Rebuilding Trust - CIVIC Report | Criminal Legal News

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Header

Rebuilding Trust - CIVIC Report

• Feb. 1, 2018 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Immigration

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Rebuilding Trust:
A Case Study for Closing & Repurposing Immigration Detention Facilities
Copyright © February 2018
Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC)
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Cover Design by Liz Martinez

The primary author and editor of this report is Christina
Fialho of CIVIC. Other contributors included Rebecca
Merton, Cynthia Galaz, and Christina Mansfield of
CIVIC; Daisy Ramirez of the ACLU of Southern
California; Michael Russo of Advancement Project
California; and Neal Payton and Timothy Nash of Torti
Gallas + Partners. Special thanks to Lauren Ellis, a law
student at UC Irvine School of Law who assisted with
legal analysis.

CIVIC
CIVIC is a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
incorporated in the state of California. CIVIC has
extensive experience in assessing immigration detention
conditions, working with the LGBTQI community, and
developing and implementing alternative to detention
programs. CIVIC has affiliated visitation programs at
over 40 immigration detention facilities nationwide.
These programs allow volunteers to build one-on-one
relationships with people in immigration detention to
provide a connection to the outside world and assess
immigration detention conditions on a weekly basis.
CIVIC began visiting and assessing conditions at the
Santa Ana City Jail in 2012. You can learn more at
www.endisolation.org.

Torti Gallas + Partners
Torti Gallas + Partners was established in 1953 and
maintains a global practice of planning, architecture and
urban design with offices in Los Angeles, California,
Silver Spring, Maryland, Washington, DC, Tampa,
Florida and Istanbul, Turkey. The firm is one of the
largest planning and architectural firms in the United
States dedicated to advancing the principles of the New
Urbanism and Smart Growth to meet the challenges of
our time. Torti Gallas has extensive experience with all
scales of master planning and building projects in the
residential, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and commercial
markets, applying jurisdictional needs and code
requirements in local, national and international markets.

With extensive experience in the public and private
sectors, Torti Gallas takes pride in balancing the diverse
needs of communities with the realities of the
marketplace to arrive at buildable solutions that bring
value to our clients and to the communities in which we
work. In applying this successful, market-focused
balance, Torti Gallas has designed over 475,000
residential units and planned over 1,500 residential and
mixed-use communities. Learn more at
www.tortigallas.com.

Advancement Project
Advancement Project is a next generation, multiracial
civil rights organization. In California, the organization
champions the struggle for greater equity and
opportunity for all, fostering upward mobility in
communities most impacted by economic and racial
injustice. Advancement Project California builds
alliances and trust, uses data-driven policy solutions,
creates innovative tools, and works alongside
communities to ignite social transformation. For more
information, visit www.advancementprojectca.org.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of
Southern California
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern
California (ACLU SoCal) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization that works daily in courts, legislatures and
communities to defend the principles of liberty and
equality embodied in the Constitution and our nation’s
civil rights laws. Learn more at www.aclusocal.org.

Special thanks to:
We would like to thank The California Endowment for
funding this report. We also are thankful to all the
individuals who have shared their stories, experiences,
and opinions, with special gratitude to Resilience
Orange County, Santa Ana residents, and people who
have been jailed and detained at the Santa Ana City Jail.

Rebuilding Trust:
A Case Study for Closing & Repurposing Immigration Detention Facilities
Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………...…………………………………………………………………3
Methodology……………………………………………….…………………………………………….5
History of Santa Ana…………………………………………………………………………………….7
Jail Reuse Assessment………………………………………………………………………………….16
Civil & Human Rights Conditions in the Santa Ana City Jail………………………………………....50
City & Community-Based Partnerships on Alternatives to Immigration Detention…………………..67

Executive Summary
a.

Purpose

Many cities and counties have been facing increased
pressure to decrease jail space or completely close their
jails. Since 2011, at least 22 states have closed or
announced closures for 94 state prisons and juvenile
facilities, resulting in the elimination of over 48,000 state
prison beds and an estimated cost savings of over $345
million, according to the Sentencing Project.1 California
is one of four states that has reduced its prison
population by over 20%, made possible by ballot
initiatives that have curbed the state’s “three strikes and
you’re out” law, expanded parole eligibility, limited the
process governing juveniles tried as adults, and
authorized the reclassification of certain felonies as
misdemeanors.2 As part of the state budget, California
signed into law a bill in 2017 to halt the growth of
municipal-run immigration detention facilities for the
next 10 years.3 And in October 2017, California also
signed into law the Dignity Not Detention Act, which
effectively eliminates the expansion of for-profit
immigration detention facilities in the state.
While there are many examples of counties and cities
closing their correctional facilities due to decreased
incarceration levels, human rights violations, and
budgetary decisions, very few—if any jails—have been
closed in a specific effort to repurpose them to meet the
community’s needs. Counties and cities that have closed
their correctional facilities have eventually repurposed
them in exciting and innovative ways. For example,
facilities have been converted into refugee housing,
museums and special events venues, a movie studio, a
distillery, and a live-work space with condominiums,
office buildings, shops, and restaurants. While
correctional facility closures offer a challenge to officials
and the communities that are impacted, they also offer
municipalities the opportunity to actively address the
scale of incarceration and strengthen their own
communities.
The City of Santa Ana, California, which previously
used its city jail as an immigration detention facility in
contract with U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
(ICE), became a “sanctuary city” by local ordinance in
early 2017. Shortly after declaring itself a “sanctuary
city,” ICE terminated its contract with the City. The City
also issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a jail
reuse study to determine whether the City can and should

completely repurpose its jail. As part of the original
RFQ, the City also requested analysis on how the City
could be involved in community-based alternatives to
immigration detention.

While this report has been created for the
City of Santa Ana, California, it also acts as
a guide for any municipality that is
considering repurposing its jail, prison, or
immigration detention facility. During the
1990’s, a new jail, prison, or immigration detention
facility was built every 15 days. These jails were
constructed in a significantly different way from historic
jails, and therefore, repurposing them presents unique
challenges and opportunities. This report will assist any
community looking to launch a campaign or collaborate
with city leaders to repurpose a Clinton administrationera jail.
The report has three main components: a jail reuse
assessment; a jail conditions assessment, including an
analysis of human and civil rights conditions at the Santa
Ana City Jail; and an analysis of ways municipalities can
support alternatives to immigration detention.
b.

