offense
Gang affiliation
New Foundations
This facility’s program is an intensive program that addresses the educational
needs of detained juveniles in Solano County. It has a bed capacity of 30. New
Foundations academic program operates under the authority of the Solano
County Superintendent of Schools. The programs must comply with the State
Education Code and the County Board of Education. Minors are evaluated to
determine individual educational needs and they must be enrolled in a program
within three school days after their detention.
Minors can earn high school credits toward a diploma. The Exit exam required
for high school students is available to the minors at the facility.
The facility’s new employees, after their initial orientation and training, are
required to train at Juvenile Hall and receive additional training supervised by the
Chief Probation Officer.
New Foundations has a full service program designed to provide a safe and car-ing,
therapeutic group living experience, incorporating psychological, psychi-atric,
recreational, and social services aimed at supporting and reunifying fami-lies.
All activities are designed to promote self- discipline, self- esteem, respect,
and accountability for each minor. Minors are encouraged to communicate with
their families. Active involvement by the family is an intricate part of the treat-ment
program. Ongoing family counseling through a series of group conferences
and home visits assists the minor and family to understand their family dynam-ics.
The counselors and probation officers also use the counseling sessions to
evaluate home furloughs and establish criteria for a minor’s release.
This facility functions on a point system that focuses on behavior modification.
Points are earned on a weekly basis during specific hours based on good behav-ior.
A minor can advance through four phase levels to earn release; Phase 4 is
the highest. It takes approximately one month to advance one level provided all
required points are earned. Furloughs are a privilege and may be given for those
achieving Phase 3 and Phase 4.
A report is required, by statute, when overcrowding exceeds maximum capacity
for more than 15 calendar days in any single month. The Assistant
Superintendent filed a report regarding the overcrowding in Juvenile Hall with
the California Corrections Standards Authority in September 2006. At the time
of our visit in November 2006, a second report was being prepared.
New Foundations was not experiencing overcrowding at the time of our visit.
A pre- site inspection of the new Juvenile Detention Facility was conducted prior
to occupancy in 2004 by The Institute for Medical Quality. Other regulatory
agencies conducted the required annual inspections for both facilities in 2006.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 - On the day of our visit both facilities appeared clean, neat, and well
organized.
Recommendation 1 - Solano County Probation Department should continue to
keep up the good work.
Finding 2 - On the day of our inspection, Juvenile Hall was overcrowded.
Recommendation 2 - Solano County Probation Department should review
processes and procedures for all juvenile facilities they administer to avoid over-crowding.
Finding 3 - Minors released to society are not tracked.
Recommendation 3 - Solano County Probation Department should track the
success or failure of minors in order to measure the effectiveness of the programs
they administer.
Comments
The Probation Department administers all juvenile detention facilities for Solano
County. Proper use of all available beds could reduce overcrowding at any or all
facilities.
We commend the Probation Department for its efforts to administer statutory
law, and policy and procedures. Hopefully the department will be successful in
getting more parental involvement.
Affected Agencies
Solano County Probation Department
Juvenile Detention Facility
New Foundations Facility
Courtesy Copy
Solano County Board of Supervisors
Solano County Juvenile Court
COUNTY OF SOLANO RESPONSE
Probation’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – Concur.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation.
Probation’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – Probation agrees
with this finding and the recommendation has been implemented. Probation con-tinually
reviews processes and procedures to avoid overcrowding. Atrend toward
increased population was identified early in 2006. This trend continued reaching
a peak in October 2006. Once it was determined that the increased population
was a long term trend rather than a spike, the Department requested authoriza-tion
from the Board of Supervisors to reopen the Challenge Unit. Authorization
to open 20 beds was approved on February 27, 2007.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The
Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s
finding and recommendation. Board approval of funding and staffing of the
Challenge Unit provides sufficient resources for the Department to address
spikes in population at Juvenile Hall.
Probation’s Response to Finding 3 – Probation disagrees partially. Solano
County Probation currently collects substantial data for those minors participat-ing
in programs funded by grants such as the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention
Act ( JJCPA).
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding 3 – The Board of Supervisors
agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury finding. Probation has
implemented the collection of data on juveniles to better evaluate the outcomes
of programs and services provided by the County.
Probation’s Response to Recommendation 3 – The recommendation has been
implemented with regard to programs funded by grants such as JJCPA. With
regard to other programs, the recommendation will be implemented by FY 2008-
2009. The Department is currently working with other probation departments
through the Chief Probation Officers of California to implement standardized
outcome measures for juvenile and adult probation.
Board of Supervisors’ Response to Recommendation 3 – The Board of
Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s recom-mendation.
SOLANO COUNTY PRESIDING JUVENILE COURT JUDGE’S
RESPONSE
Finding/ Recommendation 1: I have no comment on this finding and its recom-mendation.
Finding/ Recommendation 2: Prior to detaining a minor at the Juvenile
Detention Facility, the court must consider and make a number of findings:
Whether continuance in the home of the parent or guardian is contrary to the
minor’s welfare
Page 10 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report
Criminal Justice
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 11
Criminal Justice
Whether the Probation Officer has made reasonable efforts to prevent or elimi-nate
the need for the removal of the minor from his or her home
Whether the District Attorney has made a prima facie showing that the minor is
a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602
What is the specific reason( s) the minor is being detained:
• The minor has violated a Juvenile Court Order
• The minor has escaped from a Juvenile Court Commitment
• The minor is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court
• It is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for protection of the
minor to detain him or her
• It is reasonably necessary for the protection of the person or property of
others to detain the minor
The judicial determination for detention is made regardless of the population of
the Juvenile Detention Facility.
The court often gives the Probation Officer the discretion to release a specific
minor directly to the parents or on a program of home supervision or electronic
monitoring. On some occasions, the ability of the parents to provide an effective
level of supervision for the minor can be increased by brief counseling or moni-toring
by the Probation Officer.
The Juvenile Court and Probation Department utilize a procedure that signifi-cantly
expedites the signing of transfer orders when a minor is to be transferred
to another institution. This expedited procedure reduces both the duration of a
minor’s stay in the Juvenile Detention Facility waiting for the transfer to occur
and the population of the facility.
Finding/ Recommendation 3: I have no comment on this finding or its recom-mendation.
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Investigation
California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the California
Medical Facility, 1600 California Drive, Vacaville, California.
Grand Jury Actions
• Interviewed the Warden and staff
• Toured the AIDS Unit
• Toured the Hospice Unit
• Toured the Education Center
• Toured the Elder Care Facility
• Reviewed California Medical Facility pamphlets and historical notes
• Reviewed related newspaper articles
• Reviewed a summary of nine class action lawsuits
Background/ Summary
The California Medical Facility ( CMF) was established in 1955 by the California
Legislature to provide a centrally located medical/ psychiatric institution for the
health care needs of the male population of California State Prisons. It has been
in operation for over 50 years.
The budget for CMF is $ 171 million, and is staffed with approximately 1,853.
There are 200 staff vacancies, mainly in the medical areas.
The facility was originally designed to house 2,315 inmates. The housing areas
have been reconfigured. The current inmate capacity is 3,329. On the day of our
inspection, the inmate population was 3,022.
Mental Health Services operates a licensed acute care psychiatric hospital with-in
CMF. Their mission is to provide evaluation and treatment of the mentally dis-ordered
and developmentally disabled inmates in a safe, secure, well- maintained,
therapeutic and self- enhancing environment. They must do this while maintain-ing
control of individuals who have been determined to be a danger to self or the
people of the State of California.
The medical needs of inmates are met by CMF Hospital Services. This includes
65 licensed acute care beds, 21 licensed elderly care beds, three negative air pres-sure
isolation rooms and two operating rooms.
Emergency medical services are provided to all inmates housed at CMF. Life
support services, quality nursing care, and nursing assessments are provided by
registered nurses 24 hours a day. A physician is on duty during the day shift, and
a medical officer of the day is available to provide after- hours care.
Dental services are provided and all inmates receive a general examination and
dental cleaning once a year. Additional dental work is done if needed. A dental
laboratory is in the proximity and produces dental prosthetic devices. The clinic
and laboratory are small and crowded, which creates safety concerns for the staff.
CMF has a special housing unit for over 520 HIV positive/ AIDS patients and a
17- bed hospice, which was the first in the State of California. The hospice is
accredited by the State of California Department of Health Services. The hos-pice
offers comfort and support to terminally ill patients and support for families
and friends. Inmates, who have passed certain requirements, can volunteer to
provide supportive care for the terminally ill patients. Family visitation is more
lenient in this wing.
In 2006, an Elder Care Facility, with a bed capacity of 21, was added. It is a 24-
hour care facility. The general age category for this facility is 55 and over. This
unit was established to meet the needs of the disabled and elderly.
CMF has three community work crews available to assist nearby cities and coun-ties
on needed projects.
Napa State Hospital Crew provides gardening and janitorial sup
port to Napa State Hospital.
The Keating Park Crew provides maintenance and gardening to
local ballparks.
The Alamo Creek Crew provides weed abatement and flood pro
tection work for the City of Vacaville.
Educational opportunities are provided to inmates by the CMF
Education Department. Academic courses are offered in adult basic edu-cation
and English as a second language. High school and GED pro-grams
are available to eligible inmates.
CMF also offers vocational education courses. These courses include
horticulture, electronics, janitorial, and office services. The courses are
designed to assist inmates in securing jobs after their release from
prison.
Inmates are assigned to a reentry program within 120 days of their
parole date. The re- entry program is designed to provide inmates with
materials and guidance for a successful parole. It emphasizes communi-cation,
employable skills, money management, community and parole
resources, self- esteem, social values and personal responsibility. Three
to 11 inmates are released daily from CMF.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 - The California Medical Facility continues to have staff shortages in
the medical fields.
Recommendation 1 - Develop recruiting programs to correct this ongoing prob-lem.
Finding 2 - The reentry program is designed to provide inmates with materials
and guidance for a successful parole. This program appears to be the right thing
to do.
Recommendation 2 - Establish a tracking process to determine if the program
has been successful in helping released inmates to become responsible citizens.
Finding 3 - The hospice unit at the California Medical Facility is a model for cor-rection
facilities.
Recommendation 3 - Expand the program as needed throughout the corrections
community.
Comments
The Warden and staff at the California Medical Facility were very helpful and
willing to answer our many questions. At the time of our tour, the facility
appeared clean and well organized. Needed expansion of the dental laboratory
will create more jobs for inmates and provide added security for staff.
Groundbreaking is scheduled for 2011.
Lawsuits are pending in Federal Courts against the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation system pertaining to overcrowding, rehabilita-tion,
medical care and staffing. The outcome of these lawsuits will have an
impact on the operations at the California Medical Facility.
Affected Agencies
California Medical Facility- Solano
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
RESPONSE
The California Medical Facility ( CMF) is in receipt of the 2006- 2007 Solano
County Grand Jury report. Following is my response to the findings and recom-mendations
in this report:
Response 1: CMF is currently providing the following recruitment efforts to
ensure vacant medical positions are tracked and a recruitment plan is in process:
Monthly Human Resources sub- committee meetings to discuss vacancies, hires,
and recruitment.
Monthly Quality Management Committee meetings with the Warden and Chief
Deputy, Clinical Services, to discuss the status of medical vacancies, recruitment
efforts and hires.
Advertise in the following: Capitol Weekly, California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Weekly Job Bulletin, State Personnel Board
VPOS, Sacramento Bee, Modesto Bee, Stockton Record, Vallejo Times Herald,
San Francisco Chronicle, Vacaville Daily Reporter and Fairfield newspaper.
Participate in local job fairs.
Focused recruitment by mailing flyers and bulletins to local colleges and techni-cal
institutions.
Distribution of flyers to employees and churches.
Liaison with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of
Workforce Planning regarding vacancies, hires and recruitment.
Response 2: CMF agrees with the Grand Jury that the Parole, Planning and
Placement ( PPP) program is an excellent program as it provides inmates the tools
and resources necessary for a successful parole. However, the PPP is under the
direction of the Division of Adult Parole ( DAPO). CMF will forward your rec-ommendation
to Thomas G. Hoffman, Deputy Director, DAPO.
Response 3: CMF agrees with the Grand Jury that the hospice unit provides
valuable services for male inmates with terminal illnesses incarcerated in prisons
throughout the State of California. The Grand Jury’s recommendation that this
program be expanded, as needed, will be forwarded to the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s ( CDCR’s) Health Care Services Division and
Robert Sillen, the court- appointed Federal receiver for medical care issues with-in
the CDCR.
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON SOLANO
FACILITY INSPECTION
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason For Investigation
Penal Code § 919, subdivision ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall inquire into
the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the California State
Prison- Solano ( CSP- Solano) located at 2100 Peabody Road, Vacaville,
California.
Grand Jury Actions
• Toured the facility
• Toured the Metal Fabrication Unit of the Prison Industry Authority ( PIA)
• Toured the Optical Laboratory of the PIA
• Interviewed CSP- Solano warden and staff
• Reviewed newspaper articles related to California Prisons
• Reviewed materials provided by CSP- Solano
• Reviewed California Corrections Standards Authority
Background/ Summary
CSP- Solano covers 146 acres. The prison opened in August 1984, with a
designed capacity of 2,610 inmates. On the day of the Grand Jury inspection,
CSP- Solano’s inmate population was 6,021. The gymnasiums and other build-ings
have been converted to housing units to accommodate the demand for insti-tutional
housing. This additional housing requires the use of triple- deck bunk-ing.
CSP- Solano is a level- two and level- three facility. Level- two and level- three
inmates must be kept separate. An inmate’s level is based on an individual
assessment of his crime and actions during incarceration. Level three inmates are
a higher risk level and require more security. According to prison administrative
staff, CSP- Solano has a staff of approximately 1,400. The staff includes uni-formed
correctional officers, support staff, and medical personnel. Currently,
there is a 12 percent ( 12%) vacancy in uniformed positions, resulting in over-time.
The facility operates on an annual budget of $ 150 million. Inmate cost per
year is estimated to be $ 26,000.
CSP- Solano’s mission is to incarcerate, control, and care for male felons while
providing an opportunity for meaningful work, training, and education. The PIA
is used to fulfill a part of the mission for the inmates. The PIA employs inmates
and trains them to enhance their ability to obtain employment when they are
released from prison.
Two of the programs offered under PIA at CSP- Solano are metal fabrication and
optical manufacturing. The Metal Fabrication Unit is contained in a large updat-ed
fully functioning facility. It manufactures special vehicle equipment for
Caltrans, prison metal furniture, and lockers for use throughout the California
prison system. The program currently employs over 150 inmates. The recidi-vism
rate for inmates trained in this unit is minimal; only one inmate has been
re- incarcerated after receiving training.
The Optical Laboratory manufactures prescription and safety eyewear for prison
inmates, Youth Authority wards, Medicare, and Medi- Cal patients, state hospitals
and eligible state and local government employees. The laboratory employs
approximately 100 inmates.
There is a long waiting list of inmates to fill these jobs. CSP- Solano is planning
to expand the PIA and add an additional 150 inmates to the program.
CSP- Solano was licensed in June 2006 by the California Department of Health
Services as a Corrections Treatment Center. The Center is able to house six
chronically ill and nine mentally ill inmates for a maximum of 10 days. Those
requiring longer treatment are sent to area hospitals or other facilities.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has outreach pro-grams
with local communities. CSP- Solano is involved in the development of
these programs. Two examples are:
The Prison Outreach Program, which cooperates
with local schools and police departments to
inform and show youths the consequences of
unlawful behavior.
The Victims Offender Reconciliation Program,
which brings victims of violent crimes to prisons.
The victims address inmates convicted of violent
crimes and convey the facts that victims are real
people and have suffered from the inmates’
actions.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 - California State Prison- Solano is an overcrowded facility.
Recommendation 1- California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
should continue its efforts to reduce overcrowding.
Finding 2 - Prison Industry Authority program at California State Prison- Solano
has an apparent benefit to the inmates while incarcerated and after their release.
Recommendation 2 - California State Prison- Solano should continue to develop
and expand the Prison Industry Authority program.
Finding 3 - California State Prison- Solano is developing outreach programs with
local communities.
Recommendation 3 - California State Prison- Solano should continue to develop
and expand the outreach programs to all communities in the county.
Comments
The staff at California State Prison- Solano is working diligently to
develop programs and is dedicated to its mission. The Grand Jury commends the
warden and staff for their leadership and management in the operation of
California State Prison- Solano.
Affected Agencies
California State Prison- Solano
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Note: Pursuant to Penal Code § 919( b), the Grand Jury shall conduct investiga-tions
pertaining to the condition and management of public prisons within the
county. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is not
required to respond due to the county jurisdictional limitations of the Grand Jury.
At the time of this compilation of reports and responses, a response from CDCR
had not been received. Any responses received subsequent will be posted on the
Grand Jury website: http:// www. solanocourts. com/ grandjury.
