California County News

Too Young to Die: Counties Ranked for Highest Youth Homicide Rates

The Violence Policy Center has released an annual study that compares rates of homicide victimization for Californians ages 10 to 24 by county, race, ethnicity, weapons used, circumstance, and location. According to the stats, Monterey County has the highest youth murder rate for the second year in a row with a rate of 24.36 per 100,000. That being said, Monterey’s rate did drop from 31.24 per 100,000 in 2009. It’s also worth noting that out of the 680 homicide victims between ages 10 to 24, 89% were male and 53% were Hispanic. Josh Sugarmann, who co-authored the study, commented:

“The homicide rates for youth and young adults across California show the urgent need for effective violence-prevention strategies that stress tailored, localized approaches that engage local leaders and community stakeholders."

Here the top 10 counties with the highest rates:

1. Monterey County, 24.36 per 100,000
2. Alameda County, 18.41 per 100,000
3. San Joaquin County, 18.36 per 100,000
4. Tulare County, 18.06 per 100,000
5. Merced County, 13.44 per 100,000
6. Contra Costa County, 12.94 per 100,000
7. Fresno County, 11.61 per 100,000
8. San Francisco County, 11.52 per 100,000
9. Madera County, 11.39 per 100,000
10. Los Angeles County, 11.35 per 100,000

Read more about the study here.

Concerns about Double-Taxation Remain as Rural Fire Fee is Revised

The much-hated rural fire fee is back in the news, as a new draft was recently released with several new provisions. The state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection will hold a hearing on January 11th to determine if the latest incarnation will move forward. As a refresher, property owners who fall under State Responsibility Areas (SRA) will have to dole out $150 annually and additional stipulations are sure to enrage critics. For instance, the fee will be $300 if a parcel of land has two single-family homes on it and duplexes will also be subject to the $150 fee. The governor also rejected a smaller fee that was proposed, which would have been $90 due to a series of credits.

There were also previously concerns that jails or hospitals would be charged extra due to ambiguously worded provisions, but new changes state that these types of buildings will be charged the same $150 fee.

Despite strong objections from local government leaders, the administration is sticking to its guns, with Brown commenting that “To me it’s just simple. People need to share the burden of the benefits they receive. That’s the principle.” However, CSAC has called the fee "double-taxation without any additional benefit" for communities that already support local fire stations. The Half Moon Bay reports on how rural residents regard the fee due to concerns about double taxation:

“La Honda stays relatively moist even during the hot summer months and hasn't experienced a major forest fire in over 50 years. Nonetheless, local homeowners agree to pay 1 percent of their property taxes to support the La Honda Fire Brigade, a volunteer fire department that derives most of its annual budget from donations and fundraising. The same goes for Kings Mountain, where residents for decades have held a successful annual art fair to raise money for the local fire station. [A resident] points out a $150 state surcharge would be more than double what he annually pays through taxes and donations for local fire protection.”

Reportedly the fees could take full effect by April. Expect legal challenges, as has been the case with many aspects of the state budget. Taxpayers may be less-than-pleased to hear that of the millions collected, over $3 million will go to the State Board of Equalization as a fee for doing the billing. We relayed previously that while the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection originally revised the fee structure so that rural residents could only be charged a maximum of $90, new appointees to the Board allowed the ultimate fee amount to go higher, as the board was restocked with Brown appointees. The governor took issue with the lowered fee back in August because the Administration and legislators are relying on the revenue for the patched up state budget.

A fact sheet on Cal Fire’s coverage across the state can be seen here.

Critics of Riverside’s Pay-to-Stay Plan Argue Charging Inmates is Not Cost-Effective

Much has been made of Riverside County’s decision to charge prison inmates for their stay in county jail. The supervisors’ recent vote has gained national attention, as incarceration in Riverside will cost $142 a day, which is far higher than what Sacramento charges at $77. In a county that has a very large budget deficit on its hands, finding revenues somewhere is undoubtedly vital, and targeting prisoners is sure to be more amenable then other options in the eyes of the public. However, it is worth noting that many prisoners are poor, and while there will be stipulations about assets, the new ordinance will allow the county to put floating charges on a prisoner’s home or wages. The county has acknowledged that realistically it will only be able to secure around $6 million annually from about 25 percent of the county’s prisoners.