Findings & Recommendations

Jail is currently operating at a significant
deficit for the City. Taking as comprehensive a
view as possible of both costs and revenues, the deficit is
about $8.6 M in FY18. It would be inaccurate to
attribute this deficit to the recent cancellation of the ICE
contract because the FY18 deficit represents only a slight
increase over what the City has been accustomed to
running. This analysis suggests that well before the
cancellation of the ICE contract, the Santa Ana City Jail
appears to have been a fiscal albatross around the neck of
the City. Equally important, these deficits are not wholly
attributable to the need to repay the outstanding costs of
borrowing; in each year since FY15, jail-specific
revenues have failed to cover the operating costs of the
facility.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/repurposingnew-beginnings-closed-prisons/
2
Id.
3
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/california-deals-blowto-trumps-plan-to-expandimmigrant?utm_term=.ka1B52aqD#.krE9pOZmz

The City will not be able to close the jail overnight even
if it decides that this is the best option. Nevertheless,

if the City were to transition the jail facility
into an urban farm, a shared artist studio, or

a community-based reentry center within
the coming year, calculations suggest that
these uses could defray some of the facility’s
outstanding costs, as well as provide a public
benefit.
In addition to helping the City pull itself out of its current
deficit, these options not only provide a public benefit,
but also prevent more harm from occurring within the
City jail. We analyzed records maintained by the City of
Santa Ana about grievances filed by people previously
and currently held at the jail. We found that the

most common grievance submitted by people
detained at the Santa Ana City Jail from
2014 to 2017 focused on the inadequate
medical care provided at the facility. For
example, the medical unit found two masses on the right
breast of a woman inmate and another mass on her left
breast. The medical department told her that the masses
are not malignant. However, there is no way a medical
doctor could claim this with any medical certainty
because the medical unit refused to biopsy the masses or
allow her to seek a second opinion from another doctor.
Other issues we examine in this report include prolonged
solitary confinement, inappropriate classifications of
inmates, excessive or inappropriate disciplinary actions;
unhygienic food service; and lack of access to the law
library, mail, visits, the commissary, jail programming,
and the telephone. In addition, lengthy and frequent
lockdowns were reported as well as violations of
religious freedom, exploitation of workers, and other
kinds of unfair treatment. For example, one person was
held in solitary confinement for 11 months and
experienced audible hallucinations and muscle atrophy.
Other evidence showed that both inmates and facility
auditors have expressed concern that the food service
workers are not given the proper equipment or training to
prevent the transmission of bacteria or disease.

Only by closing the jail and repurposing it
can the City rectify the toxic environment
that its jail has created for the community.
However, this alone is not enough to correct for the
City’s past failures, particularly with respect to its
treatment of immigrants. As a self-proclaimed sanctuary
city that operated one of our country’s most notable
immigration detention facilities, the City of Santa Ana
has an obligation to consider piloting or supporting a
community-based alternative to immigration detention.
Specifically, the

City of Santa Ana should
consider repurposing the Santa Ana City
Jail as a Community-Based Reentry Center,
which would open the City up to additional grant
opportunities. The Center could serve people returning
home to Orange County, particularly to Santa Ana, from
prison and immigration detention. The City could
employ a blended model and combine cognitivebehavioral treatments with skills oriented programming,
including work opportunities, job training, and a
community garden. Both reentry clients as well as the
entire community would have access to these programs,
which would help in reintegrating clients into their
community. For example, clients returning home could
operate a small farmers market or vegetable stand by
selling produce from the garden.

The City should also assist in the creation of
a Revolving Immigration Bond Fund, which
would be sustained by a public/private
partnership. The Revolving Immigration Bond Fund
would ensure that no immigrant would remain
imprisoned in immigration detention in Orange County
for years or months simply because they are poor. Paired
with case management and social services that the
California legislature and the City of Santa Ana have
already partially invested in, such as legal services, this
Revolving Immigration Bond Fund could lead the nation
in immigration detention reform.

The City of Santa Ana is at risk of losing millions of
dollars defending and settling claims against its jail. The
conditions individuals incarcerated at the Santa Ana City
Jail are forced to endure are at best deficient. We believe
many of the situations we have documented at the Santa
Ana City Jail raise state and federal legal concerns. For
example, dozens of cases involving absent or negligent
medical treatment have resulted in large settlements or
jury awards against cities, such as in the 2014 lawsuit
against the City of San Diego, in which untreated asthma
resulted in the death of an inmate. Brummett and Sisson
on Behalf of Sisson, Estate of v. City. of San Diego, JVR
No. 1504220025, 2014 WL 8664199 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10,
2014) (verdict and settlement summary).
4

I. Methodology
This report was funded by The California Endowment
and administered by Community Initiatives for Visiting
Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC), a nonprofit
organization, in association with Torti Gallas + Partners,
the Advancement Project, and the American Civil
Liberties Union of Southern California. Our Reuse
Study has been created as a shadow report to the Santa
Ana City-funded jail reuse study conducted by the City’s
contractor, Vanir Construction Management Inc.

these meetings we administered two surveys to learn
more about what the needs of the community are and
how residents envisioned a reuse of the jail.
Simultaneously, Torti Gallas gathered precedents of
other jail and prison adaptive reuse projects in the United
States and abroad. By comparing the community needs
with the options for adaptive reuse, the Torti Gallas team
came up with a few options that would benefit the
community and be economically viable.

In December 2016, the City of Santa Ana issued a
Request for Qualifications (RFQ). After awarding the
RFQ to Vanir Construction Management4—a firm
known for its jails expansion models—the City changed
the scope of the reuse study to no longer include an
assessment of human and civil rights conditions at the
jail or analysis of alternatives to immigration detention.
The original study was to include three main
components: a jail reuse assessment; a jail conditions
assessment, including an analysis of human and civil
rights conditions; and an analysis of alternatives to
immigration detention. Our reuse study addresses each
of these components.
a.

Torti Gallas + Partners intended to conduct the jail reuse
assessment at no cost to the City. However, the City was
unwilling to provide us with copies of the topographical
plot plan or floor plans of the Santa Ana City Jail.
Although Torti Gallas was willing to sign a
nondisclosure agreement and submit to any background
checks or security protocols, the City was unwilling to
provide us with the necessary documents to do a full jail
reuse study. However, we did tour the facility on
September 11, 2017, where we were able to conduct a
survey of the site and surrounding area to gain a better
understanding of the community character.
In order for the City to make an informed decision about
which option the community most wants to see the City
pursue, we conducted three community meetings. During

Jail Reuse Assessment

For example, Vanir’s “jail reuse study” for Los Angeles
County resulted in five multi-billion dollar jail expansion
options. In San Diego County, Vanir was the construction
management company responsible for building the Women’s
Detention Facility in Santee, which is nearly triple the size of the
old facility. In Indio, Vanir is currently at work constructing the
East County Detention Center, which will add 1,273 new jail
cells for Riverside County. Vanir also is building the
new Tuolumne County Juvenile Detention Facility to incarcerate
more youth. See here for more details:
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/04/04/santa-anas-motto-jailsnot-schools.

To ensure that these options are fiscally possible for the
City, the Advancement Project developed a budget
proposal for how these options could be carried out by
the City given current financial realities. Torti Gallas
created Photoshop renderings of the Santa Ana City Jail
interior to showcase some of the suggested options for
reuse.
b.