Page 12 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report
Criminal Justice
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 13
Criminal Justice
BENICIA POLICE DEPARTMENT AND HOLDING
FACILITY
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Investigation
California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statue, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Benicia
Police Department and Holding Facility.
Grand Jury Actions
• Toured the Police Department and holding facility with duty officer
• Discussed the department holding process
• Inspected the holding cells
Background / Summary
The Benicia Police Department ( Department) is located in a building that was a
school in the 1940’ s and was converted to house the police department in the
1960’ s. Benicia budgeted $ 1.5 million to retrofit the building and bring it to
seismic code. On the day of our visit, the first phase of the retrofit was nearly
completed.
Department Dispatch is tied into the Solano County Sheriff’s dispatch and Office
of Emergency Services. ASally Port has been added to provide security and pub-lic
safety. Personnel must call dispatch to open and close the gates. Flashing
beacons were being installed to alert personnel when the gates are in use. The
two holding cell doors will be replaced in the next retrofit phase.
For improved security, a unisex restroom was installed in the holding cell area.
Dispatch has audio and visual observation of the holding cells and the patrol ser-geant
can monitor the holding area from a window in his office. There is no ded-icated
juvenile holding cell. Juveniles who cooperate are held in an interview
room. A desk phone is available and an officer must be present while it is in use.
Individuals stay a maximum of two hours before being transported to Fairfield.
Arrestees are not held overnight.
The Department has 37 sworn officers, 50 non- sworn personnel and approxi-mately
35 volunteers. Two of the patrol cars are designated for volunteer use. All
personnel have received training in the use of CPR and defibrillator. A Resource
Officer is posted at the middle and high schools, and the Department has an
active D. A. R. E. program for all 5th graders. At the middle school, the Resource
Officer has a Champion Program for 7th graders. This program focuses on five
lessons:
Law Updates Parts 1 and 2 ( itemizes activities that will break the law)
Alcohol, Tobacco, Drugs and other substances
Bullying
Tolerance and Appreciation
Internet Safety/ Child Abuse
Volunteers perform in all divisions of the Department, to include patrol, data
entry of investigations and filing records. Youths between 15 and 20 are encour-aged
to participate in the Police Cadet Program. Adults, age 20 and older, inter-ested
in becoming a Police Reserve, must complete college level training cours-es.
Other administrative duties performed by volunteers are: house checks for
vacationing residents, traffic control, handicap parking enforcement, crime scene
preservation, fingerprinting, parades, fairs and transportation of reports and evi-dence.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 - There is no dedicated juvenile holding cell.
Recommendation 1 - The Benicia Police Department should convert an office
or room to separate juveniles from adults.
Finding 2 - At the time of our visit the facility appeared cluttered with boxes sit-ting
in the hallways and walkways.
Recommendation 2 - Organize all areas to eliminate clutter.
Comments
We commend the Benicia Police Department in its efforts to rally the citizens to
volunteer which allows law enforcement to spend more time patrolling. It also
provides a Family Resource Therapist who visits at risk juveniles and their par-ents
to develop methods to deter the juvenile from committing crimes.
Affected Agencies
Benicia Police Department
Benicia City Manager
Benicia City Council
Courtesy Copy
Solano County Supervisor John Silva
CITY OF BENICIA RESPONSE
Response 1: I agree with the Grand Jury report that the Benicia Police
Department does not have a dedicated juvenile holding cell. The police depart-ment
has what the California Department of Corrections describes as a “ lock-up”.
The holding cells were built prior to 1978 and are not a detention facility or
jail. Our prisoner holding area, along with our two holding cells, have been
inspected and approved by the State of California Board of Corrections, Solano
County Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission and the
Solano County Health and Social Services Department. None of the agencies
recommended we create a dedicated juvenile holding cell.
We are unable to implement this recommendation due to the lack of space in our
facility and budget constraints. At this time, a cell specifically set apart for juve-nile
prisoners is not feasible. However, juveniles are not placed in a holding cell
unless they are at least 14 years of age and, in the opinion of the arresting offi-cer,
they are a serious security risk of harm to self or others. More importantly,
juveniles in custody are not allowed to have contact with adult prisoners.
Again, California Board of Corrections, Solano County Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention and Solano County Health and Social Services have
inspected and approved the use of Benicia’s existing holding cells for juveniles.
Although we do have areas where juvenile prisoners are kept while in non- secure
detention, we will not be able to provide a separate secure cell solely for juve-niles.
Response 2: I also agree with the Grand Jury report that, at the time of their visit,
the facility was cluttered with boxes in the hallways and walkways. We had been
in the process of remodeling the holding cell area, communications center, and
several office spaces within the facility. Furniture and files were moved out of
the department so that construction work could be completed. As a 24- hour a day
operation, we still had to have access to certain files, which we had stored in the
hallways.
This recommendation has been implemented. Construction work has been com-pleted
and stored file boxes have been removed from the hallways.
DIXON POLICE DEPARTMENT HOLDING FACILITY
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Inspection
California Penal Code § 919, subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Dixon
Police Department Holding Facility ( Facility) located at 201 West A Street,
Dixon, California.
Grand Jury Actions
• Met with the Dixon Police Department duty officer
• Toured and inspected the Facility
• Reviewed the California Standards Authority Facility Evaluation Report
Background / Summary
The Facility is used exclusively for the temporary holding and securing of
arrestees before they are taken to the Solano County Jail in Fairfield for booking.
The Facility is staffed, operated and under the command of the Dixon Police
Department. It was fully staffed and was neat, clean and odor free.
There are three holding cells, with a total capacity of six arrestees, of which none
are detained overnight. Uncooperative arrestees are transported directly to the
Solano County Jail for booking. On the day of our walk- through, there were no
arrestees present.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 – Uncooperative arrestees are not detained at the Facility, but are
transported directly to Solano County Jail.
Recommendation 1 - None
Finding 2 – Some of the Facility emergency evacuation plans were not posted at
the time of our inspection.
Recommendation 2 – Post necessary emergency evacuation plans.
Comments
The staff was very cooperative. The Department works with the community and
the schools to educate people on the role of the police department.
Affected Agencies
Dixon Police Department
Dixon City Council
Dixon City Manager
Courtesy Copy
Solano County Supervisor Mike Reagan
CITY OF DIXON RESPONSE
Response to Finding 1: The City agrees with Finding 1.
Response to Finding 2: The City agrees with Finding 2.
Response to Recommendation 2: The City agrees with the recommendation.
The City has since implemented the recommendation and has mounted the facil-ity
emergency evacuation plan on the wall adjacent to the exit door.
FAIRFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT HOLDING
FACILITY
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Investigation
California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Fairfield
Police Department and holding facility.
Grand Jury Actions
• Toured the Department and holding facility with duty officer
• Discussed the Department holding process
• Inspected the holding cells
Background / Summary
The Fairfield Police Department has four holding cells. At the time of our visit,
some cells were in the process of being repaired. This area is constantly moni-tored
by camera. Juveniles are controlled by an officer when the cells are full.
On the day of our inspection, the holding cells were vacant. The Department
does not house individuals overnight. Ten to twenty arrests are made each week.
Emergency evacuation procedures were not posted in the holding cell area, but
are visible near each entrance. A defibrillator is on the premises and in all vehi-cles.
The Department has 130 sworn officers of which eight are female. At the time
of our visit, the department had 15 sworn officer vacancies. There are 100 to 150
non- sworn personnel, and approximately 30 volunteers from the community. An
officer is posted at each high school and there is a roving officer for the middle
schools. An officer is available upon request to visit schools to point out the dan-gers
of gang and drug involvement. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education
Program ( D. A. R. E.) was discontinued due to budget constraints, personnel short-ages
and growth in the population.
The Special Operations Division is responsible for different units. The Crime
Prevention Unit has specialists who provide valuable information and empowers
the community to combat crime. The Crime Free Multi- housing Unit keeps ille-gal
activity out of apartment communities. The Kids’ Safety House is a portable
house equipped with appliances, phone, etc., to teach basic fire and home safety.
Another unit is the Police Student Internship Program, which is a formal arrange-ment
between the Department and Solano Community College. This program
provides vocational opportunities for students who are working toward a
Criminal Justice Degree.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 - The holding cells appear to meet the needs of the Fairfield Police
Department
Recommendation 1 - None
Finding 2 - There is a vacancy of 15 sworn officers.
Recommendation 2 - The Department should actively continue recruiting
efforts to eliminate the shortage.
Finding 3 - The D. A. R. E. program has been suspended.
Recommendation 3 - The Department should research successful programs
comparable toD. A. R. E and consider adopting for use in Fairfield schools.
Comments
We commend the Fairfield Police Department in its efforts to curtail crime by use
of community involvement programs, such as the Citizen Observe and Report
Patrol program and the Quality Neighborhood Teams program. The Department
is also working with the local newspaper to report on crime prevention through
“ Tip of the Week” and “ Ask a Fairfield Police Officer.”
Other community programs include Neighborhood Watch, Operation 10
Fingerprinting, and a Citizens Academy held twice yearly for nine weeks to edu-cate
the public on the functions of the Fairfield Police Department.
Emergency 911 calls from all cell phones go directly to the California Highway
Patrol. Fairfield Police Department recently established an emergency telephone
number, ( 707) 428- 7373, for cell phone users in Fairfield that go directly to the
Department Dispatch Center for faster response.
Affected Agencies
Fairfield Police Department
Fairfield City Manager
Fairfield City Council
Courtesy Copy
Solano County Supervisor Jim Spering
CITY OF FAIRFIELD RESPONSE
Response 1: The City of Fairfield appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments and
agrees that our holding cells meet the needs of the Fairfield Police Department.
Response 2: Since the Grand Jury visited the Fairfield Police Department, staff
has hired three additional Police Officers so that the Department’s current short-age
is twelve. The Department presently has six Police Officer Trainees in the
Napa Valley Police Academy; one is scheduled to graduate in July and five in
December. If these trainees are successful, they will reduce our shortage to six.
Presently, the Department is recruiting for these six vacant Police Officer posi-tions.
The Fairfield Police Department actively recruits candidates for Police Officers.
The Department advertises in state- wide professional journals, print media in
Solano, Contra Costa and Sacramento counties, local radio stations and our local
TV Channel 26.
In February, the Department conducted an “ open test” for entry level Police
Officer. Over 150 people applied for Police Officer and took a written and phys-ical
test. Sixty- nine candidates passed the test; the Police Department inter-viewed
all successful candidates. Twenty- nine candidates successfully complet-ed
the interviews. Twenty- one of those candidates were screened out of the hir-ing
process during background investigations. Ultimately, five candidates suc-cessfully
completed the entire process and began the Police Academy on July 7.
The Fairfield Police Department conducted another “ open test” for entry level
Police Officer on June 22. 143 people applied for Police Officer and took a writ-ten
and physical test. Forty- five passed the tests and will be invited for oral
interviews. We have reserved five spaces for successful candidates reserved in
the January class of the Napa Valley Police Academy.
The Department actively recruits qualified candidates for these vacant positions.
It is difficult to find qualified applicants. The Department is confident that they
will have all current vacancies filled by the Spring of 2008.
Response 3: The Fairfield Police Department and Fairfield- Suisun Unified
School District discontinued D. A. R. E. due to mixed reviews about the success of
D. A. R. E and for fiscal reasons. Presently, there are no discussions between the
two organizations about a possible replacement program. The School District is
more interested in funding additional Police Officers to be at the alternative High
Schools and Middle Schools, and the Police Department does not have the per-sonnel
resources to teach such a program. The Fairfield Police Department is
receptive to discussion about potential replacement programs, if we have the per-sonnel
and financial resources.
The City of Fairfield appreciates the opportunity to have the Grand Jury inspect
our holding area and facilities and comment on the recruiting and drug preven-
Page 14 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report
Criminal Justice
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 15
Criminal Justice
tion efforts of the Fairfield Police Department. We appreciate the work of the
Grand Jury and look forward to continuing to work with this group of dedicated
individuals.
RIO VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Investigation
California Penal Code § 919 Subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Rio Vista
Police Department.
Grand Jury Actions
• Toured the Rio Vista Police Department
• Inspected pre- booking area
Background / Summary
The Rio Vista Police Department ( Department) has no holding cells. Individuals
are transported to the Solano County Jail in Fairfield. Transport to the county jail
averages one per day.
On the day of our inspection, the Department had 18 employees of which 15
were sworn officers. The officers work either a three 12- hour shift or a four 12-
hour shift each week. The overtime rate is 15 to 20 percent. These officers also
provide bike patrol for city events. Five volunteers and a Solano County Deputy
Sheriff also support the Department. The police department began a volunteer
open recruitment program in September 2006. The hiring of additional officers
is expected by January 2007.
The police department uses the Community Oriented Policing and Problem
Solving ( COPPS) program to aid in their efforts to address crime.
Facility emergency evacuation procedures were not posted at the time of our
inspection.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 – The Rio Vista Police Department Volunteer Program plays an inte-gral
part in the City’s effort to make Rio Vista a better place to live.
Recommendation 1 – Continue to use the Volunteer Program to allow police
officers time to conduct law enforcement duties.
Finding 2 – Overtime appears high.
Recommendation 2 – The Rio Vista Police Department should take necessary
steps to reduce overtime.
Comments
The emergency evacuation procedures have been posted. We commend the Rio
Vista Police Department for their efforts in the use of community and Volunteer
Programs. The Grand Jury continues to suggest that the City provide a mini-mum
of one holding cell at the police department. The continued growth within
the community and changing demographics reinforce our suggestion.
Affected Agencies
Rio Vista Police Department
Rio Vista City Manager
Rio Vista City Council
Courtesy Copy
Solano County Supervisor Mike Reagan
CITY OF RIO VISTA RESPONSE
Response 1: Respondent agrees with the finding. Rio Vista Police Department
continually recruits volunteer assistance.
Response 2: Respondent agrees with the finding. Rio Vista Police Department
continues to recruit and hire personnel to improve staffing levels which in turn
will impact overtime.
SUISUN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT HOLDING
FACILITY
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Inspection
California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Suisun City
Police Department Holding Facility.
Grand Jury Actions
• Toured the department and holding facility with duty officer
• Discussed the department holding process
• Inspected the holding cell
• Reviewed Corrections Standards Authority Inspection Report
Background / Summary
The Suisun City Police Department ( Department) has one holding cell, a Sally
Port and gun lockers. The holding cell can accommodate a maximum of three
individuals. On the day of our inspection, no individuals were being held.
However, 90 percent of the individuals arrested are booked at the main jail in
Fairfield. The Department does not house individuals overnight. Juveniles are
rarely brought to this facility. The last log- in of a juvenile was in 2005. The
facility appeared clean during our inspection.
The Department has 37- 38 employees; 24 are sworn police officers and six of
those officers were on duty during our inspection. The officers work 12- hour
shifts. We were informed that the Department overtime rate is approximately 15
to 20 percent.
The Federal Office of Juvenile Justice, Penal Code, Welfare and Institutions
Code, Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations Title 15 and Title
24 and the Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities require the inspec-tion
of detention facilities. The biennial inspections by the Corrections Standards
Authority, the Environmental Health and Medical/ Mental Health inspections
were conducted in 2006 with no deficiencies cited. Our inspection determined
however, that the Suisun City Fire Department’s required annual inspection was
last conducted in April 2005.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 – Overtime appears high.
Recommendation 1 – Take the necessary steps to reduce overtime.
Finding 2 – The fire inspections at the Suisun City Police Department had not
been conducted in 2006 as of the time of our visit.
Recommendation 2 – Ensure that fire inspections are conducted in a timely
manner.
Comments
We commend the Suisun City Police Department community involvement efforts
through their Diversion Program using non- sworn officers, Volunteer Program,
National Night Out Program and their annual Citizens and Teen Academy.
Affected Agencies
Suisun City Police Department
Suisun City Fire Department
City Manager - Suisun City
City Council - Suisun City
Courtesy Copy
Solano County Supervisor Jim Spering
SUISUN CITY RESPONSE
Response 1 - is that “ Overtime appears high.” The narrative indicates that the
Grand Jury was informed that “ the Department overtime rate is approximately 15
to 20 percent.” The report does not indicate from whom this information was
received, how this relates to the inspection of the City’s holding facility, whether
the City’s rate is significantly higher than other jurisdictions, what the “ necessary
steps” are that the City should take to reduce Overtime, or even what the “ over-time
rate” statistic actually means. This claim has little or nothing to do with “ the
condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” Further, the
Grand Jury chose to make a finding and offer a recommendation without actual-ly
conducting an investigation of this claim. No attempt was made to interview
the City Manager, Police Chief, Finance Director, or any other City employee
knowledgeable about the use of Overtime in the Police Department. In addition,
no records were requested that could have established whether Overtime usage
is in fact “ high.”
While this behavior on the Grand Jury’s part is very troubling to the City, we are
hereby attempting to comply with the Grand Jury’s request to provide responses
to the findings and recommendations made concerning the City of Suisun City
Police Department’s holding facility.