Critics contend that charging inmates ultimately costs more than it would bring in. The Sacramento Bee wrote an editorial about the topic and argued against the “pay to stay” plan. An excerpt can be read here:

“It's unclear how much inmate charges really benefit counties. As the Riverside County attorney noted after supervisors there imposed a jail fee, the vast majority of inmates are indigent. If they manage to accumulate money, they are saddled with victim restitution costs and fines prescribed by law for their offenses or imposed by the courts, obligations which take legal precedence over reimbursing counties for jail costs.

In some cases, recouping jail fees from destitute inmates may cost more than the fees produce in revenues.  But there is another cost society incurs when it piles fees on top of fees on those least able to pay. It makes it more difficult for offenders to reintegrate into society.”

Read the full editorial here. The New York Times reports that other counties are looking to Riverside to see if they should follow suit depending on how the fee works out. Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach is quoted as stating “Sometimes you attack the absurd with the absurd. We’re all messaging to Sacramento that the state has do more than just take our money and download prisoners to us. We’re all finding different ways to scream.”

Santa Clara Sheriff Sued for Process of Awarding Concealed Weapons Permits

Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith is under fire over her department’s process for awarding concealed weapons permits. For instance, a former police officer who owned an investigative firm had his permit request turned down by Smith, so now the Sheriff’s Department is facing a lawsuit for allegedly handing out the permits in an arbitrary manner.

There are also concerns that many current permit holders shouldn’t technically be classified as residents of the county, so it is not clear how the residency status is being defined for many applicants. For instance, one particularly wealthy permit-holder lives in Russia. Sheriffs from Alameda and San Mateo County noted that they ensure applicants are verified residents of their respective counties. Mercury News reports on those who have been awarded permits in Santa Clara:

“The list of 49 "civilian" permit holders released to this newspaper includes 13 people who donated to Smith's campaigns over the years, either personally or through companies connected to them. Also on the list are people whose permits have continually been renewed, even though the original reason for getting the permit appears to no longer apply.”

Sheriff Smith has dished out fewer permits than counties like Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Mateo. You can find a list of all permit holders in Santa Clara County here. A hearing on the lawsuit is slated to take place in January.

Crime Watch: Merced and Monterey County Ranked #1 for Highest Homicide Rate

Merced and Monterey County have been ranked with the highest homicide rate in the state of California, according to a new report from the Department of Justice. Both counties have a homicide rate of 10 per 100,000 residents from 2009 to 2010. Only the 35 most populous counties were considered for the rankings, and for the second year in a row Monterey topped the list. Gang activity in particular is to blame for Monterey’s murder rate, and the city of Salinas is where almost half of the homicides occurred. In Merced, homicides rose by 27 percent in 2010 and gang-related crime is also to blame.

However, there is good news overall, as the state as a whole saw its homicide rate fall to its lowest level in more than four decades; in fact, the rate fell by nearly 8 percent. Other highlights from the Department of Justice report are as follows:

• “80.3 percent of homicide victims were male, 19.7 percent were female.
• 44.5 percent of homicide victims were Hispanic, 29.6 percent were black, 18.2 percent were white, and 7.4 percent were categorized as "other."
• Females were more likely to be killed in their residence, while males were more likely to be killed on streets or sidewalks.
• When the victim-offender relationship was identified, 44.4 percent (the largest proportion) involved victims who were killed by friends or acquaintances. However a greater percentage of black victims were killed by strangers than were white or Hispanic victims (47.7 vs. 25.4 and 35.4, respectively).
• Of homicides where the weapon was identified, the majority (71.2 percent) involved a firearm.
• Of the homicides where the contributing circumstances were known, 36.1 percent were gang-related.”

