Quick Take
In June, the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury published a highly critical investigation into the conditions and mental health care inside the county’s jails. On Tuesday, the sheriff’s office submitted its formal response to the investigation, disputing nearly all of its findings.
On the same day that incoming sheriff Chris Clark acknowledged the “need to improve the facilities charged with medical and mental health care for our incarcerated population” in Santa Cruz County, the sheriff’s office submitted a formal rejection of a recent investigation criticizing the living conditions and mental health care inside the county jail system.
Published by the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury in June, the investigative report immediately drew the ire of Sheriff Jim Hart. The civil grand jury, a citizen-led government watchdog mandated by the state in each county, is required to publish an investigation related to the county jail each year. Hart, at the time, said the investigation was the “most factually inaccurate” report he’d seen in 36 years with the sheriff’s office, a criticism he reemphasized during a one-on-one interview with Lookout in August.
“There wasn’t a single item that we agreed with that they called out,” Hart told Lookout earlier this month. “We’re not usually defensive on these, but after reading that, it was an unbelievably slanted report.”
The civil grand jury report turned up 16 findings, many of which criticized the treatment of inmates suffering from mental illness. In its response, required by the civil grand jury process, the sheriff’s office disagreed with 15 of those findings.
The civil grand jury claimed the jail’s corrections officers were improperly placing inmates suffering from mental illness in solitary confinement for “excessively long periods,” and using isolation cells as a form of punishment. The sheriff flat-out rejected this claim, and leaned heavily on “a recent” inspection report from the Board of State and Community Corrections. The most recent report published by the BSCC was in October 2023, and determined the jail properly used its isolation cells and did not use them for punishment.
For example, the grand jury’s fifth finding read, “The use of safety cells for punishment has resulted in violations of Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s Policy and Procedures Manual policy 516.2. This may expose the Sheriff’s department to lawsuits.”
The sheriff’s office rebuffed the claim, writing, “[The] recent 2024 Title 15 Inspection specifically noted in the comments ‘safety cell is not used for punishment’ and we were found to be in compliance with Safety Cell use. The Sheriff’s Office is unaware of safety cells being used as punishment. As this report cites, the Sheriff’s Office Corrections Policy 516.2 states, ‘A sobering or safety cell shall not be used as punishment or as a substitute for treatment.’ – The Sheriff’s Office abides by this policy and denies using safety cells as punishment.”
The grand jury also drew up 14 recommendations for the sheriff’s office to improve conditions and mental health treatment in the jails, four of which explicitly called out Wellpath, the much-criticized national private health care provider that contracted with the jail. The sheriff’s office did not renew its contract with Wellpath, which expired in June. The jail’s new health care provider is NaphCare.
The sheriff’s office said it largely disagreed with the reasoning behind each of the recommendations. Among them was a recommendation that the county reopen the second unit at Rountree in Watsonville so more inmates could be placed in low- and medium-security facilities with classes and more outdoor space. The sheriff said his office did not have enough staff to reopen that unit, and didn’t have a timeline on its reopening because staffing levels continue to fluctuate.
Although it didn’t pertain specifically to jail conditions, the most contested claim from the grand jury report was that the sheriff’s office did not make inmates available for interviews, and barred the grand jury investigators from observing classes. At the time of the report, Hart told Lookout the grand jury’s interview request was “highly unusual” because they allegedly weren’t specific in whom they wanted to speak with. However, Hart said he would comply if the grand jury issued a subpoena, which they never did.
“The Sheriff’s Office did not deny access to the grand jury,” the office wrote in its response. “We asked them to provide a subpoena to interview incarcerated individuals. The Sheriff’s Office is unaware of who denied access for the grand jury to observe classes or programs.”
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.