City/ Department Action Response 1– In attempting to respond to this finding
and recommendation, the City must assume that the 15 to 20 percent figure
relates to Overtime expressed as a percent of regularly scheduled time. Based on
that assumption, the following are the actual Overtime amounts for the past four
fiscal years:
FY 04 = 9.4% FY 05 = 9.3% FY 06 = 12.6% FY 07 = 12.8% ( est.)
It should be noted that at no time has Overtime actually fallen within the 15 to
20 percent range identified by the Grand Jury as being a concern. The first two
years, the Police Department contracted with the County Sheriff’s Office to pro-vide
policing for six hours per day. This artificially lowered Overtime usage,
particularly for Minimum Staffing requirements explained below. Late in FY
2005- 06, the City returned to policing 24 hours per day.
The recommendation is that the department should take necessary steps to reduce
Overtime. In order to reduce Overtime, it is important to understand why
Overtime occurs. There are several reasons why the payment of Overtime
occurs. These include the following:
Shift Extension – This form of Overtime primarily occurs when an officer is
involved in a response to a call for service that cannot easily be handed off to a
member of the oncoming watch. Officers must receive permission from their
Watch Commander to work such Overtime.
Special Assignment – This form of Overtime occurs when officers are assigned
to Gang/ Crime Suppression Details, Traffic Enforcement Details, or on other
special assignments usually paid by grant funding, for which individual officers
voluntarily sign- up. Since this is primarily scheduled Overtime, supervisors
work with officers to incorporate these hours into the work program.
Minimum Staffing – This form of Overtime occurs when officers normally
assigned to a shift are not available due to illness, workers compensation, testi-fying
in court, vacation leave, vacant positions, etc. In some circumstances this
form of Overtime may be the result of requiring individuals to work involuntar-ily
( known as “ forced” Overtime). Supervisors are involved in the process of
determining who works this form of Overtime.
When analyzing where the department may be able to exercise control over
Overtime usage, the following should be noted:
Shift Extension Overtime is a judgment call on the Watch Commander’s part.
Whenever an incomplete assignment can be handed off without jeopardizing a
case, Watch Commander’s are encouraged to do so.
Special Assignment Overtime is the easiest to reduce, because it is usually
scheduled Overtime. In most cases however that is contrary to the intent of
Special Assignment Overtime. These are primarily grant- funded activities,
which are usually performed on a voluntary basis, that will be discontinued when
the grant funding expires.
Minimum Staffing Overtime is the hardest to control, because it is usually the
result of activities that are not under the department’s control. The City has
recently added staff to institute a proactive risk management program, designed
in part to avoid injury and illness. The City has also instituted open recruitments
for certain job classes such as Police Officers to ensure that vacancies are kept to
a minimum.
The Grand Jury’s Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 do not address the reason for
the Grand Jury’s concern. In theory these could be:
Ensuring that the staff is not overworked.
Reducing General Fund costs.
The department complies with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Officers Association to ensure
that officers receive the appropriate payment for Overtime and that employees
receive the appropriate time off between shifts.
Overtime actually costs less than Straight Time, so adding staff would not be the
answer to reducing costs generally, unless there is a problem with staff members
are being overworked. This is because Straight Time includes costs for retire-ment
and health benefits that Overtime costs do not include. Most of the Special
Assignment Overtime is grant funded, so it has a minimal fiscal impact on the
General Fund. Handing off incomplete assignments could actually take longer
due to the person taking over having to “ get up to speed”. This would detract
from the oncoming shift’s ability to address its work program.
City/ Department Response 2 – The Suisun City Fire Department completed the
fire inspection on March 27, 2007. There were no reportable deficiencies at that
time. The Fire/ Life Safety Inspection Report is available on the Grand Jury web-site
as a link to this report.
The inspection results were filed with the Office of the State Fire Marshal and
the Board of Corrections as required by law. Additionally, a copy was retained
by the Official in Charge of the facility.
VACAVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT HOLDING FACILITY
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Inspection
California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Vacaville
Police Department and Holding Facility.
Grand Jury Actions
• Toured the police department and holding facility with duty officer
• Discussed the department holding process
• Inspected the holding cells
Background / Summary
The Vacaville Police Department ( Department) has a new state- of- the- art facili-ty,
with ample space for future growth. The facility has a classroom for training
with individual computers built into the desks. There is a large staff exercise
room. The facility was clean and neat.
There are eight holding cells for adults, one for juveniles, a Sally Port and gun
lockers. Each adult holding cell can accommodate a maximum of four individ-uals.
On the day of our inspection, no individuals were being held. One individ-ual
was brought into the Sally Port during our inspection. The Department does
not house individuals overnight. Inspections by the Corrections Standards
Authority, the Environmental Health Department and Medical/ Mental Health
inspections were all conducted in 2006.
The Department has approximately 230 employees, of which 104 are sworn
police officers. There are 70 volunteers. The Department has numerous crime
prevention programs.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 - The Vacaville Police Department has many successful community
involvement programs.
Recommendation 1 - Keep up the good work.
Comments
We commend the Vacaville Police Department’s community involvement efforts
with their officers and volunteers. It has an interactive program which simulates
driving under the influence. This is used at schools and in the community.
Volunteers write parking tickets, visit and assist senior citizens, place speed mon-itors
near schools and work with police officers, youth services and the crime
prevention staffs. The community and police should continue to collaborate in
their efforts to reduce crime in Vacaville.
.
Affected Agencies
Vacaville Police Department
City Manager, Vacaville
City Council, Vacaville
Courtesy Copy
Solano County Supervisor John Vasquez
VACAVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE
We thank the Grand Jury for their comments and appreciate their service to the
residents of Solano County.
The Police Department will continue to collaborate with individuals and other
agencies and organizations in order to maximize our crime reduction efforts. We
understand that as we continually strive to do more with limited resources, we
have to enlist the support of others, such as non- profit agencies, youth- serving
organizations, seniors, volunteers and other local, state and federal law enforce-ment
agencies if we are to be successful in our efforts to prevent crime and to
quickly capture known, wanted suspects.
Page 16 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report
Criminal Justice
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 17
Criminal Justice
VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT AND HOLDING
FACILITY
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Inspection
California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Vallejo
Police Department and Holding Facility.
Grand Jury Actions
• Toured the Police Department and holding facility with duty officers
• Discussed the department holding process
• Inspected the holding cells
Background / Summary
The Vallejo Police Department ( Department) processes and Live Scan finger-prints
arrestees at this facility. It is equipped to conduct breathalyzer tests. The
arrestees are transported to the County Jail or Juvenile Hall in Fairfield as appli-cable.
Arrestees are not held overnight at this facility. Individuals cannot be
released on bail from this facility. However, if an arrestee has an outstanding
warrant under $ 5,000, they can be cited and released with a promise to appear.
The Department has four holding cells for adults. Each adult cell can hold a
maximum of two prisoners. There are three cells for juveniles 14 and older.
Each juvenile cell holds a maximum of one juvenile. Juveniles under age 14 are
held in non- secured areas with an officer present. Half of all juveniles taken into
custody are released to their parents. A Sally Port is used for arrestee transfer.
The holding cells contain security cameras and can be monitored in the lieu-tenant’s
office and in the Dispatch area. The cells contain toilets for use by the
arrestees, although privacy is not available. Cautionary metal signs are posted
on holding cell doors to identify combative and problem prisoners. Female and
major crime arrestees are physically monitored by Department officers. Panic
buttons are visible throughout the holding cell area.
At the time of our inspection, the holding cells were empty. The holding cell
floors and surrounding holding area needed cleaning, painting, and repair of a
hole in one wall.
Emergency evacuation signs were not visibly posted in the Department.
The Department staff count is 200 sworn and non- sworn employees. On the day
of our visit, 24 sworn officers were on duty. The officers work twelve- and- one-half
hour shifts.
We were informed by the duty officer that the Department has been understaffed
for the past three years due to budget problems. The understaffing percentage
stated at the time of our visit was 10 to 12 percent.
The duty officer stated that morale is good in the Department. Officers undergo
ongoing sensitivity and harassment awareness training.
At the time of the Grand Jury visit, the Department’s last fire and Correction
Standards Authority inspections were conducted in 2006. An Environmental
Health inspection was conducted in December 2005.
A police officer is assigned to each middle school and high school in Vallejo.
The Department conducts D. A. R. E. type programs at the elementary schools.
The duty officer stated that there is a noticeable increase of serious juvenile crime
in the city within the past two years.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 - The Vallejo Police Department holding area needs repair and consis-tent
maintenance.
Recommendation 1 – Repairs should be made where needed to keep holding
cells and surrounding areas clean and maintained.
Finding 2 – Emergency evacuation signs were not visibly posted within the
Vallejo Police Department.
Recommendation 2 – Signs should be posted immediately.
Finding 3 – Juvenile crime has increased in Vallejo.
Recommendation 3 – Evaluate to improve the Preventive Crime Program at ele-mentary
schools and implement additional programs for middle schools.
Comments
We commend the Vallejo Police Department for maintaining good
morale during a long understaffing period and an increase in juvenile crime. The
community and police should continue to collaborate in their efforts to minimize
crime in Vallejo.
Affected Agencies
Vallejo Police Department
Vallejo City Manager
Vallejo City Council
Courtesy Copy
Solano County Supervisor Barbara Kondylis
Solano County Supervisor John Silva
VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE
The Vallejo Police Department’s Management Staff has reviewed the Grand
Jury’s recommendations and provided the following:
Response 1: Agree. The recommendation has been implemented as best we can.
The holding cells are cleaned daily and repainted approximately every two years.
Limited funding is available for repairs throughout the Police Station and prob-lems
are corrected in order of priority.
Response 2: Disagree. The recommendation will not be implemented because
additional signage is not warranted. Following the Grand Jury’s visit, the Police
Department was inspected by the City’s Fire Protection Division and found to be
in compliance with all fire and emergency evacuation requirements and regula-tions.
Response 3: Agree. This recommendation will unfortunately not be implement-ed
due to a lack of funding. The Vallejo Police Department suffered a $ 3 million
budget reduction this Fiscal Year and the elimination of 16 sworn and non- sworn
staff members. As a result, there is no opportunity to engage in additional crime
prevention activities.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION
DELTA FIRE CAMP
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Inspection
California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall
inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.”
Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Delta Fire
Camp.
Grand Jury Actions
• Inspected and toured the fire camp
• Interviewed management and staff
Background / Summary
The Delta Fire Camp ( Camp) was established in 1998 and is located on 23 acres
in rural Solano County at 6242 Lambie Road. The Camp is a collaborative effort
between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( CDCR)
and the California Department of Forestry ( CDF). The Camp is one of 41 in the
state. It is an adult male only facility. The inmates are classified as a minimum
security risk. The capacity is 120. CDCR will allow 10 percent overpopulation at
any given time.
The main cross- street to the Camp is Highway 12. There is no left turn lane from
or onto Highway 12 from Lambie Road. This is a major safety concern for CDF
fire trucks and Highway 12 traffic.
To be considered for the Camp Program, an inmate must satisfy better than aver-age
mental and physical requirements. Because of the relative freedom and bet-ter
pay, the Program is highly desired.
The average inmate stay is eight to twelve months. Eighty- five percent of the
inmates work on fire duties, disaster relief, brush removal and creek clearing.
The other 15 percent perform other duties such as: clerical support, cooking,
laundry and sign making. Inmates are paid $ 1.45 per day. When performing fire
fighting duties, they are paid $ 1 per hour. Inmates receive two days off of their
sentence for each day served in this Program. Upon completion of training,
inmates are either fully certified in firefighting or have received training in other
vocational skills.
There are 28 staff members at the camp. This includes 17 from CDF and 11 from
CDCR. There is one battalion chief who leads the fire staff and one captain who
leads the correctional staff. A fire crew consists of 17 inmates, one CDF Fire
Captain and one CDCR correctional officer. There are six crews. Crews are
housed with their own members in barracks.
The Camp provides an on- site, multi- day conjugal and family visitation program
which includes a cottage furnished with donated items from concerned individu-als
and groups. CDCR provides no funding to maintain this program. In addi-tion,
there are substance abuse programs, a craft shop and an exercise room.
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 - Turning onto and off Highway 12 from Lambie Road can be danger-ous.
Recommendation 1 - The Solano County Transportation Authority and the
California Department of Transportation should make safety at this location a
high priority when planning the future of Highway 12.
Comments
The Delta Fire Camp appears to be well managed by both the California
Department of Forestry and the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. The Camp provides a positive alternative placement program for
incarcerated inmates. The Camp Program develops camaraderie and teamwork
among the inmates that helps them adjust for life outside the camp. The inmates
also develop self- esteem by learning a skill and helping the community.
Affected Agency
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
California Department of Forestry
Solano Transportation Authority
Courtesy Copy
California State Assemblywoman Lois Wolk
Solano County Supervisor, Michael Reagan
California Department of Transportation
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION RESPONSE
CAL FIRE appreciates that the focus of the report addressed the traffic issues
impacting day to day camp operations and safety. As noted in the report, the pri-mary
access from camp onto the state highway system is via State Highway 12
at Lambie Road. This highway is an older two lane road which carries a heavy
daily load of high speed traffic. Entering onto this highway from Lambie Road
presents several safety issues which are of concern.
When turning east on Highway 12, the crew busses must immediately climb an
uphill grade. While these crew busses are officially called Emergency Crew
Transports, they are in fact 17 passenger busses. After crossing the downhill
westbound lane, they have relatively little shoulder space to merge into the uphill
eastbound lane and reach highway speeds. Similarly, approaching Lambie Road
on eastbound Highway 12, there is limited visibility prior to crossing the west-bound
lane and entering Lambie Road.
CAL FIRE fully supports the recommendation of the Solano County Grand Jury
to encourage responsible agencies to make safety a high priority when planning
the future of this portion of State Highway 12.
Note: Pursuant to Penal Code § 919( b), the Grand Jury shall conduct investiga-tions
pertaining to the condition and management of public prisons within the
county. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is not
required to respond due to the county jurisdictional limitations of the Grand Jury.
At the time of this compilation of reports and responses, a response from the
Solano Transportation Authority had not been received. Any responses received
subsequent will be posted on the Grand Jury website.
FOUTS SPRINGS YOUTH FACILITIES
2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury
Reason for Investigation
California Penal Code § 919 Subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall inquire
into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.”
California Penal Code § 925a authorizes a grand jury to examine the books and
records of any joint powers agency located in the county. Further a grand jury may
investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of the officers,
departments, functions and the method or system of performing the duties of the
joint powers agency and to make any recommendations it may deem proper and fit.
Pursuant to the statutes, the Grand Jury inspected Fouts Springs Youth Facility
located in Colusa County.