Placer County was ranked with the lowest homicide rate at .6 per 100,000 residents. News coverage on the rankings can be seen here:

Sonoma Officials Report Controversial ID Policy is Effective; Mexican IDs Recognized as Valid

In October we relayed that authorities in Sonoma County announced that Mexican consular cards (known as Matrícula cards) would be accepted as a valid form of identification in the county, which was a decision that immigrant rights advocates celebrated. The change in policy was notable (and controversial) because it means illegal immigrants pulled over for minor infractions will no longer be arrested for not having valid identification, as many immigrants are ultimately deported under such circumstances. In an update, officials in the county have reported that the policy has not resulted in an increase in crime or traffic collisions. There are over 500 counties across the nation that accept matricula consular cards as a valid form of identification. While there are concerns about the vetting process for the Mexican ID cards, the Chronicle reports:

“Carlos Félix Corona, the Mexican consul general in San Francisco, said the vetting process for issuing the identification cards is similar to the process of applying for a passport. Anyone who applies for a matricula consular card is run through government systems in Mexico. No one with a criminal history will be issued a card, which has watermarks that make it difficult to counterfeit. […] The consulate in San Francisco, which covers 13 counties in Northern California, issues about 150 cards a day, spokeswoman Gabby Mardero said.”

The chairwoman of San Francisco's Republican Party has cautioned against the precedent that the ID policy will set by arguing that the county cannot accept IDs from every other country as well and that it puts federal law into the hands of local law enforcement. Lt. Glenn Lawrence, a Sonoma County Sheriff's Department, commented that “We're just accepting another form of ID to identify somebody. It doesn't change our law enforcement against them."

Santa Clara's Operation Second Chance 2011: Avoiding Jail during the Holidays

Santa Clara County is once again offering its annual gift to residents who are wanted for misdemeanor offenses. To avoid being booked into county jail during the holidays, local law enforcement agencies will allow anyone with a nonviolent misdemeanor warrant or traffic warrant to self-surrender and receive a citation with a new court date. The program is known as Operation Second Chance 2011 and it is available regardless of the bail amount. However, felony warrants and any case that involves violence are exempt from consideration. So is the program actually a success? Mercury News reports:

“It's an understatement to say how popular this program is. In the past six years, more than 2,100 people have taken advantage of the program and avoided spending the holidays in jail by self-surrendering, according to the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. Anyone with a misdemeanor warrant should go to the police agency that issued the arrest to surrender and be released on the spot.”

While some people clearly want to avoid time behind bars during the holidays, others may find the time locked-up a welcome reprieve from holiday madness and annoying family members. At least no one expects any gifts when you’re in the slammer.

RAND Study Says Counties Face Serious Strains in Local Services due to Realignment

We relayed recently that county projections were off when it came to predicting the number of state prisoners that would land in county jails under realignment. Counties are not only scrambling to find extra room for the flood of extra inmates, but the draw on resources could put a strain on county services, according to a new report from the RAND Corp. In a study entitled, “Understanding the Public Health Implications of Prisoner Reentry in California,” the organization argues that local health care and social services programs could suffer under realignment due to the extra demand in resources from local agencies that are already struggling with difficult budgets. The study cautions that counties are ill-equipped to meet the rehabilitative and health care needs of additional inmates at the local level because released prisoners have a high level of health care needs, such as mental health care and alcohol and drug treatment. In addition, if inmates are returned to communities with high poverty and low levels of education, local services are likely to be only further strained. Here are some highlights from the report:

• About two-thirds of California inmates reported having a drug abuse or dependence problem, but only 22 percent of those inmates reported receiving treatment since admission to prison. More than half of California inmates reported a recent mental health problem, with about half of those reporting receiving treatment in prison
• Reentry disproportionately impacts 11 counties statewide and that, within counties, parolees tend to cluster in certain communities and neighborhoods. Such clustering has implications for linking to and providing health care services to this population and for considering how to effectively target reentry resources
• California’s new Public Safety Realignment Plan represents an almost tectonic shift in the state’s criminal justice system that will have a number of implications for thinking about how to meet the health care and rehabilitative needs of the reentry population.
• Public safety realignment presents some challenges, such as the fact that traditional mechanisms for linking ex-prisoners to health care and social services—e.g., parole officers, PACT meetings— will change dramatically for individuals placed on county-level postrelease community supervision and for low-level offenders who will serve their time in county jail.