Jail Conditions Assessment

In conducting a jail conditions assessment, it is best to
assess the conditions over a period of time. Ideally, our
assessment would have included a series of surveys
administered in multiple languages, ongoing assessment
through randomly selected visitation dates/times, and
analysis of data maintained by the City or other
government agencies responsible for the population
detained at the Santa Ana City Jail. In an attempt to
make contact with people on the inside, we mailed an
introduction letter and survey to 10 individuals who filed
grievances within the past year at the Santa Ana City
Jail. Of the 10 envelopes that were sent, four were
returned and stamped “Return to Sender” and “No
Longer in Santa Ana Jail Custody.” We did not receive a
response for the remaining six envelopes. An attempt to
follow up with individuals through official visitation was
unsuccessful. The City Jail’s security clearance process
requires applicants to submit personal information for
each individual to be visited, including register numbers,
which we did not have at the time and were unable to
obtain. Unfortunately, due to privacy concerns voiced to

us by the City Jail Administrator, we were unable to
establish contact with people currently detained at the
Santa Ana City Jail to administer these surveys.
Therefore, to learn more about the conditions of
confinement at the Santa Ana City Jail (SACJ) and
determine how responsive the facility has been to these
complaints, CIVIC filed a California Public Records Act
request on July 26, 2017, which requested the following
records, among others:
•

•

the number of grievances filed at the SACJ
since January 2014 and the subject of the
grievances, including data on which complaints
were investigated and what the outcomes or
decisions of the investigations were, as well as
the reasons for any decisions not to investigate
complaints or take action;
any grievances or complaints filed with the City
of Santa Ana; the County of Orange; or the
SACJ by people detained/incarcerated at the
SACJ since January 2014; and

•

any audits conducted by state or federal
agencies, by companies, or by any other audit
body since January 2014.

This report provides an analysis of the data and reports
we received from the City of Santa Ana.
c.

Alternatives to Immigration Detention

This report provides an overview of the landscape of
alternatives to immigration detention in the United States
with some examples of how cities in the U.S. and in
Europe are supporting community-based alternatives to
detention. This report also provides legal analysis for the
City on who could be supported by a community-based
alternative to detention and on the various ways the City
could be involved with community-based alternatives to
detention.

II. History of the Santa Ana City Jail
a.

Overview of the City of Santa Ana

The City of Santa Ana is located in Orange County,
California. Orange County is the 6th most populous
county in the United States.5 In California, 28.2% of the
population is immigrants, which is double the national
average.6 In Orange County, 31.5% of the population is
immigrants.7 There are seven cities in Orange County
where the foreign-born percentage of the total population
is greater than Orange County’s county-wide average,
and the City of Santa Ana is at the top of the list.8 In the
City of Santa Ana, 46.7% of the population is
immigrants.9
In the City of Santa Ana, 78.2% of the population is
Hispanic, followed by Asians (10%) and Whites
(9.6%).10 Approximately 108,000 people in Santa Ana
are non-citizens, which is nearly 33% of the entire city
population.11 In addition, 48,900 people are naturalized
citizens, which is nearly 15% of the population.12 Most
immigrants in Santa Ana are from Mexico (75.2%),
Vietnam (11%), and El Salvador (4.1%).13
Among Orange County’s immigrant population, 93.3%
are employed.14 In fact, Orange County’s immigrant
business entrepreneurs account for 40.9% of all business
owners in the county.15 Orange County’s immigrant
population contributes approximately $2.2 billion
annually in state and local income taxes and
approximately $5.9 billion annually in total income
taxes.16 Santa Ana’s immigrant population makes $2.53
billion annually in pre-tax wages and salary income.17
Despite the significant contribution immigrants are
making to the City of Santa Ana, many are living under
the poverty line. While Santa Ana’s median annual

“Orange County Immigration Profile,” Orange County
Opportunity Initiative, September 2017.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
https://statisticalatlas.com/place/California/SantaAna/National-Origin (data analyzed from the US Census
Bureau, specifically from the 2010 (latest) census, and from the
2009-2013 (latest) American Community Survey).
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
“Orange County Immigration Profile,” Orange County
Opportunity Initiative, September 2017.
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
Email between Christina Fialho of CIVIC and Tom Wong of
the University of California at San Diego and author of the
“Orange County Immigration Profile.”

income is $52,519, 22% of the city’s population
lives in poverty.18 The median rent for a Santa Ana
apartment has increased by 9.3%, which is a sharper
increase than the average rent increase in Orange
County, where the median rose only 6.8%.19 In part, this
has resulted in an increase in homelessness in the City,
particularly in the city’s Civic Center where the Santa
Ana City Jail is located.20
b.

Overview of the Santa Ana City Jail & Its
Contracts

The Santa Ana City Jail is located at the corner of Boyd
Way and 6th Street, a block away from City Hall. This
is less than 500 feet from the Orange County Sheriff’s
Department Central Jail Complex, which includes the
Intake/Release Center, Central Men’s Jail and Central
Women’s Jail.
The current zoning of the site is Government Center
(GC) with Single-Family Residence (R-1) to the west
and north. West Civic Center Drive runs east-west to the
north of the site, North Shelton St runs north-south on
the west side of the street, Boyd Way to the east runs
north-south, and to the south is West 6th St running eastwest. The site is public transit accessible via the bus
system.
The south and east sides of the jail front on W 6th St and
Boyd Way both with 10-foot sidewalks on the building
frontage sides. The south faces a large parking lot and

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santaanacitycalifo
rnia/PST045216
19
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-worker-cooperatives20160817-snap-story.html
20
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/18/to-discouragehomeless-encampment-santa-ana-is-banning-structures-andother-property-at-civic-center/

the east faces a parking structure. The site is one block
away to the west from the Santa Ana Stadium. The
stadium, also known as Eddie West Field or Santa Ana
Bowl, is city-owned and operated and has a 9,000capacity for football and soccer. The main uses are high
school and college football along with high school and
college commencement ceremonies.
Heroes Elementary School is to the northwest of the site
area and fronts on West Civic Center Drive. There are
bikes lanes going in both directions on this road. To the
west of the side along North Shelton St there are single
family homes. These are mostly one-story bungalows.
About ¾-miles to the southwest is the Historic Santa Ana
Downtown area.

Between September 2016 and August 2017, the smallest
number of people arrested in the City of Santa Ana and
booked into the Santa Ana City Jail on one day was zero
and the largest was 33 people. On average, between seven
and eight people per day are arrested in Santa Ana and
booked into the Santa Ana City Jail before being
transferred to the Orange County jail system. The Santa
Ana School Police booked an additional 21 youth in total
between September 2016 and August 2017. The Santa
Ana City Jail booked an additional 16 people from Irvine,
35 people from Fountain Valley, and 35 people from
Tustin in total during this time period (see diagram on next
page).