Grand Jury Actions
• Met with Fouts Springs Directors and the camp’s staff
• Toured and inspected classes
• Attended board meeting
• Interacted with wards
• Reviewed budget report and general statistics
• Met briefly with Facility Manager and assistant
• Conducted a conference call/ exit interview
Background/ Summary
Fouts Sprin
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | Grand Jury reports and responses |
| Subject | California. Grand Jury (Solano County)--Periodicals.; Solano County (Calif.)--Politics and government--Periodicals. |
| Description | Description based on: 2005/2006; title from opening screen of HTML index page.; Harvested from the web on 11/9/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (Solano County) |
| Publisher | Solano County Grand Jury] |
| Type | Text |
| Identifier | http://digitalarchive.oclc.org/request?id%3Doclcnum%3A144643340; http://www.solanocourts.com/grandjury/GrandJuryReports.asp |
| Language | eng |
| Title-Alternative | Solano County Grand Jury final report; Responses to... Grand Jury report |
| Format-Extent | 1 web site : digital, HTML, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | Mode of access: Internet.; System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. |
| Transcript | 2006 - 2007 SOLANO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT AND AGENCY RESPONSES Honorable David Edwin Power Presiding Judge Superior Court of California County of Solano Page 2 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Grand Jury Final Report Honorable David Edwin Power Presiding Judge Solano County Superior Court 600 Union Ave Fairfield CA 94553 Dear Judge Power: On behalf of the 2006- 2007 Solano Grand Jury I present its final report. Each and every member of the jury contributed substantially to the reports’ totality. These citizen Grand Jurors volunteered tirelessly of their time on behalf of the community. Special note must be made of the juror contributions of Mr. Terry Riddle, Foreman Pro- Tem, Mrs. Peggy Sherrod, Grand Jury Scribe and Mr. John Gales, Computer Director. The continued support of Mrs. Jamielynne Harrison of Department Two of the Superior Court with her inherent skills provided many necessary administrative functions which enabled the jury to focus on its primary objectives of service to the Solano County community. The final report of the Grand Jury was accomplished successfully during changes in administrative process for the Grand Jury. Upgrading of the electronic process was accomplished. Special thanks is due to the county for providing the jury with requested hardware, software and projector which enabled the jury to write, edit and finalize reports. The attempt to transfer administrative support from the Superior Court to the county counsel’s office was not accom-plished. Future juries will await, with a positive outlook, a successful filling of this important position that meets the requirements of the jury, courts and county. The 2006- 2007 Grand Jury began July 2006 with 19 jurors. During the year the jury lost five members due to various reasons. Four jurors selected from the alternative list joined the jury and each brought with them additional assets which enhanced the jury. It has been a pleasure working with my fellow jurors for the citizens of Solano County. Sincerely, D. J. Tobias Foreman 2006- 2007 Grand Jury 2006- 2007 SOLANO COUNTY GRAND JURY First Row: Vern Griffith, James Stewart- 2006 Foreman, Presiding Judge David Edwin Power, Terry Riddle, Thomas Kreisman Second Row: Jamielynne Harrison, Administrative Assistant, Sherry Kelly, Ralph Petty, Julie Majewski, Ronald Bryant, Jacqueline Ramos, Peggy Sherrod, Joel Van Westerhuyzen Third Row: Thomas Johnson, John Gales, Donald Basso, Bernard Sanders, DeWayne Tobias- 2007 Foreman, Bettye Gonzales, Richard Schumacher, Karl Uebel. I CRIMINAL JUSTICE Grand Jury Report - Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Office – Office of Emergency Services – Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Center Sheriff’s Office, Office of Emergency Services and Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Center Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Grand Jury Report – Solano County Justice Center Detention Facility Inspection County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Grand Jury Report – Solano Justice Building Court Holding Facility – Vallejo County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Grand Jury Report - Claybank Detention Facility County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Grand Jury Report - Solano County Probation Department - Juvenile Detention & New Foundations Facilities County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Solano County Presiding Juvenile Court Judge’s Response . . .10 Grand Jury Report - California Medical Facility State of California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Grand Jury Report - California State Prison Solano Grand Jury Report - Benicia Police Department and Holding Facility City of Benicia Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Grand Jury Report - Dixon Police Department Holding Facility City of Dixon Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Grand Jury Report – Fairfield Police Department Holding Facility City of Fairfield Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Grand Jury Report – Rio Vista Police Department City of Rio Vista Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Grand Jury Report – Suisun City Police Department Holding Facility Suisun City Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Grand Jury Report – Vacaville Police Department Holding Facility Vacaville Police Department Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Grand Jury Report – Vallejo Police Department and Holding Facility Vallejo Police Department Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Grand Jury Report – California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Delta Fire Camp Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Response . . . . . . .18 Grand Jury Report – Fouts Springs Youth Facilities County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Fouts Springs Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors’ Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Solano County Presiding Juvenile Court Judge’s Response . . .20 Grand Jury Report - Permission to Carry a Concealed Weapon County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 City of Benicia Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 City of Dixon Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 City of Fairfield Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 City of Rio Vista Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 City of Suisun Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 City of Vacaville Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 City of Vallejo Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 II EDUCATION AND LIBRARY Grand Jury Report - Travis Unified School District Emergency Safety Plans Travis Unified School District Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Grand Jury Report - Solano County Office of Education Solano County Office of Education Response . . . . . . . . . . .25 III TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS Grand Jury Report - Solano County Veterans’ Buildings County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Grand Jury Report - City of Vallejo and Mare Island Historic Park Foundation Preservation of St. Peter’s Chapel and . . . Other Historic Properties City of Vallejo Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Mare Island Historic Park Foundation, Inc. Response . . . . .34 IV LAND PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Grand Jury Report - Solano County Food Establishment Inspection County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 V HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES Grand Jury Report - Solano County Health and Social Services Department - In Home Supportive Services County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 VI AD HOC Grand Jury Report - Solano County Animal Care Services County of Solano Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 City of Benicia Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 City of Dixon Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 City of Fairfield Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 “ For more information or to see complete copies of agency responses, please visit the Grand Jury website at http:// www. solanocounty. com/ GrandJury” 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 3 Table of Contents MEMBERS OF THE 2006- 2007 SOLANO COUNTY GRAND JURY Donald Basso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia Ronald Bryant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suisun City John Gales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfield Bettye Gonzales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfield Vern Griffith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfield Thomas Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suisun City Sherry Kelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia Thomas Kreisman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfield Julie Majewski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Winters Ralph Petty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vacaville Jacqueline Ramos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia Terry Riddle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vacaville Bernard Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dixon Richard Schumacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia Peggy Sherrod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairfield James Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vallejo DeWayne Tobias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia Karl Uebel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benicia Joel Van Westerhuyzen . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vacaville California Penal Code § 933.05 is summarized as follows: Findings § 933.05 ( a) For each finding in the Grand Jury Report, the responding party must give one of the following two responses: Responding party agrees with the finding. Responding party disagrees wholly or partially, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons for disagreement. Recommendations § 933.05 ( b) For each recommendation in the Grand Jury Report, the responding party must state that one of the following four actions has been taken: Recommendation has been implemented with a summary of imple-mented action Recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation Recommendation requires further analysis or entity requires detailed explanation of analysis or study with timeframe not to exceed six ( 6) months; analysis/ study submitted to officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated. Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted, is not reasonable, with an explanation included. Budgetary and Personnel Matters § 933.05 ( c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or per-sonnel matters of a county department head by an elected officer, both the department head and Board o f Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings and recommendations affecting his/ her department. Advance release of a report is prohibited before public release. Response Time and Responding Party Public Agency: governing by of any public agency must respond within 90 days. Elected Officer or Agency Head: elected officers or heads of agencies and department heads are required to respond in 60 days. City or County: The mayor shall also comment on the findings and recom-mendations. Page 4 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Note to all Affected Agencies Index of Affected Agencies Benicia Benicia City Manager Benicia City Council Benicia Police Department Dixon Dixon City Manager Dixon City Council Dixon Police Department Fairfield Fairfield City Manager Fairfield City Council Fairfield Police Department Rio Vista Rio Vista City Manager Rio Vista City Council Rio Vista Police Department Suisun City Suisun City - City Manager Suisun City - City Council Suisun City Police Department Suisun City Fire Department Vacaville Vacaville City Manager Vacaville City Council Vacaville Police Department Vallejo Vallejo City Manager Vallejo City Council Vallejo Police Department Vallejo Architectural Heritage and Landmarks Commission Education Solano County Office of Education Board Solano County Office of Education Transportation Service T. C. McDaniel Center Irene Larsen Center Golden Hills Education Center Travis Unified School District Travis Unified School District School Board Foxboro Elementary School Golden West Middle School Vanden High School TUSD- Director of Transportation Additional Agencies California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation California Department of Forestry California Medical Facility California State Prison Solano Colusa County Board of Supervisors Fouts Springs Board of Supervisors Fouts Springs Superintendent Placer County Board of Supervisors Solano County Administrative Officer Solano County Animal Care Services Solano County Board of Supervisors Solano County Department of General Services Solano County Department of Health & Social Services Solano County Department of Human Resources Solano County Department of Probation Solano County Department of Resource Management Solano County Juvenile Court Solano County Juvenile Detention Facility Solano County New Foundations Facility Solano County Office of Emergency Services Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Office 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 5 Criminal Justice SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF/ CORONER’S OFFICE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES SHERIFF’S OFFICE DISPATCH CENTER 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Report Reason for Investigation Under the authority of the California Penal Code § 925, to investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county, the Grand Jury elected to review the Solano County Office of Emergency Services and the Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Center. Grand Jury Actions • Visited Solano County Office of Emergency Services • Toured Office of Emergency Services’ Mobile Command Vehicle • Visited Solano County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Center • Interviewed Sheriff’s Office Employees Background / Summary Office of Emergency Services The Solano County Office of Emergency Services ( OES) is located at 530 Clay Street in Fairfield. The OES is used by county staff to coordinate emergency activity during natural disasters, terrorism, and rescue missions among all seven cities and the special districts in the county. Mutual aid for neighboring counties is also coordinated through OES. During emergency situations, OES uses the Solano County Sheriffs Office Dispatch Center ( Dispatch Center) to coordinate activities of the OES and other emergency agencies on various radio frequencies. OES is also responsible for planning and conducting emergency training exercises and tabletop emergency strategy sessions. The OES facility is well organized; however, it is located approximately 50 yards from a Fairfield watershed levee. This levee, on occasion, floods and causes damage and inconvenience within the OES facility. The OES has purchased a state- of- the- art Mobile Command Vehicle that has become an integral part in responding to emergencies within the County. A crit-ical feature of the vehicle is a radio communications system, thereby permitting all agencies within the County to share certain frequencies with the command vehicle. This unit is currently used during emergencies to coordinate communi-cations. A continuing challenge facing all emergency response agencies has been a lack of ability to communicate efficiently with all agencies during emergency situa-tions. In the past, each agency would design its own communications system, on its own set of frequencies. OES has received funding for a communications sys-tem within the County. The first of six broadcast towers, supporting the com-mand vehicle, is currently in place. The balance of the towers is to be installed by June 2007 permitting all agencies to share certain frequencies during emer-gency situations. In the event of a local emergency, OES has the capability to automatically call all residents in a designated area within a ten- minute period. The OES is also working with radio station KUIC ( 95.3 FM) to develop the ability to cut into any program at any time to announce any emergency to the public. Dispatch Center The Dispatch Center is part of the Solano County Sheriff’s Department and is housed within the Sheriff’s Office building in Fairfield. Dispatchers receive, evaluate, and summarize calls for service for the Sheriff’s Office, Isleton Police and Fire, Dixon Police and Fire, Cordelia Fire Protection District, Suisun Fire Protection District, Rio Vista Fire Districts, Montezuma Fire District, Solano Community College Police, and California Medical Facility on a 24- hour basis. In addition, dispatchers provide service to Suisun City Police and Fire on graveyard shift, coordinate air ambulance for scene calls to all areas of the County, and coordinate all mutual aid for county and out- of- county requests. They handle after hours problems for Solano Irrigation District, Animal Control, Coroner, County Roads, Public Works communications, Building and Grounds, SWAT, Chaplain, District Attorney, Probation, Parole, and Sheriff’s Reserve. Dispatchers assist law enforcement officers in the field by asking the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System for information on vehicles, peo-ple, and law enforcement information. Dispatchers transmit on three radio chan-nels, seven secondary channels, and several law/ fire radios for other agencies. They also access twelve business lines, four Nextel phones, six 911 lines, alarm panels, fax requests, and mobile data computer messages. The Dispatch Center is often the first point of contact for emergencies, providing the citizens of Solano County 24- hour service. The dispatchers must perform many tasks simultaneously while maintaining a high level of accuracy. Their job is demanding and highly stressful. Each dis-patcher must have a working knowledge of public safety procedures, terminolo-gy, and code systems. They must make critical decisions, using their independ-ent judgment. The dispatchers are classified and paid at the county clerical rate. The Dispatch Center often trains new employees, only to have them leave coun-ty employment for a similar job with a city public safety agency which pays higher wages while working with less stress. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 - The Solano County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Center and Office of Emergency Services are presently housed in an area where flooding occurs. Dispatchers must be able to perform their critical duties when any state of emer-gency exists. Recommendation 1 - The Solano County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Center and Office of Emergency Services should be housed in an area that is physically secure and safe. This becomes critical when a disaster occurs. Finding 2 - The dispatcher job and pay classifications are included with the cler-ical employee classification within the County pay system. Recommendation 2 - The County should conduct a job function audit and eval-uation of the dispatchers’ positions. Their salary should be competitive with agencies elsewhere in the Public Safety environment. Finding 3 - The County Dispatch Center is not able to communicate by radio with other public safety agencies in an emergency. Recommendation 3 - A continued effort should be made to complete the addi-tional five communication towers needed for the new communication interoper-ability system by June 2007 as scheduled. Finding 4 - At the time of our visit, the Solano County Office of Emergency Services had been working with the owners of radio station KUIC ( 95.3 FM) to develop the capability to cut into regular programming at any time to make immediate emergency announcements to the public. Recommendation 4 - Complete the ongoing negotiations with KUIC for this valuable public service. Comments The Office of Emergency Services also conducts emergency preparedness training for Community Emergency Response Teams ( CERT). This training provides citizens and organizations a better understanding of what they should do before, during, and after a disaster or major emergency. We believe this to be a valuable asset for the citizens of this County. The Grand Jury believes that the dispatch employees should be compen-sated at a higher level based on their job responsibilities and the stress level asso-ciated with their duties. The residents of Solano County deserve highly compe-tent employees working as dispatchers to deal with emergencies. To maintain a high level of competence, the County must compensate dispatchers at a level consistent with other public safety agencies in the area. Affected Agencies Solano County Sheriff’s Office Solano County Office of Emergency Services Solano County Department of Human Resources Solano County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF SOLANO RESPONSE Sheriff’s Response to Finding 1 – The Sheriff’s Office agrees with the finding. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding 1 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding. Sheriff’s Response to Recommendation 1 – The Sheriff’s Office recognizes the importance of housing the Office of Emergency Services in a location that pro-vides the maximum ability to response in all disaster situations. While a location not subject to flooding would be ideal, this recommendation will not be imple-mented because it is not warranted at this time. The Department is working with the County Administrator’s Office to explore options for an expanded Office of Emergency Services as part of the County’s overall capital project planning process. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Recommendation 1 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s recom-mendation. Sheriff’s Response to Finding 2 – The Sheriff’s Office disagrees with the find-ing as the dispatcher job and pay classification is not aligned with clerical employee classification. The Public Safety Dispatcher job classification is an independent classification, unrelated to clerical positions within the County. The only area of commonality shared by Public Safety Dispatchers and clerical employees is with organized labor representation. Both are currently represent-ed by SAGE/ SEIU but are in separate bargaining units. Human Resources’ Response to Finding 2 – Human Resources disagrees with this finding because the information is inaccurate. The job series of Public Safety Dispatcher is assigned to bargaining unit # 7 ( SEIU Local # 1021), which is the “ Regulatory, Technical & General Services Employees” unit, not the “ Clerical” unit, which is bargaining unit # 9 ( SEIU Local # 1021). Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding 2 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the departmental responses to the Grand Jury’s finding. Sheriff’s Response to Recommendation 2 – The recommendation has been implemented as the Solano County Department of Human Resources has con-tracted with Fox Lawson to conduct a comprehensive classification and compen-sation study of all county job classifications. The Public Safety Dispatcher clas-sification is currently under review. Human Resources’ Response to Recommendation 2 – Human Resources has implemented this recommendation with the initiation of a comprehensive classi-fication and compensation study of all County job classifications in February 2007. The Public Safety Dispatcher classification series is currently under review. Following completion of the classification study the County will con-duct a compensation study of the appropriate labor market to determine what modifications to salary are necessary, if any. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Recommendation 2 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the departmental responses to the Grand Jury’s recom-mendation. Sheriff’s Response to Finding 3 – The Sheriff’s Office partially disagrees with this finding. The Solano County Sheriff’s Dispatch Center is able to communi-cate by radio with the majority of the public safety agencies in Solano County. Currently the Sheriff’s Dispatch Center is unable to communicate by radio with two local agencies, the Vacaville Police Department and the Rio Vista Police Department. The Vacaville Police Department utilizes a system of radio frequen-cies that are incompatible with those radio frequencies utilized by other public safety agencies in Solano County. The Rio Vista Police Department contracts for services with another county, utilizing radio frequencies that are incompatible with Solano County radio frequencies. Once the first phase of the county- wide emergency radio interoperability project has been completed, a limited number of common radio frequencies will be available for emergency use county wide. Because the Rio Vista Police Department receives communication services from another county, it is likely their inability to effectively communicate by radio in Solano County will continue. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding 3 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding. Sheriff’s Response to Recommendation 3 – The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but the first phase will be implemented as soon as the upgrad-ed radio equipment is delivered and installed by the County’s vendor. The devel-opment of the infrastructure necessary to support a county- wide interoperable radio communications system is continuing and the communication towers men-tioned in the Grand Jury report are part of this planned infrastructure. Funding for the first phase of this project has been identified, contracts are in place and timelines for deliverables have been established. The contractor for this project is approximately 90 days behind in deliverables. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Recommendation 3 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s recom-mendation. Sheriff’s Response to Finding 4 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the find-ing. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding 4 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding. Sheriff’s Response to Recommendation 4 – This recommendation has been completed and the Solano County Office of Emergency Services now has the capability of immediately providing emergency announcements to the public by utilizing radio station KUIC. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Recommendation 4 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s recom-mendation. SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER DETENTION FACILITY INSPECTION 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason For Inspection California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Solano County Justice Center Detention Facility and Court Holding Cells. Grand Jury Actions • Met with Solano County Sheriff and senior administrators • Viewed a power point presentation of the department’s operation and interviewed staff at the detention facility • Toured and inspected detention facility and Superior Court holding cells • Reviewed Corrections Standards Authority facility inspection evaluation report Background / Summary The Solano County Justice Center Detention Facility is a 260,000 square foot facility located at 530 Union Avenue, Fairfield, California. The detention facili-ty is commonly known as the main jail. It became operational June 1989 and was given a Corrections Standards Authority ( CSA) bed capacity rating for 705 beds. After remodeling the facility, bed capacity rating increased to 740. According to CSA standards, the facility is classified as a type II facility, which means it is a local detention facility used for the detention of individuals awaiting arraign-ment, trial, sentencing and fulfilling commitment. On the day of inspection, the inmate population was 733. The facility is operated by, under the control of and commanded by the Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Department. The Sheriff and staff launched a successful recruiting campaign that addressed personnel shortages and overtime usage throughout the department. All areas are now fully staffed and overtime has been dramatically reduced. In 2006, 19,602 individuals were booked into the facility; 8,864 for misdemeanor offenses and 10,738 for felony offenses. Every 60.6 minutes an individual was booked for a misdemeanor offense and every 48.9 minutes an individual was booked for a felony offense. In 2006, there was an overall increase in felony bookings for homicide, assault and sex crimes. The Sheriff’s Department administers several programs that assist the inmates while incarcerated. Some examples of the programs are: Youth and Family Services Jail Outreach Religious Services Alcoholic Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous Institutional Homeless Case Management Youth and Family Services Outreach Jail Program This program assists sentenced inmates with drug and alcohol problems. It pro-vides group and individual counseling. Recovery 2, is also a part of the program. Recovery 2 is a self- help therapeutic program presented in a group setting and is facilitated by the Sheriff’s Department Chaplin, Youth and Family Services and Case staff. Religious Services Program This program is conducted by 2 chaplains. The program provides church servic-es, Bible studies, Bible correspondence, personal counseling, crisis intervention and marriage services. Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous Programs These programs are available to all incarcerated individuals upon request. Meetings are held weekly in a group setting. Institutional Homeless Case Management Program This program is for inmates that have been incarcerated for more than 30 days and will be homeless upon release. The program provides assistance with tran-sitional housing, finding financial aid and medical providers. The program also provides assistance with finding drug/ alcohol treatment programs and mental health providers. The Sheriff’s Department has been under contract with the California Forensic Medical Group since March 2004 to provide the inmates with in- house medical, dental and outpatient mental health services. Based on information received, medical staff had 48,645 contacts from January through June 2006 and mental health staff had 635 contacts during the same period. The Sheriff noted that Workers’ Compensation injury claims have been reduced since the creation of the Custody Response Team. The CRT is deployed when necessary to remove combative, uncooperative inmates and during emergencies. The CRT receives approximately 100 call outs annually. Over 50% of the call outs resulted in voluntary compliance. The Sheriff’s Department Custody Division took the following actions to improve overall operations: Consolidated policy and procedure for the Fairfield and Claybank Facilities. Implemented a Jail Management Team, Facilities Inspection Team and Facilities Search Team. Contracted with Legal Research Associates. Consolidating policy and procedure Policy and procedure consolidation for the Claybank and Main Jail Facilities has Page 6 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Criminal Justice 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 7 Criminal Justice standardized day- to- day operations and has addressed applicable California Code of Regulations, Title 15 requirements. Jail Management Team The team meets monthly to identify any potential problems, classification issues, personnel and inmate grievances, maintenance issues, policy, legal issues and to discuss pilot testing of any new products prior to purchase. Facilities Inspection Team The team is responsible for inspecting all lifesaving equipment, all restraint equipment, developing and updating fire evacuation plans, examining all facili-ty locks once a month and conducting visual inspection of all smoke and light detectors. When activated, the team is asked to search and find contraband, weapons, narcotics and other illegal materials within the confines of the deten-tion facilities. Legal Research Associates The Legal Research Associates provides the inmates with law library services that give the inmates greater access to legal reference materials. The Solano County Court Holding Cells are located in the Solano County Superior Court Building second floor at 500 Union Avenue, Fairfield, California. The holding cells are accessed from the rear of the main jail building and by ele-vator. The general public does not have access to the cells. The holding cells are used exclusively for detaining adult and juvenile inmates minutes prior to a scheduled court arraignment or trial. No inmates are detained over night. Whenever a juvenile is being detained, a probation officer is present. There are occasions when adults and juveniles, although detained in separate cells, are within hearing distance of each other, which is an apparent violation of the California Code of Regulations, Title 15. Findings And Recommendations Finding 1 - Policy and procedure are consolidated into one operating manual for the Fairfield and Claybank Detention Facilities. Recommendation 1 – None. Finding 2 - The Jail Management Team, Facility Inspection Team and the Facility Search Team were created to enhance overall operations. Recommendation 2 - The teams should remain in place as part of the overall operations of the Sheriff’s Department. Finding 3 – The Sheriff’s Department Custody Division entered into a contract with Legal Research Associates, which has enhanced the inmate’s ability to access legal material and reduced inmate complaints relating to legal material access. Recommendation 3 – The contract should remain in place allowing inmates to continue to participate in the service. Finding 4 - Occasionally adult and juvenile inmates are within hearing distance of each other when detained at the Superior Court Holding Cells. Recommendation 4 - Dialogue should continue between the Sheriff’s Department, Probation Department and the Superior Court with the goal of cor-recting this situation as indicated in the Corrections Standard Authority report. Comments The Solano County Sheriff has successfully addressed serious staff shortages, the use of overtime, workers’ compensation injury claims and the overall day- to- day operations of the department. Staffing shortages and the reduction of overtime were overcome by launching and conducting a successful recruiting campaign. Maintaining the Custody Response Team reduced the number of workers’ com-pensation claims. Consolidating policy and procedure into one manual for the day- to- day operations of the Fairfield and Claybank detention facilities made overall operations more uniform and has addressed California Code of Regulations, Title 15 requirements. The Sheriff and Staff are to be complimented for improving overall day- to- day operations and for exhibiting and providing a high level of safety, security and service to the people of Solano County. Affected Agencies Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Office Solano County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF SOLANO RESPONSE Sheriff’s Response to Finding 1 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the find-ing of the Grand Jury. The policies and procedures of the Sheriff’s Office are continually being reviewed, updated and consolidated to reduce liability and ensure consistent operation of the detention facilities. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation. Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. The teams have encouraged open communications between the ranks enabling potential safety and security issues to be addressed and corrected in a timely manner. These teams have become an integral part of the Custody Division. Currently the Custody Management Team is meeting on a monthly basis. The Facility Inspection Team is routinely walk-ing throughout the facilities inspecting and documenting safety and security issues that may arise. The Facility Search Team continues operations as needed. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation. Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 3 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. The contract with Legal Research Associates ( LRA) has been in place since October 1, 2005. To date, we are sat-isfied with the level of service and the working relationship that has developed between staff and LRA. Provided the quality of service continues at present level this contract will be reevaluated for renewal prior to the expiration date of September 30, 2008. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 3 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation. Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 4 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. A dialog has been established between the Sheriff’s Office, Probation Department and the Superior Court and will continue with the goal of correcting the situation indicated in the Corrections Standard Authority report. The Sheriff has formally noticed the Probation Department that this situation must be corrected. In order for the appropriate change to occur the Probation Department and the Superior Court must change the location of juvenile hearings. Any independent action taken by the Sheriff to prevent the Probation Department from utilizing existing holding facilities will result in a significant disruption of the Juvenile Justice System. Our continuing goal is to resolve this issue prior to our next annual inspection by Corrections Standards Authority. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 4 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Grand Jury and Departmental response and is supportive of continued dialog between the Sheriff, Probation and Courts to mitigate issues concerning the safety of juvenile inmates awaiting Court appear-ances. Ideally the County would like to see the Courts conduct juvenile hearings at Juvenile Hall and is desirous of collaboration with the Courts to explore the need for a juvenile justice center adjacent to Juvenile Hall. SOLANO JUSTICE BUILDING COURT HOLDING FACILITY – VALLEJO 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason For Inspection California Penal Code § 919 subdivision ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Solano Justice Building Vallejo Court Holding Facility located at 321 Tuolumne Street, Vallejo, California. Grand Jury Actions • Met with the Captain in charge of in- custody operations and staff • Interviewed staff • Toured and inspected the holding facility • Reviewed the California Standards Authority facility evaluation report Background / Summary This 5500 square foot holding cell facility is inside the Solano Justice Center Building located at 321 Tuolumne Street, Vallejo, California. The facility is used exclusively for the temporary holding and securing of inmates for their court appearances. It is staffed, operated and under the command of the Solano County Sheriff’s Department and is designated a court holding detention facility by the Corrections Standards Authority. Inmates are transported from the Claybank facility and the main jail in downtown Fairfield to this facility for court appearances. Lunch is served to all inmates waiting for their court appearance if present during the noon hour. Inmates are not housed overnight. The facility inmate capacity is 85. There are nine holding cells, two of which are large enough to hold and secure 32 individuals. In total, 34 female and male inmates were present, the facility was neat, clean and odor free on the day of our walk through. Seven deputies provide court bailiff duties and they assist three correctional officers with monitoring and securing of inmates waiting for their court appearance. The holding cell area is equipped with warning lights and an audible alarm sys-tem. There are security cameras in the holding cell area and in all of the court-rooms. Judges, officers of the court and court employees can access courtrooms from the holding cell area. An automatic door locking system is in place, which is activated when inmates are escorted between the holding cells and court. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 – Inmates are transported daily from the main jail downtown Fairfield and the Claybank facility to the holding cells in Vallejo. The number of inmates that have court appearances dictate the number of trips made daily. Recommendation 1 – The Sheriff’s Department coordinates activities with the courts to minimize transportation of inmates within the county. Finding 2 – Judges, officers of the court and court employees can access a court-room from the holding cell area. Recommendation 2 – Although adequate security appears to be in place, the Sheriff’s Department should continue to be vigilant in monitoring safety and security concerns of the judges, court officers and court employees when escort-ing inmates from the cell( s) to the courtroom. Comments The facility appears out- dated in design. On the day of this review, the facility commander and staff were diligent in providing security. The Sheriff’s Department utilizes precautionary measures when transporting the inmates from Fairfield and Claybank to the court in Vallejo and when escorting the inmates from the holding cell to a courtroom. The Commander and staff are to be com-mended for operating this facility in a professional manner. Affected Agencies Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Office Solano County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF SOLANO RESPONSE Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. The Sheriff’s Office recognizes and concurs with the need to minimize the number of transports made daily to Vallejo for court proceedings. The Sheriff also recognizes that the ability to minimize the number of inmates transported daily to the Vallejo Superior Court is completely dependent on where the Superior Court decides to conduct in- custody hearings. In order to maximize efficiency and assure safety and security the Sheriff’s Office will continue a dialog with the Presiding Judge and Court Executive Officer with the ultimate goal of reducing the number of inmates transported daily to Vallejo. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation and would like to see expanded collaborative efforts with the Courts ( i. e. video arraignments, calendaring of in custody mat-ters in Fairfield) to minimize the cost and effort of transporting and holding of inmates throughout County facilities. Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. The Sheriff’s Office recognizes and concurs with the need to provide safety and security for the judges, court officers and court employees. During the most recent remodel of the Vallejo Court Facility the Sheriff was consulted for security. Specific recommendations were made to establish a secure hallway for the transition of in- custody defendants. In the final analysis it was determined that construction of a separate secure passage for the transition of in- custody defendants was too costly and the recommenda-tion was eliminated from the construction plan. The design of the existing court facility is the result of that decision. The Sheriff’s Office has implemented pro-cedures to provide safety during the movement of high risk, high security inmates. The Sheriff’s Office utilizes existing resources including the deploy-ment of the Custody Response Team to alleviate security concerns. Moreover, high risk security issues are identified, assessed, and mitigated by the Sheriff’s Office Threat Assessment Team. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation. CLAYBANK DETENTION FACILITY 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason For Investigation California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Claybank Detention Facility. Grand Jury Actions • Met and received an overview of facility operations by the Commander and staff • Interviewed staff • Toured and inspected the facility • Received orientation on the following programs: Electronic Monitoring, Work Furlough, After Release Work and the pending Global Positioning Satellite Monitoring • Reviewed the California Standards Authority facility inspection report Background / Summary The 91,000 square foot Claybank Detention Facility ( the facility) opened in 1979. The facility is staffed, operated and commanded by the Solano County Sheriff’s Department. The facility is on 37 acres of land located at 2500 Claybank Road, Fairfield, California. It is a Type II facility, which means it is a local detention facility used for the detention of persons pending arraignment, trial, sentencing and fulfilling commitment. No bookings occur at this facility. The facility is currently fully staffed with 46 uniform and non- uniform person-nel. Current bed capacity is 411. Plans are currently in place to increase bed capacity by 512. On the day of inspection, there were 74 female and 378 male inmates in- custody. Our inspection revealed that due to security concerns, the dining area and day-rooms in two areas are not fully utilized. The facility was clean and neat. The grounds were well maintained. The Commander and staff established a Good Behavior Program for qualified inmates. Inmates are given extra privileges in exchange for exhibited good behavior over a specified period of time. Several programs are available for the inmates. Minimum Security inmates can volunteer for landscaping, kitchen duties and many other in- custody work activities. Courses are available for all inmates interested in obtaining a General Education Diploma ( GED). Support services are available such as Life Skills, Keys to Recovery, Nurturing and Family Services. With the cooperation of the Solano County Animal Shelter, a Kitten Raising Program is available for the female inmates. Electronic Monitoring and Work Furlough Programs are available for the inmates meeting certain criteria. Electronic Monitoring allows low risk offenders the opportunity to work, attend court ordered rehabilitation programs and to stay at home in lieu of going to jail. According to the Sheriff’s Department data, the Electronic Monitoring Program saved county taxpayers over $ 2 million dollars between September 2005 and September 2006. Work Furlough provides eligible inmates a means to continue school or work while incarcerated. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 – The designated dining area and dayrooms in the housing units appear to be under utilized. Recommendation 1 - The Sheriff and staff should find ways to utilize these areas consistent with security concerns. Finding 2 - The Electronic Monitoring Program appears to be cost effective. The program contributes to reducing overcrowding. Recommendation 2 - Continue to expand and monitor the program for cost effectiveness consistent with safety and security concerns. Finding 3 - The Life Skills Program and the Kitten Raising Program appear to be beneficial to all participating inmates. Recommendation 3 - These programs should be continued and enhanced when possible. Page 8 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Criminal Justice 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 9 Criminal Justice Finding 4 – The Good Behavior Program was implemented and appeared to be successful. Recommendation 4 - This program should be monitored closely for potential abuse to ensure that safety and security concerns are not compromised. Comments The Claybank Detention Facility is used for housing inmates pending arraign-ment, trial, sentencing or fulfilling commitment. On the day of inspection, the facility was clean, neat and odor free. Construction of a 512- bed unit at the Claybank Detention Facility is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2007. The additional beds should alleviate anticipated overcrowding. The sheriff placed a priority on staffing throughout the depart-ment and launched an aggressive recruiting campaign. As a result, the Claybank Detention Facility is fully staffed. The Grand Jury compliments the Sheriff’s Department for exhibiting an out-standing effort in providing safety, security and service at the Claybank Detention Facility. Affected Agencies Solano County Sheriff/ Coroner’s Office Solano County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF SOLANO RESPONSE Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury. In the original design of the Claybank Facility the dining room and recreation areas ( referred to as dayrooms in the Grand Jury report) were intended for use by minimum security inmates. The inmate population has changed and very few minimum security inmates are held in custody. Effective utilization of the dining room and the large recreation areas will require safety and security upgrades that may include security doors, locks, security cameras and additional staffing. Moreover, upgrades to these areas may not be tenable at this time because of the Claybank expansion project and the planned remodel of the existing facility. Upon completion of the expansion the inmate population housed at the Claybank Facility will be transferred to the new facility and the existing facility will be remodeled. Once this occurs, use of the currently under- utilized space will be reevaluated. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation. Underutilized areas at Claybank will be repro-grammed as part of the jail expansion project in conjunction with the County’s commitment to enhance resources to reduce recidivism and promote safe com-munities through expanded projects aimed at crime prevention, intervention and reentry activities. Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury and the recommendation has been implemented. The Sheriff’s Office assumed responsibility for management and operation of the Electronic Monitoring Program, from a private provider, in May 2004. Since that time, program compliance and participation has increased and policies and procedures including fiscal procedures have been and continue to be updated. In addition, we are starting a Global Positioning Satellite ( GPS) track-ing program. Through Global Positioning we will have the capability to know where participants are at all times. The Sheriff will continue a dialogue with the Superior Court, encouraging Judges to permit additional defendants access to electronic monitoring. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation. Board of Supervisors supports the development of cooperative relationships between the Courts and Sheriff that maximize use of cost effective sentencing alternatives that reflect sufficient consequences for criminal activities. Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 3 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury and the recommendation has been implemented. In partnership with Youth and Family Services and the Solano County Animal Shelter inmate programming has benefited all involved. Inmates participating in programs at the Claybank Facility have more than doubled, new programs have been introduced and there are plans for improving and increasing inmate programs in the future. In addition to drug and alcohol treatment pro-grams we have life skills, nurturing skills, anger management and work closely with Social Services to develop and maintain a good family relationship between incarcerated parents and their children. We have two ( 2) dayrooms of pre- sen-tenced inmates who are programming, with the focus being on drug and alcohol treatment and behavior modification. Future plans for programs may include, vocational training, operating a day reporting center and implementing a commu-nity re- entry program. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 3 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation. Sheriff’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 4 – The Sheriff’s Office concurs with the finding of the Grand Jury and the recommendation has been implemented. Safety and security of the inmates, facility, staff and community is our first priority. When we started the pilot program with pre- sentenced inmates, we based it on incentives for positive behavior. Inmates are given expectations and we hold them accountable. We have had a few inmates who were unacceptable for this program and were a deterrent to our objective; these inmates are re- classified to a higher security upon identification. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 4 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation. Additional Comments from Sheriff/ Coroner: In closing, I appreciate the effort put forth by those members of the Grand Jury conducting the annual inspection of my custody and court holding facilities. They were inquisitive, asked the important questions, addressed controversial issues and produced what I believe is a valuable and objective report. The posi-tive recognition by the Grand Jury of our efforts to maintain safe and secure jail and court hold facilities is greatly appreciated. SOLANO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT JUVENILE DETENTION & NEW FOUNDATIONS FACILITIES 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Inspection California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Juvenile Detention and New Foundations Facilities at 740 Beck Avenue, Fairfield, California. Grand Jury Actions • Interviewed the Chief Probation Officer • Met with the Superintendent, staff, and counselors of Juvenile Detention and New Foundations Facilities • Toured the Juvenile Detention and New Foundation Facilities • Met and spoke with several minors in the facilities • Reviewed the facilities’ policy and procedure manuals Background / Summary The Juvenile Detention Facility ( Juvenile Hall) and the New Foundations Facility ( New Foundations) are divisions of the Solano County Probation Department ( Probation Department). The purpose of these facilities is to provide detention for youths charged with serious crimes, who otherwise cannot be safe-ly released to the community and are likely to flee the jurisdiction of the Court. They also provide post- disposition detention for youths awaiting placement to other types of residential care, quality education, vocational assessment, and learning opportunities. The facilities’ policies and procedures comply with the standards in Title 15 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations pertain-ing to juvenile offenders. Juvenile Court Law, Solano County, and the Probation Department also establish procedures and guidelines for consistency and unifor-mity in the day- to- day operation of the facilities. Juvenile Hall This facility houses minimum to maximum security level minors and has a capacity of 90. On the day of our visit, there were 95 minors, 76 males and 19 females. The staff ratio was one duty staff member to 10 minors to include a Senior Counselor and several Group Counselors as required by law. All minors, age 12- 18 years, accepted for booking into Juvenile Hall, undergo a pat- down search prior to placement in a holding cell. The facility has a Sally Port for the transport of minors from police department holding cells. Visual safety checks are conducted every 10 minutes and documented accordingly. Within one hour of booking, minors are given the opportunity to make three phone calls; to a parent or guardian, an employer, and an attorney. Juveniles must have a court hearing within 72 hours after their arrest. Every minor detained in Juvenile Hall must be entered immediately into the Case Program as part of the intake process. This Program is a Solano County database that contains information on minors that have been or are currently on probation in the county. Additionally, all minors must be medically screened with written medical clearance before being booked into the facility. As of August 15, 2006, Solano County instituted policies and procedures requir-ing every minor in Juvenile Hall to have a Medical CASE Identification printout and picture. This confirms and identifies all incoming minors for medication issuance by the nursing staff. The nurses are on duty daily between 7: 00 a. m. and 11: 00 p. m. A doctor is present at various intervals, but is always on- call. Mental health counselors, probation officers, and other professionals and staff are available as needed and may take part in the processing and placement of a minor into Juvenile Hall. A minor is assigned to one of four Pods ( housing units within the facility) in a manner that provides for their individual safety as well as the safety of other minors, staff, and the public. Several factors are considered when assigning a minor to a Pod, such as: Security classification Special modification or mental health needs Gender, age, weight Maturity level Legal status Suspected of having a communicable disease Case is high profile/ type of offense Gang affiliation New Foundations This facility’s program is an intensive program that addresses the educational needs of detained juveniles in Solano County. It has a bed capacity of 30. New Foundations academic program operates under the authority of the Solano County Superintendent of Schools. The programs must comply with the State Education Code and the County Board of Education. Minors are evaluated to determine individual educational needs and they must be enrolled in a program within three school days after their detention. Minors can earn high school credits toward a diploma. The Exit exam required for high school students is available to the minors at the facility. The facility’s new employees, after their initial orientation and training, are required to train at Juvenile Hall and receive additional training supervised by the Chief Probation Officer. New Foundations has a full service program designed to provide a safe and car-ing, therapeutic group living experience, incorporating psychological, psychi-atric, recreational, and social services aimed at supporting and reunifying fami-lies. All activities are designed to promote self- discipline, self- esteem, respect, and accountability for each minor. Minors are encouraged to communicate with their families. Active involvement by the family is an intricate part of the treat-ment program. Ongoing family counseling through a series of group conferences and home visits assists the minor and family to understand their family dynam-ics. The counselors and probation officers also use the counseling sessions to evaluate home furloughs and establish criteria for a minor’s release. This facility functions on a point system that focuses on behavior modification. Points are earned on a weekly basis during specific hours based on good behav-ior. A minor can advance through four phase levels to earn release; Phase 4 is the highest. It takes approximately one month to advance one level provided all required points are earned. Furloughs are a privilege and may be given for those achieving Phase 3 and Phase 4. A report is required, by statute, when overcrowding exceeds maximum capacity for more than 15 calendar days in any single month. The Assistant Superintendent filed a report regarding the overcrowding in Juvenile Hall with the California Corrections Standards Authority in September 2006. At the time of our visit in November 2006, a second report was being prepared. New Foundations was not experiencing overcrowding at the time of our visit. A pre- site inspection of the new Juvenile Detention Facility was conducted prior to occupancy in 2004 by The Institute for Medical Quality. Other regulatory agencies conducted the required annual inspections for both facilities in 2006. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 - On the day of our visit both facilities appeared clean, neat, and well organized. Recommendation 1 - Solano County Probation Department should continue to keep up the good work. Finding 2 - On the day of our inspection, Juvenile Hall was overcrowded. Recommendation 2 - Solano County Probation Department should review processes and procedures for all juvenile facilities they administer to avoid over-crowding. Finding 3 - Minors released to society are not tracked. Recommendation 3 - Solano County Probation Department should track the success or failure of minors in order to measure the effectiveness of the programs they administer. Comments The Probation Department administers all juvenile detention facilities for Solano County. Proper use of all available beds could reduce overcrowding at any or all facilities. We commend the Probation Department for its efforts to administer statutory law, and policy and procedures. Hopefully the department will be successful in getting more parental involvement. Affected Agencies Solano County Probation Department Juvenile Detention Facility New Foundations Facility Courtesy Copy Solano County Board of Supervisors Solano County Juvenile Court COUNTY OF SOLANO RESPONSE Probation’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – Concur. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 1 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation. Probation’s Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – Probation agrees with this finding and the recommendation has been implemented. Probation con-tinually reviews processes and procedures to avoid overcrowding. Atrend toward increased population was identified early in 2006. This trend continued reaching a peak in October 2006. Once it was determined that the increased population was a long term trend rather than a spike, the Department requested authoriza-tion from the Board of Supervisors to reopen the Challenge Unit. Authorization to open 20 beds was approved on February 27, 2007. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding and Recommendation 2 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s finding and recommendation. Board approval of funding and staffing of the Challenge Unit provides sufficient resources for the Department to address spikes in population at Juvenile Hall. Probation’s Response to Finding 3 – Probation disagrees partially. Solano County Probation currently collects substantial data for those minors participat-ing in programs funded by grants such as the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act ( JJCPA). Board of Supervisors’ Response to Finding 3 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury finding. Probation has implemented the collection of data on juveniles to better evaluate the outcomes of programs and services provided by the County. Probation’s Response to Recommendation 3 – The recommendation has been implemented with regard to programs funded by grants such as JJCPA. With regard to other programs, the recommendation will be implemented by FY 2008- 2009. The Department is currently working with other probation departments through the Chief Probation Officers of California to implement standardized outcome measures for juvenile and adult probation. Board of Supervisors’ Response to Recommendation 3 – The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Department’s response to the Grand Jury’s recom-mendation. SOLANO COUNTY PRESIDING JUVENILE COURT JUDGE’S RESPONSE Finding/ Recommendation 1: I have no comment on this finding and its recom-mendation. Finding/ Recommendation 2: Prior to detaining a minor at the Juvenile Detention Facility, the court must consider and make a number of findings: Whether continuance in the home of the parent or guardian is contrary to the minor’s welfare Page 10 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Criminal Justice 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 11 Criminal Justice Whether the Probation Officer has made reasonable efforts to prevent or elimi-nate the need for the removal of the minor from his or her home Whether the District Attorney has made a prima facie showing that the minor is a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 What is the specific reason( s) the minor is being detained: • The minor has violated a Juvenile Court Order • The minor has escaped from a Juvenile Court Commitment • The minor is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court • It is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for protection of the minor to detain him or her • It is reasonably necessary for the protection of the person or property of others to detain the minor The judicial determination for detention is made regardless of the population of the Juvenile Detention Facility. The court often gives the Probation Officer the discretion to release a specific minor directly to the parents or on a program of home supervision or electronic monitoring. On some occasions, the ability of the parents to provide an effective level of supervision for the minor can be increased by brief counseling or moni-toring by the Probation Officer. The Juvenile Court and Probation Department utilize a procedure that signifi-cantly expedites the signing of transfer orders when a minor is to be transferred to another institution. This expedited procedure reduces both the duration of a minor’s stay in the Juvenile Detention Facility waiting for the transfer to occur and the population of the facility. Finding/ Recommendation 3: I have no comment on this finding or its recom-mendation. CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Investigation California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the California Medical Facility, 1600 California Drive, Vacaville, California. Grand Jury Actions • Interviewed the Warden and staff • Toured the AIDS Unit • Toured the Hospice Unit • Toured the Education Center • Toured the Elder Care Facility • Reviewed California Medical Facility pamphlets and historical notes • Reviewed related newspaper articles • Reviewed a summary of nine class action lawsuits Background/ Summary The California Medical Facility ( CMF) was established in 1955 by the California Legislature to provide a centrally located medical/ psychiatric institution for the health care needs of the male population of California State Prisons. It has been in operation for over 50 years. The budget for CMF is $ 171 million, and is staffed with approximately 1,853. There are 200 staff vacancies, mainly in the medical areas. The facility was originally designed to house 2,315 inmates. The housing areas have been reconfigured. The current inmate capacity is 3,329. On the day of our inspection, the inmate population was 3,022. Mental Health Services operates a licensed acute care psychiatric hospital with-in CMF. Their mission is to provide evaluation and treatment of the mentally dis-ordered and developmentally disabled inmates in a safe, secure, well- maintained, therapeutic and self- enhancing environment. They must do this while maintain-ing control of individuals who have been determined to be a danger to self or the people of the State of California. The medical needs of inmates are met by CMF Hospital Services. This includes 65 licensed acute care beds, 21 licensed elderly care beds, three negative air pres-sure isolation rooms and two operating rooms. Emergency medical services are provided to all inmates housed at CMF. Life support services, quality nursing care, and nursing assessments are provided by registered nurses 24 hours a day. A physician is on duty during the day shift, and a medical officer of the day is available to provide after- hours care. Dental services are provided and all inmates receive a general examination and dental cleaning once a year. Additional dental work is done if needed. A dental laboratory is in the proximity and produces dental prosthetic devices. The clinic and laboratory are small and crowded, which creates safety concerns for the staff. CMF has a special housing unit for over 520 HIV positive/ AIDS patients and a 17- bed hospice, which was the first in the State of California. The hospice is accredited by the State of California Department of Health Services. The hos-pice offers comfort and support to terminally ill patients and support for families and friends. Inmates, who have passed certain requirements, can volunteer to provide supportive care for the terminally ill patients. Family visitation is more lenient in this wing. In 2006, an Elder Care Facility, with a bed capacity of 21, was added. It is a 24- hour care facility. The general age category for this facility is 55 and over. This unit was established to meet the needs of the disabled and elderly. CMF has three community work crews available to assist nearby cities and coun-ties on needed projects. Napa State Hospital Crew provides gardening and janitorial sup port to Napa State Hospital. The Keating Park Crew provides maintenance and gardening to local ballparks. The Alamo Creek Crew provides weed abatement and flood pro tection work for the City of Vacaville. Educational opportunities are provided to inmates by the CMF Education Department. Academic courses are offered in adult basic edu-cation and English as a second language. High school and GED pro-grams are available to eligible inmates. CMF also offers vocational education courses. These courses include horticulture, electronics, janitorial, and office services. The courses are designed to assist inmates in securing jobs after their release from prison. Inmates are assigned to a reentry program within 120 days of their parole date. The re- entry program is designed to provide inmates with materials and guidance for a successful parole. It emphasizes communi-cation, employable skills, money management, community and parole resources, self- esteem, social values and personal responsibility. Three to 11 inmates are released daily from CMF. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 - The California Medical Facility continues to have staff shortages in the medical fields. Recommendation 1 - Develop recruiting programs to correct this ongoing prob-lem. Finding 2 - The reentry program is designed to provide inmates with materials and guidance for a successful parole. This program appears to be the right thing to do. Recommendation 2 - Establish a tracking process to determine if the program has been successful in helping released inmates to become responsible citizens. Finding 3 - The hospice unit at the California Medical Facility is a model for cor-rection facilities. Recommendation 3 - Expand the program as needed throughout the corrections community. Comments The Warden and staff at the California Medical Facility were very helpful and willing to answer our many questions. At the time of our tour, the facility appeared clean and well organized. Needed expansion of the dental laboratory will create more jobs for inmates and provide added security for staff. Groundbreaking is scheduled for 2011. Lawsuits are pending in Federal Courts against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation system pertaining to overcrowding, rehabilita-tion, medical care and staffing. The outcome of these lawsuits will have an impact on the operations at the California Medical Facility. Affected Agencies California Medical Facility- Solano California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION RESPONSE The California Medical Facility ( CMF) is in receipt of the 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury report. Following is my response to the findings and recom-mendations in this report: Response 1: CMF is currently providing the following recruitment efforts to ensure vacant medical positions are tracked and a recruitment plan is in process: Monthly Human Resources sub- committee meetings to discuss vacancies, hires, and recruitment. Monthly Quality Management Committee meetings with the Warden and Chief Deputy, Clinical Services, to discuss the status of medical vacancies, recruitment efforts and hires. Advertise in the following: Capitol Weekly, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Weekly Job Bulletin, State Personnel Board VPOS, Sacramento Bee, Modesto Bee, Stockton Record, Vallejo Times Herald, San Francisco Chronicle, Vacaville Daily Reporter and Fairfield newspaper. Participate in local job fairs. Focused recruitment by mailing flyers and bulletins to local colleges and techni-cal institutions. Distribution of flyers to employees and churches. Liaison with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Workforce Planning regarding vacancies, hires and recruitment. Response 2: CMF agrees with the Grand Jury that the Parole, Planning and Placement ( PPP) program is an excellent program as it provides inmates the tools and resources necessary for a successful parole. However, the PPP is under the direction of the Division of Adult Parole ( DAPO). CMF will forward your rec-ommendation to Thomas G. Hoffman, Deputy Director, DAPO. Response 3: CMF agrees with the Grand Jury that the hospice unit provides valuable services for male inmates with terminal illnesses incarcerated in prisons throughout the State of California. The Grand Jury’s recommendation that this program be expanded, as needed, will be forwarded to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s ( CDCR’s) Health Care Services Division and Robert Sillen, the court- appointed Federal receiver for medical care issues with-in the CDCR. CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON SOLANO FACILITY INSPECTION 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason For Investigation Penal Code § 919, subdivision ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the California State Prison- Solano ( CSP- Solano) located at 2100 Peabody Road, Vacaville, California. Grand Jury Actions • Toured the facility • Toured the Metal Fabrication Unit of the Prison Industry Authority ( PIA) • Toured the Optical Laboratory of the PIA • Interviewed CSP- Solano warden and staff • Reviewed newspaper articles related to California Prisons • Reviewed materials provided by CSP- Solano • Reviewed California Corrections Standards Authority Background/ Summary CSP- Solano covers 146 acres. The prison opened in August 1984, with a designed capacity of 2,610 inmates. On the day of the Grand Jury inspection, CSP- Solano’s inmate population was 6,021. The gymnasiums and other build-ings have been converted to housing units to accommodate the demand for insti-tutional housing. This additional housing requires the use of triple- deck bunk-ing. CSP- Solano is a level- two and level- three facility. Level- two and level- three inmates must be kept separate. An inmate’s level is based on an individual assessment of his crime and actions during incarceration. Level three inmates are a higher risk level and require more security. According to prison administrative staff, CSP- Solano has a staff of approximately 1,400. The staff includes uni-formed correctional officers, support staff, and medical personnel. Currently, there is a 12 percent ( 12%) vacancy in uniformed positions, resulting in over-time. The facility operates on an annual budget of $ 150 million. Inmate cost per year is estimated to be $ 26,000. CSP- Solano’s mission is to incarcerate, control, and care for male felons while providing an opportunity for meaningful work, training, and education. The PIA is used to fulfill a part of the mission for the inmates. The PIA employs inmates and trains them to enhance their ability to obtain employment when they are released from prison. Two of the programs offered under PIA at CSP- Solano are metal fabrication and optical manufacturing. The Metal Fabrication Unit is contained in a large updat-ed fully functioning facility. It manufactures special vehicle equipment for Caltrans, prison metal furniture, and lockers for use throughout the California prison system. The program currently employs over 150 inmates. The recidi-vism rate for inmates trained in this unit is minimal; only one inmate has been re- incarcerated after receiving training. The Optical Laboratory manufactures prescription and safety eyewear for prison inmates, Youth Authority wards, Medicare, and Medi- Cal patients, state hospitals and eligible state and local government employees. The laboratory employs approximately 100 inmates. There is a long waiting list of inmates to fill these jobs. CSP- Solano is planning to expand the PIA and add an additional 150 inmates to the program. CSP- Solano was licensed in June 2006 by the California Department of Health Services as a Corrections Treatment Center. The Center is able to house six chronically ill and nine mentally ill inmates for a maximum of 10 days. Those requiring longer treatment are sent to area hospitals or other facilities. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has outreach pro-grams with local communities. CSP- Solano is involved in the development of these programs. Two examples are: The Prison Outreach Program, which cooperates with local schools and police departments to inform and show youths the consequences of unlawful behavior. The Victims Offender Reconciliation Program, which brings victims of violent crimes to prisons. The victims address inmates convicted of violent crimes and convey the facts that victims are real people and have suffered from the inmates’ actions. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 - California State Prison- Solano is an overcrowded facility. Recommendation 1- California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should continue its efforts to reduce overcrowding. Finding 2 - Prison Industry Authority program at California State Prison- Solano has an apparent benefit to the inmates while incarcerated and after their release. Recommendation 2 - California State Prison- Solano should continue to develop and expand the Prison Industry Authority program. Finding 3 - California State Prison- Solano is developing outreach programs with local communities. Recommendation 3 - California State Prison- Solano should continue to develop and expand the outreach programs to all communities in the county. Comments The staff at California State Prison- Solano is working diligently to develop programs and is dedicated to its mission. The Grand Jury commends the warden and staff for their leadership and management in the operation of California State Prison- Solano. Affected Agencies California State Prison- Solano California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Note: Pursuant to Penal Code § 919( b), the Grand Jury shall conduct investiga-tions pertaining to the condition and management of public prisons within the county. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is not required to respond due to the county jurisdictional limitations of the Grand Jury. At the time of this compilation of reports and responses, a response from CDCR had not been received. Any responses received subsequent will be posted on the Grand Jury website: http:// www. solanocourts. com/ grandjury. Page 12 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Criminal Justice 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 13 Criminal Justice BENICIA POLICE DEPARTMENT AND HOLDING FACILITY 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Investigation California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statue, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Benicia Police Department and Holding Facility. Grand Jury Actions • Toured the Police Department and holding facility with duty officer • Discussed the department holding process • Inspected the holding cells Background / Summary The Benicia Police Department ( Department) is located in a building that was a school in the 1940’ s and was converted to house the police department in the 1960’ s. Benicia budgeted $ 1.5 million to retrofit the building and bring it to seismic code. On the day of our visit, the first phase of the retrofit was nearly completed. Department Dispatch is tied into the Solano County Sheriff’s dispatch and Office of Emergency Services. ASally Port has been added to provide security and pub-lic safety. Personnel must call dispatch to open and close the gates. Flashing beacons were being installed to alert personnel when the gates are in use. The two holding cell doors will be replaced in the next retrofit phase. For improved security, a unisex restroom was installed in the holding cell area. Dispatch has audio and visual observation of the holding cells and the patrol ser-geant can monitor the holding area from a window in his office. There is no ded-icated juvenile holding cell. Juveniles who cooperate are held in an interview room. A desk phone is available and an officer must be present while it is in use. Individuals stay a maximum of two hours before being transported to Fairfield. Arrestees are not held overnight. The Department has 37 sworn officers, 50 non- sworn personnel and approxi-mately 35 volunteers. Two of the patrol cars are designated for volunteer use. All personnel have received training in the use of CPR and defibrillator. A Resource Officer is posted at the middle and high schools, and the Department has an active D. A. R. E. program for all 5th graders. At the middle school, the Resource Officer has a Champion Program for 7th graders. This program focuses on five lessons: Law Updates Parts 1 and 2 ( itemizes activities that will break the law) Alcohol, Tobacco, Drugs and other substances Bullying Tolerance and Appreciation Internet Safety/ Child Abuse Volunteers perform in all divisions of the Department, to include patrol, data entry of investigations and filing records. Youths between 15 and 20 are encour-aged to participate in the Police Cadet Program. Adults, age 20 and older, inter-ested in becoming a Police Reserve, must complete college level training cours-es. Other administrative duties performed by volunteers are: house checks for vacationing residents, traffic control, handicap parking enforcement, crime scene preservation, fingerprinting, parades, fairs and transportation of reports and evi-dence. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 - There is no dedicated juvenile holding cell. Recommendation 1 - The Benicia Police Department should convert an office or room to separate juveniles from adults. Finding 2 - At the time of our visit the facility appeared cluttered with boxes sit-ting in the hallways and walkways. Recommendation 2 - Organize all areas to eliminate clutter. Comments We commend the Benicia Police Department in its efforts to rally the citizens to volunteer which allows law enforcement to spend more time patrolling. It also provides a Family Resource Therapist who visits at risk juveniles and their par-ents to develop methods to deter the juvenile from committing crimes. Affected Agencies Benicia Police Department Benicia City Manager Benicia City Council Courtesy Copy Solano County Supervisor John Silva CITY OF BENICIA RESPONSE Response 1: I agree with the Grand Jury report that the Benicia Police Department does not have a dedicated juvenile holding cell. The police depart-ment has what the California Department of Corrections describes as a “ lock-up”. The holding cells were built prior to 1978 and are not a detention facility or jail. Our prisoner holding area, along with our two holding cells, have been inspected and approved by the State of California Board of Corrections, Solano County Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission and the Solano County Health and Social Services Department. None of the agencies recommended we create a dedicated juvenile holding cell. We are unable to implement this recommendation due to the lack of space in our facility and budget constraints. At this time, a cell specifically set apart for juve-nile prisoners is not feasible. However, juveniles are not placed in a holding cell unless they are at least 14 years of age and, in the opinion of the arresting offi-cer, they are a serious security risk of harm to self or others. More importantly, juveniles in custody are not allowed to have contact with adult prisoners. Again, California Board of Corrections, Solano County Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Solano County Health and Social Services have inspected and approved the use of Benicia’s existing holding cells for juveniles. Although we do have areas where juvenile prisoners are kept while in non- secure detention, we will not be able to provide a separate secure cell solely for juve-niles. Response 2: I also agree with the Grand Jury report that, at the time of their visit, the facility was cluttered with boxes in the hallways and walkways. We had been in the process of remodeling the holding cell area, communications center, and several office spaces within the facility. Furniture and files were moved out of the department so that construction work could be completed. As a 24- hour a day operation, we still had to have access to certain files, which we had stored in the hallways. This recommendation has been implemented. Construction work has been com-pleted and stored file boxes have been removed from the hallways. DIXON POLICE DEPARTMENT HOLDING FACILITY 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Inspection California Penal Code § 919, subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Dixon Police Department Holding Facility ( Facility) located at 201 West A Street, Dixon, California. Grand Jury Actions • Met with the Dixon Police Department duty officer • Toured and inspected the Facility • Reviewed the California Standards Authority Facility Evaluation Report Background / Summary The Facility is used exclusively for the temporary holding and securing of arrestees before they are taken to the Solano County Jail in Fairfield for booking. The Facility is staffed, operated and under the command of the Dixon Police Department. It was fully staffed and was neat, clean and odor free. There are three holding cells, with a total capacity of six arrestees, of which none are detained overnight. Uncooperative arrestees are transported directly to the Solano County Jail for booking. On the day of our walk- through, there were no arrestees present. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 – Uncooperative arrestees are not detained at the Facility, but are transported directly to Solano County Jail. Recommendation 1 - None Finding 2 – Some of the Facility emergency evacuation plans were not posted at the time of our inspection. Recommendation 2 – Post necessary emergency evacuation plans. Comments The staff was very cooperative. The Department works with the community and the schools to educate people on the role of the police department. Affected Agencies Dixon Police Department Dixon City Council Dixon City Manager Courtesy Copy Solano County Supervisor Mike Reagan CITY OF DIXON RESPONSE Response to Finding 1: The City agrees with Finding 1. Response to Finding 2: The City agrees with Finding 2. Response to Recommendation 2: The City agrees with the recommendation. The City has since implemented the recommendation and has mounted the facil-ity emergency evacuation plan on the wall adjacent to the exit door. FAIRFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT HOLDING FACILITY 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Investigation California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Fairfield Police Department and holding facility. Grand Jury Actions • Toured the Department and holding facility with duty officer • Discussed the Department holding process • Inspected the holding cells Background / Summary The Fairfield Police Department has four holding cells. At the time of our visit, some cells were in the process of being repaired. This area is constantly moni-tored by camera. Juveniles are controlled by an officer when the cells are full. On the day of our inspection, the holding cells were vacant. The Department does not house individuals overnight. Ten to twenty arrests are made each week. Emergency evacuation procedures were not posted in the holding cell area, but are visible near each entrance. A defibrillator is on the premises and in all vehi-cles. The Department has 130 sworn officers of which eight are female. At the time of our visit, the department had 15 sworn officer vacancies. There are 100 to 150 non- sworn personnel, and approximately 30 volunteers from the community. An officer is posted at each high school and there is a roving officer for the middle schools. An officer is available upon request to visit schools to point out the dan-gers of gang and drug involvement. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program ( D. A. R. E.) was discontinued due to budget constraints, personnel short-ages and growth in the population. The Special Operations Division is responsible for different units. The Crime Prevention Unit has specialists who provide valuable information and empowers the community to combat crime. The Crime Free Multi- housing Unit keeps ille-gal activity out of apartment communities. The Kids’ Safety House is a portable house equipped with appliances, phone, etc., to teach basic fire and home safety. Another unit is the Police Student Internship Program, which is a formal arrange-ment between the Department and Solano Community College. This program provides vocational opportunities for students who are working toward a Criminal Justice Degree. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 - The holding cells appear to meet the needs of the Fairfield Police Department Recommendation 1 - None Finding 2 - There is a vacancy of 15 sworn officers. Recommendation 2 - The Department should actively continue recruiting efforts to eliminate the shortage. Finding 3 - The D. A. R. E. program has been suspended. Recommendation 3 - The Department should research successful programs comparable toD. A. R. E and consider adopting for use in Fairfield schools. Comments We commend the Fairfield Police Department in its efforts to curtail crime by use of community involvement programs, such as the Citizen Observe and Report Patrol program and the Quality Neighborhood Teams program. The Department is also working with the local newspaper to report on crime prevention through “ Tip of the Week” and “ Ask a Fairfield Police Officer.” Other community programs include Neighborhood Watch, Operation 10 Fingerprinting, and a Citizens Academy held twice yearly for nine weeks to edu-cate the public on the functions of the Fairfield Police Department. Emergency 911 calls from all cell phones go directly to the California Highway Patrol. Fairfield Police Department recently established an emergency telephone number, ( 707) 428- 7373, for cell phone users in Fairfield that go directly to the Department Dispatch Center for faster response. Affected Agencies Fairfield Police Department Fairfield City Manager Fairfield City Council Courtesy Copy Solano County Supervisor Jim Spering CITY OF FAIRFIELD RESPONSE Response 1: The City of Fairfield appreciates the Grand Jury’s comments and agrees that our holding cells meet the needs of the Fairfield Police Department. Response 2: Since the Grand Jury visited the Fairfield Police Department, staff has hired three additional Police Officers so that the Department’s current short-age is twelve. The Department presently has six Police Officer Trainees in the Napa Valley Police Academy; one is scheduled to graduate in July and five in December. If these trainees are successful, they will reduce our shortage to six. Presently, the Department is recruiting for these six vacant Police Officer posi-tions. The Fairfield Police Department actively recruits candidates for Police Officers. The Department advertises in state- wide professional journals, print media in Solano, Contra Costa and Sacramento counties, local radio stations and our local TV Channel 26. In February, the Department conducted an “ open test” for entry level Police Officer. Over 150 people applied for Police Officer and took a written and phys-ical test. Sixty- nine candidates passed the test; the Police Department inter-viewed all successful candidates. Twenty- nine candidates successfully complet-ed the interviews. Twenty- one of those candidates were screened out of the hir-ing process during background investigations. Ultimately, five candidates suc-cessfully completed the entire process and began the Police Academy on July 7. The Fairfield Police Department conducted another “ open test” for entry level Police Officer on June 22. 143 people applied for Police Officer and took a writ-ten and physical test. Forty- five passed the tests and will be invited for oral interviews. We have reserved five spaces for successful candidates reserved in the January class of the Napa Valley Police Academy. The Department actively recruits qualified candidates for these vacant positions. It is difficult to find qualified applicants. The Department is confident that they will have all current vacancies filled by the Spring of 2008. Response 3: The Fairfield Police Department and Fairfield- Suisun Unified School District discontinued D. A. R. E. due to mixed reviews about the success of D. A. R. E and for fiscal reasons. Presently, there are no discussions between the two organizations about a possible replacement program. The School District is more interested in funding additional Police Officers to be at the alternative High Schools and Middle Schools, and the Police Department does not have the per-sonnel resources to teach such a program. The Fairfield Police Department is receptive to discussion about potential replacement programs, if we have the per-sonnel and financial resources. The City of Fairfield appreciates the opportunity to have the Grand Jury inspect our holding area and facilities and comment on the recruiting and drug preven- Page 14 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Criminal Justice 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 15 Criminal Justice tion efforts of the Fairfield Police Department. We appreciate the work of the Grand Jury and look forward to continuing to work with this group of dedicated individuals. RIO VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Investigation California Penal Code § 919 Subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Rio Vista Police Department. Grand Jury Actions • Toured the Rio Vista Police Department • Inspected pre- booking area Background / Summary The Rio Vista Police Department ( Department) has no holding cells. Individuals are transported to the Solano County Jail in Fairfield. Transport to the county jail averages one per day. On the day of our inspection, the Department had 18 employees of which 15 were sworn officers. The officers work either a three 12- hour shift or a four 12- hour shift each week. The overtime rate is 15 to 20 percent. These officers also provide bike patrol for city events. Five volunteers and a Solano County Deputy Sheriff also support the Department. The police department began a volunteer open recruitment program in September 2006. The hiring of additional officers is expected by January 2007. The police department uses the Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving ( COPPS) program to aid in their efforts to address crime. Facility emergency evacuation procedures were not posted at the time of our inspection. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 – The Rio Vista Police Department Volunteer Program plays an inte-gral part in the City’s effort to make Rio Vista a better place to live. Recommendation 1 – Continue to use the Volunteer Program to allow police officers time to conduct law enforcement duties. Finding 2 – Overtime appears high. Recommendation 2 – The Rio Vista Police Department should take necessary steps to reduce overtime. Comments The emergency evacuation procedures have been posted. We commend the Rio Vista Police Department for their efforts in the use of community and Volunteer Programs. The Grand Jury continues to suggest that the City provide a mini-mum of one holding cell at the police department. The continued growth within the community and changing demographics reinforce our suggestion. Affected Agencies Rio Vista Police Department Rio Vista City Manager Rio Vista City Council Courtesy Copy Solano County Supervisor Mike Reagan CITY OF RIO VISTA RESPONSE Response 1: Respondent agrees with the finding. Rio Vista Police Department continually recruits volunteer assistance. Response 2: Respondent agrees with the finding. Rio Vista Police Department continues to recruit and hire personnel to improve staffing levels which in turn will impact overtime. SUISUN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT HOLDING FACILITY 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Inspection California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Suisun City Police Department Holding Facility. Grand Jury Actions • Toured the department and holding facility with duty officer • Discussed the department holding process • Inspected the holding cell • Reviewed Corrections Standards Authority Inspection Report Background / Summary The Suisun City Police Department ( Department) has one holding cell, a Sally Port and gun lockers. The holding cell can accommodate a maximum of three individuals. On the day of our inspection, no individuals were being held. However, 90 percent of the individuals arrested are booked at the main jail in Fairfield. The Department does not house individuals overnight. Juveniles are rarely brought to this facility. The last log- in of a juvenile was in 2005. The facility appeared clean during our inspection. The Department has 37- 38 employees; 24 are sworn police officers and six of those officers were on duty during our inspection. The officers work 12- hour shifts. We were informed that the Department overtime rate is approximately 15 to 20 percent. The Federal Office of Juvenile Justice, Penal Code, Welfare and Institutions Code, Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations Title 15 and Title 24 and the Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities require the inspec-tion of detention facilities. The biennial inspections by the Corrections Standards Authority, the Environmental Health and Medical/ Mental Health inspections were conducted in 2006 with no deficiencies cited. Our inspection determined however, that the Suisun City Fire Department’s required annual inspection was last conducted in April 2005. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 – Overtime appears high. Recommendation 1 – Take the necessary steps to reduce overtime. Finding 2 – The fire inspections at the Suisun City Police Department had not been conducted in 2006 as of the time of our visit. Recommendation 2 – Ensure that fire inspections are conducted in a timely manner. Comments We commend the Suisun City Police Department community involvement efforts through their Diversion Program using non- sworn officers, Volunteer Program, National Night Out Program and their annual Citizens and Teen Academy. Affected Agencies Suisun City Police Department Suisun City Fire Department City Manager - Suisun City City Council - Suisun City Courtesy Copy Solano County Supervisor Jim Spering SUISUN CITY RESPONSE Response 1 - is that “ Overtime appears high.” The narrative indicates that the Grand Jury was informed that “ the Department overtime rate is approximately 15 to 20 percent.” The report does not indicate from whom this information was received, how this relates to the inspection of the City’s holding facility, whether the City’s rate is significantly higher than other jurisdictions, what the “ necessary steps” are that the City should take to reduce Overtime, or even what the “ over-time rate” statistic actually means. This claim has little or nothing to do with “ the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” Further, the Grand Jury chose to make a finding and offer a recommendation without actual-ly conducting an investigation of this claim. No attempt was made to interview the City Manager, Police Chief, Finance Director, or any other City employee knowledgeable about the use of Overtime in the Police Department. In addition, no records were requested that could have established whether Overtime usage is in fact “ high.” While this behavior on the Grand Jury’s part is very troubling to the City, we are hereby attempting to comply with the Grand Jury’s request to provide responses to the findings and recommendations made concerning the City of Suisun City Police Department’s holding facility. City/ Department Action Response 1– In attempting to respond to this finding and recommendation, the City must assume that the 15 to 20 percent figure relates to Overtime expressed as a percent of regularly scheduled time. Based on that assumption, the following are the actual Overtime amounts for the past four fiscal years: FY 04 = 9.4% FY 05 = 9.3% FY 06 = 12.6% FY 07 = 12.8% ( est.) It should be noted that at no time has Overtime actually fallen within the 15 to 20 percent range identified by the Grand Jury as being a concern. The first two years, the Police Department contracted with the County Sheriff’s Office to pro-vide policing for six hours per day. This artificially lowered Overtime usage, particularly for Minimum Staffing requirements explained below. Late in FY 2005- 06, the City returned to policing 24 hours per day. The recommendation is that the department should take necessary steps to reduce Overtime. In order to reduce Overtime, it is important to understand why Overtime occurs. There are several reasons why the payment of Overtime occurs. These include the following: Shift Extension – This form of Overtime primarily occurs when an officer is involved in a response to a call for service that cannot easily be handed off to a member of the oncoming watch. Officers must receive permission from their Watch Commander to work such Overtime. Special Assignment – This form of Overtime occurs when officers are assigned to Gang/ Crime Suppression Details, Traffic Enforcement Details, or on other special assignments usually paid by grant funding, for which individual officers voluntarily sign- up. Since this is primarily scheduled Overtime, supervisors work with officers to incorporate these hours into the work program. Minimum Staffing – This form of Overtime occurs when officers normally assigned to a shift are not available due to illness, workers compensation, testi-fying in court, vacation leave, vacant positions, etc. In some circumstances this form of Overtime may be the result of requiring individuals to work involuntar-ily ( known as “ forced” Overtime). Supervisors are involved in the process of determining who works this form of Overtime. When analyzing where the department may be able to exercise control over Overtime usage, the following should be noted: Shift Extension Overtime is a judgment call on the Watch Commander’s part. Whenever an incomplete assignment can be handed off without jeopardizing a case, Watch Commander’s are encouraged to do so. Special Assignment Overtime is the easiest to reduce, because it is usually scheduled Overtime. In most cases however that is contrary to the intent of Special Assignment Overtime. These are primarily grant- funded activities, which are usually performed on a voluntary basis, that will be discontinued when the grant funding expires. Minimum Staffing Overtime is the hardest to control, because it is usually the result of activities that are not under the department’s control. The City has recently added staff to institute a proactive risk management program, designed in part to avoid injury and illness. The City has also instituted open recruitments for certain job classes such as Police Officers to ensure that vacancies are kept to a minimum. The Grand Jury’s Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 do not address the reason for the Grand Jury’s concern. In theory these could be: Ensuring that the staff is not overworked. Reducing General Fund costs. The department complies with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Officers Association to ensure that officers receive the appropriate payment for Overtime and that employees receive the appropriate time off between shifts. Overtime actually costs less than Straight Time, so adding staff would not be the answer to reducing costs generally, unless there is a problem with staff members are being overworked. This is because Straight Time includes costs for retire-ment and health benefits that Overtime costs do not include. Most of the Special Assignment Overtime is grant funded, so it has a minimal fiscal impact on the General Fund. Handing off incomplete assignments could actually take longer due to the person taking over having to “ get up to speed”. This would detract from the oncoming shift’s ability to address its work program. City/ Department Response 2 – The Suisun City Fire Department completed the fire inspection on March 27, 2007. There were no reportable deficiencies at that time. The Fire/ Life Safety Inspection Report is available on the Grand Jury web-site as a link to this report. The inspection results were filed with the Office of the State Fire Marshal and the Board of Corrections as required by law. Additionally, a copy was retained by the Official in Charge of the facility. VACAVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT HOLDING FACILITY 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Inspection California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Vacaville Police Department and Holding Facility. Grand Jury Actions • Toured the police department and holding facility with duty officer • Discussed the department holding process • Inspected the holding cells Background / Summary The Vacaville Police Department ( Department) has a new state- of- the- art facili-ty, with ample space for future growth. The facility has a classroom for training with individual computers built into the desks. There is a large staff exercise room. The facility was clean and neat. There are eight holding cells for adults, one for juveniles, a Sally Port and gun lockers. Each adult holding cell can accommodate a maximum of four individ-uals. On the day of our inspection, no individuals were being held. One individ-ual was brought into the Sally Port during our inspection. The Department does not house individuals overnight. Inspections by the Corrections Standards Authority, the Environmental Health Department and Medical/ Mental Health inspections were all conducted in 2006. The Department has approximately 230 employees, of which 104 are sworn police officers. There are 70 volunteers. The Department has numerous crime prevention programs. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 - The Vacaville Police Department has many successful community involvement programs. Recommendation 1 - Keep up the good work. Comments We commend the Vacaville Police Department’s community involvement efforts with their officers and volunteers. It has an interactive program which simulates driving under the influence. This is used at schools and in the community. Volunteers write parking tickets, visit and assist senior citizens, place speed mon-itors near schools and work with police officers, youth services and the crime prevention staffs. The community and police should continue to collaborate in their efforts to reduce crime in Vacaville. . Affected Agencies Vacaville Police Department City Manager, Vacaville City Council, Vacaville Courtesy Copy Solano County Supervisor John Vasquez VACAVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE We thank the Grand Jury for their comments and appreciate their service to the residents of Solano County. The Police Department will continue to collaborate with individuals and other agencies and organizations in order to maximize our crime reduction efforts. We understand that as we continually strive to do more with limited resources, we have to enlist the support of others, such as non- profit agencies, youth- serving organizations, seniors, volunteers and other local, state and federal law enforce-ment agencies if we are to be successful in our efforts to prevent crime and to quickly capture known, wanted suspects. Page 16 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Criminal Justice 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Final Report Page 17 Criminal Justice VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT AND HOLDING FACILITY 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Inspection California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Vallejo Police Department and Holding Facility. Grand Jury Actions • Toured the Police Department and holding facility with duty officers • Discussed the department holding process • Inspected the holding cells Background / Summary The Vallejo Police Department ( Department) processes and Live Scan finger-prints arrestees at this facility. It is equipped to conduct breathalyzer tests. The arrestees are transported to the County Jail or Juvenile Hall in Fairfield as appli-cable. Arrestees are not held overnight at this facility. Individuals cannot be released on bail from this facility. However, if an arrestee has an outstanding warrant under $ 5,000, they can be cited and released with a promise to appear. The Department has four holding cells for adults. Each adult cell can hold a maximum of two prisoners. There are three cells for juveniles 14 and older. Each juvenile cell holds a maximum of one juvenile. Juveniles under age 14 are held in non- secured areas with an officer present. Half of all juveniles taken into custody are released to their parents. A Sally Port is used for arrestee transfer. The holding cells contain security cameras and can be monitored in the lieu-tenant’s office and in the Dispatch area. The cells contain toilets for use by the arrestees, although privacy is not available. Cautionary metal signs are posted on holding cell doors to identify combative and problem prisoners. Female and major crime arrestees are physically monitored by Department officers. Panic buttons are visible throughout the holding cell area. At the time of our inspection, the holding cells were empty. The holding cell floors and surrounding holding area needed cleaning, painting, and repair of a hole in one wall. Emergency evacuation signs were not visibly posted in the Department. The Department staff count is 200 sworn and non- sworn employees. On the day of our visit, 24 sworn officers were on duty. The officers work twelve- and- one-half hour shifts. We were informed by the duty officer that the Department has been understaffed for the past three years due to budget problems. The understaffing percentage stated at the time of our visit was 10 to 12 percent. The duty officer stated that morale is good in the Department. Officers undergo ongoing sensitivity and harassment awareness training. At the time of the Grand Jury visit, the Department’s last fire and Correction Standards Authority inspections were conducted in 2006. An Environmental Health inspection was conducted in December 2005. A police officer is assigned to each middle school and high school in Vallejo. The Department conducts D. A. R. E. type programs at the elementary schools. The duty officer stated that there is a noticeable increase of serious juvenile crime in the city within the past two years. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 - The Vallejo Police Department holding area needs repair and consis-tent maintenance. Recommendation 1 – Repairs should be made where needed to keep holding cells and surrounding areas clean and maintained. Finding 2 – Emergency evacuation signs were not visibly posted within the Vallejo Police Department. Recommendation 2 – Signs should be posted immediately. Finding 3 – Juvenile crime has increased in Vallejo. Recommendation 3 – Evaluate to improve the Preventive Crime Program at ele-mentary schools and implement additional programs for middle schools. Comments We commend the Vallejo Police Department for maintaining good morale during a long understaffing period and an increase in juvenile crime. The community and police should continue to collaborate in their efforts to minimize crime in Vallejo. Affected Agencies Vallejo Police Department Vallejo City Manager Vallejo City Council Courtesy Copy Solano County Supervisor Barbara Kondylis Solano County Supervisor John Silva VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE The Vallejo Police Department’s Management Staff has reviewed the Grand Jury’s recommendations and provided the following: Response 1: Agree. The recommendation has been implemented as best we can. The holding cells are cleaned daily and repainted approximately every two years. Limited funding is available for repairs throughout the Police Station and prob-lems are corrected in order of priority. Response 2: Disagree. The recommendation will not be implemented because additional signage is not warranted. Following the Grand Jury’s visit, the Police Department was inspected by the City’s Fire Protection Division and found to be in compliance with all fire and emergency evacuation requirements and regula-tions. Response 3: Agree. This recommendation will unfortunately not be implement-ed due to a lack of funding. The Vallejo Police Department suffered a $ 3 million budget reduction this Fiscal Year and the elimination of 16 sworn and non- sworn staff members. As a result, there is no opportunity to engage in additional crime prevention activities. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION DELTA FIRE CAMP 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Inspection California Penal Code § 919 subsection ( b) provides: “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the coun-ty.” Pursuant to the statute, the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury inspected the Delta Fire Camp. Grand Jury Actions • Inspected and toured the fire camp • Interviewed management and staff Background / Summary The Delta Fire Camp ( Camp) was established in 1998 and is located on 23 acres in rural Solano County at 6242 Lambie Road. The Camp is a collaborative effort between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( CDCR) and the California Department of Forestry ( CDF). The Camp is one of 41 in the state. It is an adult male only facility. The inmates are classified as a minimum security risk. The capacity is 120. CDCR will allow 10 percent overpopulation at any given time. The main cross- street to the Camp is Highway 12. There is no left turn lane from or onto Highway 12 from Lambie Road. This is a major safety concern for CDF fire trucks and Highway 12 traffic. To be considered for the Camp Program, an inmate must satisfy better than aver-age mental and physical requirements. Because of the relative freedom and bet-ter pay, the Program is highly desired. The average inmate stay is eight to twelve months. Eighty- five percent of the inmates work on fire duties, disaster relief, brush removal and creek clearing. The other 15 percent perform other duties such as: clerical support, cooking, laundry and sign making. Inmates are paid $ 1.45 per day. When performing fire fighting duties, they are paid $ 1 per hour. Inmates receive two days off of their sentence for each day served in this Program. Upon completion of training, inmates are either fully certified in firefighting or have received training in other vocational skills. There are 28 staff members at the camp. This includes 17 from CDF and 11 from CDCR. There is one battalion chief who leads the fire staff and one captain who leads the correctional staff. A fire crew consists of 17 inmates, one CDF Fire Captain and one CDCR correctional officer. There are six crews. Crews are housed with their own members in barracks. The Camp provides an on- site, multi- day conjugal and family visitation program which includes a cottage furnished with donated items from concerned individu-als and groups. CDCR provides no funding to maintain this program. In addi-tion, there are substance abuse programs, a craft shop and an exercise room. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 - Turning onto and off Highway 12 from Lambie Road can be danger-ous. Recommendation 1 - The Solano County Transportation Authority and the California Department of Transportation should make safety at this location a high priority when planning the future of Highway 12. Comments The Delta Fire Camp appears to be well managed by both the California Department of Forestry and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Camp provides a positive alternative placement program for incarcerated inmates. The Camp Program develops camaraderie and teamwork among the inmates that helps them adjust for life outside the camp. The inmates also develop self- esteem by learning a skill and helping the community. Affected Agency California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation California Department of Forestry Solano Transportation Authority Courtesy Copy California State Assemblywoman Lois Wolk Solano County Supervisor, Michael Reagan California Department of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION RESPONSE CAL FIRE appreciates that the focus of the report addressed the traffic issues impacting day to day camp operations and safety. As noted in the report, the pri-mary access from camp onto the state highway system is via State Highway 12 at Lambie Road. This highway is an older two lane road which carries a heavy daily load of high speed traffic. Entering onto this highway from Lambie Road presents several safety issues which are of concern. When turning east on Highway 12, the crew busses must immediately climb an uphill grade. While these crew busses are officially called Emergency Crew Transports, they are in fact 17 passenger busses. After crossing the downhill westbound lane, they have relatively little shoulder space to merge into the uphill eastbound lane and reach highway speeds. Similarly, approaching Lambie Road on eastbound Highway 12, there is limited visibility prior to crossing the west-bound lane and entering Lambie Road. CAL FIRE fully supports the recommendation of the Solano County Grand Jury to encourage responsible agencies to make safety a high priority when planning the future of this portion of State Highway 12. Note: Pursuant to Penal Code § 919( b), the Grand Jury shall conduct investiga-tions pertaining to the condition and management of public prisons within the county. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is not required to respond due to the county jurisdictional limitations of the Grand Jury. At the time of this compilation of reports and responses, a response from the Solano Transportation Authority had not been received. Any responses received subsequent will be posted on the Grand Jury website. FOUTS SPRINGS YOUTH FACILITIES 2006- 2007 Solano County Grand Jury Reason for Investigation California Penal Code § 919 Subsection ( b) provides: “ The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” California Penal Code § 925a authorizes a grand jury to examine the books and records of any joint powers agency located in the county. Further a grand jury may investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments, functions and the method or system of performing the duties of the joint powers agency and to make any recommendations it may deem proper and fit. Pursuant to the statutes, the Grand Jury inspected Fouts Springs Youth Facility located in Colusa County. Grand Jury Actions • Met with Fouts Springs Directors and the camp’s staff • Toured and inspected classes • Attended board meeting • Interacted with wards • Reviewed budget report and general statistics • Met briefly with Facility Manager and assistant • Conducted a conference call/ exit interview Background/ Summary Fouts Sprin |
| PDI.Date | 2007 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2007 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 2006-2007. |
| OCLC number | 144643340 |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Grand Jury reports and responses
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...