The study looked closely at Alameda, Los Angeles, San Diego and Kern counties and used focus groups with former prisoners and their families to get a better understanding of the issues at play. The study’s lead author commented that “Investing in treatment for this population may help offset criminal justice costs later. Moreover, expanding access to primary care may help avoid expensive care such as emergency room visits and preventable hospitalizations for this population."

Read the full report here.

County Projections Under Realignment are Off; More Inmates Transferred Than Expected

Now that realignment has been underway for over a month, once again concerns have materialized over the ability and physical capacity of counties to handle the transition and responsibility of handling new inmates due to overcrowding. Based on early signs, it would appear those fears are well placed, as estimates were off when it came to predicting the number of state prisoners that would land in county jails. Consequently, counties have been left to scramble in finding extra room for the flood of extra inmates. For instance, Orange County has taken in double the amount of prisoners it was expecting and Los Angeles County has taken on an extra 300 prisoners than it was expecting. Fresno County has also taken on twice as many inmates as projected. The problem for counties is not just space but time, as many did not anticipate having to book so many inmates so soon. Many parole violators have been released in light of the lack of beds. The Fresno Bee reports on the spacing problems facing local authorities in Fresno:

“Public safety leaders have feared the state-mandated charge, which started Oct. 1, would lead to jail overcrowding and early releases of inmates. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims said that appears increasingly likely. Instead of the jail population increasing by the roughly 500 in two years that the state projected, the jail is on track to have several hundred more than that, Mims said. ‘We're not going to have the room for all of these inmates,’ Mims said.”

In Orange County, officials fear current inmate levels mean that jails could reach capacity by May. In Kern, facilities have already been crammed, so 50 parole violators ended up being freed. House-arrest programs and electronic monitors will all have to be considered as counties grapple with spacing issues, but the time to set up such programs is an issue. As for why there are more inmates than expected, the LA Times points out that “State officials and some sheriffs believe the higher-than-projected number of state prisoners being sent to jails has occurred in part because defense attorneys waited until realignment took effect to settle their clients' cases.”

Fallout over Pot Raid in Mendocino County Leaves Authorities Frustrated

Local law enforcement authorities in Mendocino County are expressing frustration over the federal government’s aggressive approach toward medical marijuana operations in recent weeks, as the feds have not directly communicated whether or not the county’s permit ordinance is in violation of federal law, according to Sheriff Tom Allman. Mendocino has a permitting program that was found to be legal under California law and many applicants have taken advantage of its availability. But the Sheriff’s Department is feeling squeezed as it tries to navigate between state, local, and federal guidelines. After a major grower’s operation was raided, there is fear in the county that others could be raided, which local authorities say could jeopardize the success of the permitting process and the legal outlet that it provides. PBS News Hour filed the following report on the county’s predicament and the response to the raid:

In an interview with CA Watch, Supervisor John McCowen commented the following about the impact of the raid:

“I think the impact to the extent that it creates a ripple effect – whatever the intention of the federal authorities – will be to drive the production of medical marijuana back underground. And taken in concert with the other actions that have been accounted regarding dispensaries, like the IRS actions to disallow normal costs of operating – all of that together has the impact of making marijuana more illegal, more dangerous, more profitable for the black market operators. I think the raid further endangers public safety. Our program, by bringing the production of medical marijuana above-ground into a strictly regulated program where it's inspected by the sheriff, arguably tremendously increases public safety and environmental protection. If the raid drives people out of the program and back underground, it will have the opposite effect."

McCowen is a strong support of the county’s permitting program. More can be seen here.