The Santa Ana City Jail has 512 beds, mostly set up in
module units, each holding up to 64 people. There are 224
double occupancy cells for a total of 448 beds used for
general population. There are 32 single occupant cells for
administrative segregation. On the second floor, the jail
has two dorm style units, one houses 14 people and the
other houses 18 used for general population housing. Also
on the second floor, the jail has 5 court holding cells with
a maximum capacity of 10 each for staging inmates
scheduled to go out to court. In booking, on the first floor,
the jail has two detox cells with a maximum capacity of 4
each and 7 holding cells with maximum capacity of 4
each. Arrestees may not be housed in booking per policy.

The City of Santa Ana first began contracting with the
federal government to detain people in a form of
immigration custody in 1996 at the Santa Ana Detention
Facility and then when the City Jail opened in 1997. In
2006, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE)
entered into a separate agreement with the City to house
up to 200 people in immigration detention. In 2011, the
City also began operating what ICE referred to as the only
“dedicated protective custody unit” for Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender immigrants.
In addition to the ICE contract, the City also has
maintained contracts with the U.S. Marshals Service and
the Federal Bureau of Prisons to hold people in criminal
custody for extended periods of time. The Santa Ana
Police Department uses the Santa Ana City Jail to book
and process people who are arrested for suspected
criminal activity within their jurisdiction before
transferring them to the county jail system. The City also
contracts with Fountain Valley, Irvine, and Tustin to book
residents of those cities into the Santa Ana City Jail before
being transferred to the county jail.21
The total number of people booked and processed for
criminal charges on a daily basis is extremely small.

CIVIC California Public Record Request, September 2017.

Overview of Santa Ana City Jail Budget

This section presents the findings from our analysis of
Santa Ana budget documents and other materials related
to the costs and revenues associated with the Santa Ana
City Jail. Section 1 lays out the current costs and
revenues to present a picture of the jail’s current fiscal
status. Section 2 builds on the previous analysis by
projecting how the fiscal picture might change were the
jail to be closed and dedicated to a different use.
Throughout the analysis, when it becomes necessary to
make estimates or assumptions about cost and revenue
numbers, we make the most conservative choices
possible—that is, choices that tend to minimize the costs
of operating the jail and maximize its revenues—in order
to avoid potential objections.

Current fiscal status of the jail

This subsection provides an overview of current budget
issues relevant to the jail, running through operating
costs (which the City divides between Jail Operations
costs and Building and Facilities costs), the outstanding
jail construction debt, and jail-related revenues. We then
provide a historical analysis of the past few years’
spending and revenues, and conclude by examining the
claim that Santa Ana realizes a “city benefit” from
operating the jail. Taken together, our analysis finds that
in recent years, the ongoing costs of the jail have been
notably higher than the revenue it generates, even when
the ICE contract was still ongoing.

1.2.

Operating costs
i.

Pre-Marshals Service contract

The City’s FY18 adopted budget lays out the operating
costs associated with the jail’s operations, via the Jail
Operations budget unit ( see pp. 2-99 to 2-100). They
largely consist of salaries and benefits for jail personnel,

as well as more modest contract costs for professional
services and commodity costs. Utility and maintenance
costs for the facility are not included in this budget unit
(see Section II.A.2, below, for more details). Costs have
varied significantly in recent years, due to the changes
the Council has made to its contract arrangements. The
budget shows total costs for FY18 coming to $11.8 M,
down from $17.4 M the year prior (id., p. 2-100):

The significant reduction in costs between FY17 and FY18 is largely attributable to proposed reductions in jail staff, which
would have dropped from a total of 116 FTE to 83 FTE (id.):

ii.

Post-Marshals Service contract

In August 2017, the Council voted to approve a new, two-year contract with the U.S. Marshals Service to house an
additional 173 prisoners (see staff memo). The cost impact of this amendment to the budget was to add $5.9 M to the FY18
jail operations budget, and 13 additional FTE positions. The new operating costs now total $17.8 M:

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18

FY18 plus
Marshal
Contract

Operating Personnel

$12,521,490

$12,381,084

$14,166,865

$10,254,779

$13,434,832

Operating Contract

$2,801,644

$3,139,518

$2,895,420

$1,393,003

$4,025,142

Operating Commodities
Operating Fixed
Charges

$280,448

$339,537

$267,840

$158,324

$271,043

$28,248

$28,968

$29,820

$34,481

SUM COSTS

$15,631,830

$15,889,108

$17,359,945

$11,840,587

$17,765,498

FY17
Adopted

FY18
Adopted

FY18 plus Marshal

Jail Administrator

1.00

Police Administrative Manager

1.00

0.00

Correctional Supervisor

10.00

6.00

8.00

Correctional Officer

69.00

61.00

71.00

Security Electronics Technician

1.00

0.00

Senior Office Assistant

1.00

Lead Correctional Records Specialist

4.00

Senior Correctional Records Specialist

9.00

8.00

Correctional Records Specialist (P/T)

1.00

Correctional Services Officer (P/T)

18.00

0.00

Senior Clerical Aide (P/T)

1.00

Correctional Manager

0.00

1.00

SUM FTES

116.00

83.00

96.00

Staff FTEs have changed as follows:

1.3

Building costs

The City’s budget does not separately break out the jail
building utilities and maintenance costs from costs
associated with the overall police facility in their public
budget. Instead, all of these costs are combined in a
separate Police Department Building and Facility budget
unit, with spending for the combined unit budgeted at
$3.4 M (see pp. 2-65 and 2-66 of the FY18 budget). As
a result it seems to be the case that when the City
discusses the cost of the jail, it does not include these
costs. For example, the City’s May 17, 2016 update on
the jail (p. 65A-3) refers to the cost of operating the jail
as $16.6 M. This number roughly tracks the FY16 Jail
Operations total expense operation listed in the nearlycontemporaneous FY16 adopted budget (p. 2-100), and
therefore does not seem to include an allocated share of
the Building and Facility budget unit’s costs.

This exclusion may lead to a significant underestimate of
the true cost of operating the facility. Rough bounds for
the portion of this budget unit’s expenditures allocable to
the jail can be obtained by first noting that in FY17,
1,553 of the total 2,596 work orders (60%) were
generated by the jail, rather than the PD, portion of the
building (id., 2-65), which appears to roughly be in line
with the experience of recent years. On the other hand,
the 168,243 square feet of the jail facility (see Vanir
report, p. 65A-5) represent roughly a third of the 500,000
square feet that comprise the total facility (see FY18
adopted budget, p. 2-65). The fact that the share of
maintenance requests for the jail is much higher than its
share of the square footage suggests that as a highintensity use, jail operations are responsible for a
disproportionate share of maintenance costs relative to
other areas of the facility. Nonetheless, a conservative
estimate would be to use the one-third share based on
square footage, which would put building costs allocable

to the jail at $1.1 M for FY18 (with similar costs in
recent prior years).
Taken together, the Jail Operations costs and the share of
Building and Facilities costs for the jail appear to total
roughly $18.9 M in FY18.
1.4

