COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

DATE:

September 23, 2010

BOARD MEETING DATE:

October 5, 2010

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

David S. Boesch, County Manager

SUBJECT:

2009-10 Grand Jury Response to Report Titled Sex Offender Law Enforcement in San Mateo County

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt recommended responses to the 2009-10 Grand Jury report: Sex Offender Law Enforcement in San Mateo County.

BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:

The County is mandated to respond to the Grand Jury within 90 days from the date that reports are filed with the County Clerk and Elected Officials are mandated to respond within 60 days. To that end, attached is the County’s response to the Sex Offender Law Enforcement in San Mateo County report issued on July 14, 2010.

Acceptance of this report contributes to the Shared Vision 2025 outcome of a Collaborative Community by ensuring that all Grand Jury findings and recommendations are thoroughly reviewed by the appropriate County departments and that, when appropriate, process improvements are made to improve the quality and efficiency of services provided to the public and other agencies.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no Net County Cost associated with accepting this report.

Sex Offender Law Enforcement in San Mateo County

Findings:

Staff is in general agreement with the Sheriff’s Office responses to the Grand Jury’s findings (attachment A for reference) with the following additional comments.

The County has made significant cuts to operating departments over the past three years, including law enforcement, to address a $150 million structural budget deficit.

In the last round of reductions, the cuts to the Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office were proportionally smaller (5%) than the cuts to other operating departments (10-20%). Consequently, general purpose revenue allocations to public safety increased from 47% to 52% in FY 2010-11.

It should be noted that the Board of Supervisors has funding authority over the Sheriff’s budget, however, as an elected official, the Sheriff has the authority to allocate discretionary funding to programs he feels are in the best interest of public safety.

In general, the County supports the Sheriff’s approach of cutting discretionary state programs where no state funding is provided.

Recommendations:

The 2009-2010 San Mateo Civil Grand Jury recommends to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and the San Mateo County Sheriff that they:

3. Prioritize funding within the County Probation Department to keep sexual offender recidivism at a relatively low level by re-establishing a permanent, dedicated sexual offender unit.

Response: Agree in part. The County is working with the Probation Department, as with other departments, to develop a sustainable level of service and achieve a balanced budget as part of the County’s five-year structural budget deficit elimination plan. Efforts include assessing current services across all operating departments to determine core, mandated programs and identify non-essential services as well as mandated services provided in excess of minimum service levels (overmatch).

In addition, the County is developing a revised methodology in how it allocates general purpose revenues to operating departments. Once the new methodology is determined the County with work with the Probation Department, as well with other operating departments, to adjust service levels in line with available resources.