Indirect costs

Operating the jail also creates costs for the City beyond
the direct expenditures associated with staffing and
maintaining the facility. For example, the Police
Department’s Human Resources and Fiscal and Budget
offices presumably spend some portion of their time
supporting jail staff and operations, and a portion of the
City’s centralized payroll expenditures likewise are
allocable to the jail. And a portion of the City Manager
and City Council’s time are certainly taken up dealing
with jail operations. These costs are not insignificant,
given that jail staff represent about 8% of the City’s total
FTEs (see FY18 proposed budget presentation). A 2014
City memo suggested that the total indirect costs came to
$1.1 M and $1.2 M in FYs 14 and 15, respectively.
However, we do not include a detailed treatment of these
costs in this memo, largely because it is not clear to what
extent changes to jail operations will lead to direct
changes in expenditures from support functions, versus
simply leading to workload shifts—for example, the City
Manager’s salary would presumably not be reduced
because the complexity of the job would be lower
without a City jail, and expenditures on items such as
payroll processing would likely not be impacted.
1.5

Debt service

The City originally borrowed $107.4 million in bonds in
1994 to assist with the cost of constructing the combined
jail/police headquarters facility, with a 30-year
repayment term (i.e., with the final payments coming in
FY24). Since then, Santa Ana has refinanced portions of
the debt in both 2004 and 2014 to take advantage of
lower interest-rate environments. The debt is now spread
across two separate capital funds—the Police Building
Debt Service Fund and the COSA 2014 Lease Financing
Debt Service Fund. This latter fund also pays for a
portion of the 1998 borrowing associated with a City
Hall expansion project (see FY18 budget, pp. 7-20 – 723).
In FY18, payments from the funds total to $4,622,660
from the Police Building Fund and $5,168,480 from the
COSA Fund (the vast majority of which will go to bond
interest and principal repayment, with a total of $21,000
going for professional services to manage the bonds).
However, as mentioned above, a portion of this payment
is traceable to borrowing for a City Hall expansion,

rather than the police headquarters/jail. Fortunately, the
two bond issues are on a different repayment schedule,
with the headquarters/jail repayments ceasing in FY24
and the City Hall repayments ending in FY28. The city
hall payments out of the COSA Fund are projected to
range between $730,531 and $735,094 from FY25FY28, which is likely to be similar to the pre-FY25 years
as well and, therefore, suggests that an estimate of the
Fund’s FY18 repayment amount traceable to the police
building would be around $4.4 million.
The total FY18 debt service cost for the combined
facility is therefore roughly $9.0 M (from future year
projections included in the budget, this appears to be
roughly the cost expected each year through FY24).
City personnel have stated that the portion attributable to
the jail is roughly $3 M (see e.g. the May 2016 update, p.
3). Notably, this one-third share is similar to the jail’s
share of the total facility square footage, as discussed in
Section II.A.2 above.
1.6

Revenues

The City’s FY18 adopted budget identifies several
revenue items specifically associated with the jail, and as
mentioned, the August contract with the U.S. Marshals
Service will bring in additional funding for the city (see
FY18 adopted budget, pp. General Fund Summary – 1 –
4, staff report on Marshals Service contract). By far the
largest of these items is the Police Department Jail
Facility Rental line in the Use of Money category,
representing contract payments from other entities for
use of the facility’s beds. Also of interest is the “jail
reuse” revenue item, budgeted at $400,000—from the
budget document, it is unclear whether there is a specific
proposal associated with this revenue, and whether it
remains viable given the adoption of the Marshal Service
contract, but to be as conservative as possible we
continue to include it.
Beyond these jail-specific revenues, we note that when
the City did its initial borrowing in 1994, per
contemporaneous news coverage, they raised the utility
tax by one percentage point, from 5% to 6%, to help pay
for the bond payments. A full consideration of the
revenue associated with the jail should potentially
include this yearly funding. However, in 2014 the City’s
Measure AA cut the tax by half a percentage point, down
to 5.5%. In the FY18 adopted budget, total utility user
tax revenues are $27,780,000 (see p. GF Summary – 1).
Since the rate is 5.5%, the half-point intended to defray
the bond payments represents one-eleventh of the total,
or roughly $2.5 M. Since the bond payments allocable to
the jail are roughly one-third of the total ($3 M vs. $9), a
third of this revenue, or around $842,000, can be
assumed as an offset to the jail bond payments.
12

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18

FY18 plus
Marshal

Rental fees

$11,785,033

$12,472,357

$15,980,000

$2,500,000

$12,717,316

Kitchen rental

$37,895

$31,489

$33,000

$25,000

Booking fee

$450

$18,152

$50,000

$18,000

"Pay to stay"

$48,480

$50,000

$75,000

"Jail reuse"
Share of utility tax
(estimate)

$400,000

$828,000

$761,000

$842,000

SUM REVENUES

$12,651,378

$13,331,478

$16,955,000

$3,018,000

$13,235,316

All told, jail-specific revenues for FY18, even with the Marshals Service contract revenues included, come to $13.2 M.
This is well below the $17.8 M Jail Operations cost, and much less than the additional estimate of $1.1 M for the jail’s
share of the Building and Facility costs and the $3 M in debt service payments.
1.7

Recent historical perspective

The previous sections show that the jail is currently operating at a significant deficit for the
City—taking as comprehensive a view as possible of both costs and revenues, the deficit is about
$8.6 M in FY18. It is not correct to attribute this deficit to the recent cancellation of the ICE contract, however,
because extending the conservative FY18 analysis laid out above to recent fiscal years shows that the FY18 deficit
represents only a slight increase over what the city has been accustomed to run:
FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18

FY18 plus Marshals

Rental fees

$11,785,033

$12,472,357

$15,980,000

$2,500,000

$12,717,316

Kitchen rental

$37,895

$31,489

$33,000

$25,000

Booking fee

$450

$18,152

$50,000

$18,000

"Pay to stay"

$48,480

$50,000

$75,000

"Jail reuse"
Share of utility tax
(estimate)

$400,000

$828,000

$761,000

$842,000

SUM REVENUES

$12,651,378

$13,331,478

$16,955,000

$3,018,000

$13,235,316

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18

FY18 plus Marshals

Operating Personnel

$12,521,490

$12,381,084

$14,166,865

$10,254,779

$13,434,832

Operating Contract

$2,801,644

$3,139,518

$2,895,420

$1,393,003

$4,025,142

Operating Commodities

$280,448

$339,537

$267,840

$158,324

$271,043

Operating Fixed Charges
Share of Building and
Facilities (estimate)
Debt service payments
(rough)

$28,248

$28,968

$29,820

$34,481

$1,100,000

$1,200,000

$1,100,000

$3,000,000

SUM COSTS

$19,731,830

$20,089,107

$21,459,945

$15,940,587

$21,865,498

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18

FY18 plus Marshals

-$7,080,452

-$6,757,629

-$4,504,945

-$12,922,587

-$8,630,182

DEFICIT

This analysis suggests that well before the cancellation of the ICE contract, the Santa Ana City Jail appears to have been a
fiscal albatross around the neck of the city. Equally importantly, these deficits are not wholly attributable to the need to repay
the outstanding costs of borrowing—in each year since FY15, jail-specific revenues have failed to cover the operating costs of
the facility.
13

1.8

Avoided booking costs

2.1

Direct cost and revenue impacts

The City’s cost-benefit analyses of the jail have typically
included a “City Benefit” line item that appears to
represent the increased police officer staff time that would
be required to book arrestees at County facilities in the
absence of a City jail (see the 2014 City memo, pp. 25B-3
and 25B-5). For both FY14 and FY15 the benefit is
quantified at $4.3 M, though it appears that this total may
include some reimbursable costs—meaning that it may
double-count some portion of the revenue items listed
above (for the remainder of this analysis, we assume that
the whole $4.3 M is attributable to the benefit from quicker
booking, and that the value of the benefit has not changed
meaningfully between FY15 and FY18).

If the City were to simply close the jail facility and
eliminate all spending directly associated with it, the Jail
Operations costs discussed above would go away, because
correctional officers and related staff would no longer be
needed, nor would the City need to purchase food, clothing,
etc. for inmates. The roughly $1.1 M in Building and
Facility costs to operate and maintain the building would
not go to zero, because the City would presumably need to
continue performing some amount of upkeep. Beyond
operating costs, debt service costs, of course, would remain
at the same $3 M level through FY24. Thus, taking FY18
as a reference point, the city’s costs would be roughly $4 M
through FY24, going down to $1 M or so afterwards.

The $4.3 M is not actual revenue that defrays jail
operations—per the same memo (p. 25B-3), the cost
appears to be based on estimates of “hundreds of additional
hours” that City police officers are able to spend in the
field rather than on booking suspects. If the booking
function were not available in the City jail, it would be up
to City leadership how to respond: by hiring additional
police officers (either $4.3 M worth or a lesser amount), by
making alternative arrangements for booking in a City
facility, by setting different priorities on how many
suspects are brought in for booking in the first place (the
memo notes that the City facility allows SAPD to detain
misdemeanant arrestees who would not normally be
accepted by the County), or by simply accepting the
increase in the amount of time officers must spend on
booking in the County jail.

As discussed immediately above, it is possible that jail
closure would lead to additional City costs due to the
closure of the current booking facility, though the precise
amount and nature of those costs is highly speculative. It is
very unlikely that these additional costs would be higher
than $4 M, which is about the current estimate of “City
Benefit,” and more likely that they would be closer to $1
M.

Further, the $4.3 M number appears hard to take at face
value—this Voice of OC piece uses plausible assumptions
to assess the true staff-time savings and finds that they may
be well below $1 million (though note that per actual Santa
Ana police officer salaries, $200,000 is a better median
estimate for the annual cost of an individual officer—using
this higher salary number is somewhat offset, however, by
the fact that many officers appear to work a significant
number of overtime hours).
At any rate, potential future staff-time costs associated with
slower booking speeds are a potential policy issue rather
than actual current-year cost or revenue figures, so we have
excluded them from the analysis above.
2.

Jail closure

This section addresses the potential impacts of a decision to
close the jail facility and devote it to other uses, without
specifically addressing what those other uses might be (see
Section III for analysis of viable possibilities). It also looks
at the real-world challenges that might arise in
implementing such a decision.

Revenues associated with the jail would likewise mostly be
eliminated, as those beds would no longer be available to
contract out. The $400,000 “jail reuse” line item, as
discussed above, may no longer be relevant given the
extension of the Marshals Service contract, but can stand in
for the City’s current assessment of revenues it can raise in
FY18 by moving to an alternative use, which would
presumably be an underestimate of what it could receive in
future years, after the alternative use is better established.
The share of the utility user tax that is meant to help repay
the bond payments would also remain—again, that is
roughly $842,000 in FY18. Taken together, the City
appears to estimate total revenues post-closure as roughly
$1.2 M.
All told, in this scenario the City would have a deficit
associated with the jail facility of slightly less than $3 M
through FY24, and more or less break even afterwards
(with deficits increasing by somewhere in the range of $1
M to $4 M depending on whether the City decided to spend
additional resources on booking). Notably, unless the City
decides to significantly increase spending on booking,
these deficits are lower than the actual deficits the City has
been running while operating the jail in recent years and
would continue to be lower even if the $400,000 “jail
reuse” revenue item is not realized.
Therefore, if it were possible to do so, the

most fiscally
conservative option for the city is to simply
close the jail as quickly as possible—though if an
alternative use that raises revenue on net is identified, of
course that would be an improvement over simply letting

the facility remain vacant.

2.2

Potential challenges and transition costs

The City, however, will not be able to close the jail
overnight even if it decides that closing it is the best option.
Notably, per the City’s contract with Police Department
personnel, layoffs must be made in order of seniority and
employees may have the right to occupy lower-down
vacant positions, with potential “bumping” in some cases.

This could create disruptions in SAPD staffing as moresenior staff who work in the jail facility may not be able to
immediately take on new responsibilities without new
training, so advance planning (and potential staff buyouts)
may be necessary, with potential one-time costs of a few
million dollars.
Similarly, if the City does decide to dedicate the jail facility
to a new use, there will be transition costs associated with
removing the current infrastructure, when necessary, and
remodeling it to support the new use.

III.

Jail Reuse Assessment

Subsection (a) provides a visual of the zoning and site
context for the Santa Ana Jail, followed by an overview of
some of the ways other cities have repurposed their jails.
The remainder of the section consists of a series of before
and after shots of the Santa Ana City Jail. These renderings
show how the space could be transformed and actually
support the community rather than being used to detain
human beings. Subsection (b) provides an analysis of a
community-based reentry center.
a.

Overview of Reuse Options

The first option is a Shared Office Workspace. These are
becoming more popular throughout the United States,
especially in cities. The space can be used for individuals
who work from home and need a work/life separation.
Small companies can also use the space and share it with
others. It helps save on the cost of managing your own
office and supports workers in the growing shared
economy. Why buy office supplies like a printer for only
two people when you can go in with a few other firms and
save that money? The downside to this option is that it
would be fairly expensive because the City would need to
expand the cells to provide a variety of space sizes.

dining. The distillery would be an easy transformation
depending on style. If the City would want something
rustic and simple, the City would only need to remove and
replace doors as well as add some paint and a bar.
The final image is yet another urban farming option. This is
showing the large common area being converted into a
grow area.

While these options are all viable, the
community is most interested in seeing the jail
converted into a center for community-based
reentry and alternatives to immigration
detention. The City of Santa Ana could employ a
blended model and combine cognitive-behavioral
treatments with skills oriented programming, including
work opportunities, job training, and a community garden.
Both reentry clients as well as the entire community would
have access to these programs, which would help in
reintegrating reentry clients into their community. For
example, clients returning home could operate a small
farmers market or vegetable stand by selling produce from
the garden. This option is explored in detail in section (b)
below.

The next option is an Urban Farm. High-end herb
cultivation (i.e. cannabis and saffron) need to be grown in
protected areas. A former jail is a perfect location. The
space would not only be for growing and processing but
also for retail purposes, with a commercial frontage, café,
and seating area. You could grow several varieties of herbs
in different parts of the converted jail.
Next is a shared artist studio. The idea being that an artist
could rent out a former cell to house their materials and
work. They can also use the common spaces for work or
rent a room that is a converted “double-cell” where two
single cells have been connected and enlarged by removing
the central wall. The main common areas would also serve
as an art gallery. This would be one of the easiest
transformations because the City would simply need to
provide a clean slate for work and let the artists use their
creativity to transform the jail’s appearance. This allows
for a cheaper remodel but also gives ownership and
freedom to local artists.
Next is another version of the urban farming, but in
individual cells. The growing rooms are an easy
transformation because the City would only need to add
grow lights for now. As the business expands, the City
could add murals and other things to brighten up the space.
The cost of added electrical needs, however, may be costly.
Another option is to convert the jail into an alcohol
distillery. The whole facility could be dedicated to one type
or have a variety. There would be tours, tasting, retail, and

CIVIC

Zoning Context
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

Site Location

CIVIC

SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

School
Government
Center
Residential
Community Open Space
Parking
Professional

CIVIC

Surrounding Uses
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Living*

Refugee Housing
Supportive Housing
Homeless Shelter
Workforce/Affordable Housing
Micro Units
Reentry Facility
Senior Housing

*Please note: While some jails have
been converted into homeless
shelters and supportive housing,
these are not viable options for the
Santa Ana City Jail because of its
location, among other things. In
addition, the community expressed
widespread opposition to these
ideas.

CIVIC

•
•
•
•

Working

Shared/Creative Workspace
Market Rate Office
Job Training Facility
Office for City and County
Agencies

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Alternative

Urban Indoor Agriculture
Cooking School
Data Storage
Self Storage
Artists Studios
Sports Facility
Movie Studio
Sound studio
Makers Space
Distillery
Laser tag/arcade/play space
Cultural Center
Music School
Spa
Community Space
Wellness Center
Theater

Reuse Options
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

BASIC FACTS
• Old facility: De Koepel Prison

• New Use: Refugee Housing
• Location: Haarlem, Netherlands

CIVIC

Refugee Housing
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

Refugee Housing
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

BASIC FACTS
• Old facility: Claremont Custody Center
• New Use: Prison-to-Pot-Farm
• Location: Coalinga, CA

• Size: 77,000 SF
• Will generate 100 jobs and an estimated million
dollars in annual tax revenues for the area

CIVIC

Medical Marijuana State Dispensary
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

Medical Marijuana State Dispensary
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

BASIC FACTS
• Old facility: Mid-Orange Correctional Facility
• New Use: Fitness Center
• Location: Warwick, New York

• Size: 38-acres

CIVIC

Yard Sports Village
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

Yard Sports Village
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

BASIC FACTS
• Old facility: Lorton Correctional Facility
• New Use: Art Center
• Location: Lorton, VA

• Size: 55-acres

CIVIC

Workhouse Arts Center
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

Workhouse Arts Center
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

BASIC FACTS
• Old facility: Morgan County Jail

• New Use: Office Space for County Commissioner
• Location: Fort Morgan, CO

CIVIC

Offices
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

BASIC FACTS
• Old facility: Athur Kill Correctional Facility
• New Use: Movie Studio
• Location: Staten Island, NY

• Size: 69-acres
• Expect to create 800 jobs over 2-year period for
the area and up to 1,500 over the next 5-years

CIVIC

Movie Studio
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

Before
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

After - Shared Office Space
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

Before
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

After - Urban Farming
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

Before
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

After - Artist Studio
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

Before
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

After - Urban Farming
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

Before
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

After - Distillery
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

Before
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

CIVIC

After - Urban Farming
SANTA ANA JAIL REUSE

Community-Based Reentry Center

The criminal justice system in the United States holds
more than 2.3 million people in many types of
correctional facilities, including but not limited to local
jails, state prisons, federal prisons and immigration
detention facilities.22 Every year about 600,000 to
650,000 people are released from state and federal
prisons.23 At least 95% of all incarcerated people in
America will ultimately be released and return to their
communities.24 The release of said group of folks should
be planned for accordingly.
Nationwide about three-quarters of people released from
state prisons are rearrested within five years of their
release, and about 55% are incarcerated again.25 These
numbers include both federal prisoners and state
prisoners. The Bureau of Justice Statistics measures
recidivism, broadly understood as the likelihood that a
person will reengage in criminal activity after being
released, as a person’s involvement in criminal behavior
that results in rearrest, reconviction or return to prison
with or without a new sentence over a certain period of
time from the date of release. According to a 2011
report by the Pew Charitable Trusts, California has one
of the highest rates of recidivism in the country—58% of
individuals released from prison return within three years
of their release. 26 This revolving door represents a
failure of the prison system to rehabilitate people and
deter them from reengaging in criminal activity and
highlights the consequences of an overly punitive parole
system.27
Only a small percentage of overall prison budgets are
spent on in-prison programs to support rehabilitation.
Not surprisingly, most incarcerated individuals do not

Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy, “Mass Incarceration:
The Whole Pie 2017,” Prison Policy Initiative, 2017,
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html
23
Cheryl Lero Jonson and Francis T. Cullen, "Prisoner Reentry
Programs," Crime and Justice 44 (2015): 517-575.
24
“State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s
Prisons,” Pew Center on the States, 2011,
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_as
sets/2011/pewstateofrecidivismpdf.pdf
25
Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper and Howard N.
Snyder, “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in
2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010,” Bureau of Justice Statistics,
April 2014,
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf
26
“State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s
Prisons,” Pew Center on the States, 2011,
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_as
sets/2011/pewstateofrecidivismpdf.pdf
27
Ram Subramanian, Ruth Delaney, Stephen Roberts, Nancy
Fishman, and Peggy McGarry, “Incarceration’s Front Door:
The Misuse of Jails in America,” Vera Institute of Justice,
February 2015, https://www.vera.org/the-human-toll-of-jail/ahelping-had-on-the-way-home/the-challenges-of-reentry

participate in programs and often times exit prison with
more needs than when they entered. The most common
support formerly incarcerated individuals receive upon
release is money for transportation or spending. In
California, people exiting prisons are given $200 and a
bus ticket to return to their county of sentencing. The
importance of effective reentry programming and access
to it cannot be overstated. Formerly incarcerated
individuals face a host of challenges when returning to
their communities particularly in the areas of mental and
physical health, housing, employment and education.28
Reentry programs should be designed to address the
varied needs of formerly incarcerated individuals and as
many of the challenges they face as possible. Doing so
can help to rehabilitate people and ease their transition
back into their community. This in turn will reduce the
likelihood of reengaging in criminal behavior, and thus,
increase the likelihood that they successfully reintegrate
into their community.
1.

Reentry Programs

Several factors influence recidivism and whether a
formerly incarcerated person successfully reintegrates
into their community. Researchers consider participation
in prison programs and reentry services being among the
most important. Overall, meaningful intervention and
reentry services reduce recidivism, but program effects
are mixed.29 Due to a lack of rigorous and well-designed
outcome evaluations there is no consensus over the exact
services and programming that constitute a model reentry
program.30 Although limited in scope and rigor, a
number of evaluations have been conducted to measure
what works and what does not. Effective programs
typically share certain elements such as using behavioral
and cognitive approaches, occurring in the person’s
community, being multi-faceted and intensive enough to
be effective, encompassing rewards for pro-social
behavior, targeting individuals who are most at risk,
responsive to multiple needs, and tailored to the learning
styles and abilities of the person.31 These elements are
considered to be best practices in the field of reentry.
1.2

Best Practices/ Key Principles

Joan Petersilia, “When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and
Prisoner Reentry,” (2003). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press
29
Mirlinda Mdrecka, “The Impact of Reentry Programs on
Recidivism: A MetaAnalysis,” PhD Dissertation, University of
Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, 2014,
http://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/cech/programs/criminaljustice/
Docs/Dissertations/Ndreckam.pdf
30
Jonson and Cullen, “Prisoner Reentry Programs.”
31
Christy A. Visher, Pamela K. Lattimore, Kelle Barrick &
Stephen Tueller, “Evaluating the Long-Term Effects of
Prisoner Reentry Services on recidivism: What Types of
Services Matter?” Justice Quarterly 34 (2017).

Below is a summary of key principles and best practices.
i.

Risk Differentiation

Reentry programs should measure the risks of potential
participants and services should target people most at
risk of recidivating. This group of folks is considered
most likely to benefit from services in comparison to
people less at risk. People considered to be most at risk
are those with varied needs and limited protective
factors.
ii.

Setting

The majority of people exiting prisons are released on
parole, or some other type of post-prison supervision.
Reentry programming should take place primarily in
therapeutic community settings as opposed to
institutions. Community settings are considered to be one
of the least restrictive environments for formerly
incarcerated people and as such facilitate a person’s
transition. Community-based organizations comprised of
people working together to help themselves and one
another are ideal places for the delivery of reentry
services and programming.
iii.

Length of Programming

There is limited research that specifically addresses the
appropriate length of programming for people returning
to their communities after having served time in jail and
prison. The general consensus is that it is best to tailor
the length of services to the person’s needs and not to
over-program.
iv.

Continuity of Care

Research indicates that continuity of care is ideal.
Service providers in the field of reentry should
coordinate services to maximize their impact. Programs
offered in correctional institutions that are linked to
programs in the community improve stability for
formerly incarcerated individuals. Some researchers in
the field suggest that the best programs begin during
incarceration and extend throughout the release and
reintegration process. Therefore, partnerships and
collaborations between correctional programs and
reentry programs are key. It is important to note, that
additional in-jail programming should not require more
funding for correctional entities. Rather existing jail and
prison budgets should be revised to reallocate existing
monies to in-jail and in-prison programs.
The Anti-Recidivism Coalition (ARC) believes that
reentry begins before an individual leaves
prison. Their model of support combines educational

and rehabilitative programming inside detention
facilities, with reentry services upon release. 32 ARC
members conduct mentoring workshops inside
juvenile halls and in adult prisons to shift the
mindset of incarcerated individuals and the culture
in the facilities. ARC’s mentorship program is
designed to support better decision-making by
building positive relationships with encouraging
peer role models. The organization also provides
transportation home to recently released individuals
through their Ride Home Program. In addition to
providing transportation, members of the Ride Home
Program prepare individuals for their first few days
after release and provide tools and resources to help
participants transition back into the community.
v.

Varied Needs

Effective reentry programs must meet the particular and
varied needs of formerly incarcerated individuals,
including, but not limited to, housing, education, job
training, employment, counseling and case management,
substance abuse treatment, life skills, and formal followup support.33 According to a Congressional Research
Service report, formerly incarcerated people are less
educated, less likely to be employed, and more likely to
have a history of mental health problems or substance
abuse than the general U.S. population.34 According to a
National Research Council report, mental health needs
among incarcerated individuals is widespread, with 64%
of people in jail, 54% of people in state prisoners and
45% of people in federal prisons reporting mental health
concerns.35 Furthermore, about 10% to 25% of U.S.
prisoners suffer from serious mental health problems,
like major affective disorders or schizophrenia. That is
five times higher than the average rate of about 5% for
the U.S. population.
In addition to mental health needs, formerly incarcerated
people returning to their communities also face
educational and vocational barriers. The availability of
stable work for recently released people is low, and when
people find work it is difficult to maintain it. Research
shows that the characteristics of a job, not the job itself,
are most effective in reducing recidivism. Said risk
factors among several others have been linked to higher

See http://www.antirecidivism.org/our-work-1/
Shelley J. Listwan, Francis T. Cullen, and Edward J. Latessa,
“How to Prevent Prisoner Reentry Programs from Failing:
Insights from Evidence-Based Corrections.” Federal Probation
70 (2006): 19-25.
34
Nathan James, “Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics,
Reintegration into the Community, and Recidivism.”
Congressional Research Service. (2015),
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34287.pdf
35
National Research Council, The Growth of Incarceration in
the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences.
Washington, DC. The National Academies Press.
33

levels of recidivism and must be addressed with
comprehensive services.36 When varied risks and needs
are targeted in practice, programming is more effective at
reducing the likelihood that someone will reengage in
criminal behavior.
vi.

Varied Programs and Services

Reentry services must address the varied needs of
participants through comprehensive programming.
Addressing only one or two needs of formerly
incarcerated people trying to navigate the disorienting
experience of reentry reduces a program’s effectiveness
and the likelihood that the person will successfully
reintegrate into the community. For example, studies
have shown that employment is associated with lower
levels of recidivism. Nonetheless, a job alone does not
ensure successful reentry into the community. Hence,
services should not focus solely on practical skills and
needs like education and employment. Services must
also be varied and based on cognitive behavioral
principles that address the root causes of why people
engage in criminal behavior.
vii.

Responsiveness

In addition to addressing the varied needs of individuals,
reentry programming should be client-centered and
tailored to the learning styles of people in the program.
Client-centered programming assists people in
developing and achieving self-defined goals informed by
their personal values and provides them the means to
take ownership of their reintegration and wellbeing.37 In
addition to attending to the compatibility between the
goals and abilities of a formerly incarcerated person, it is
fundamental that programming be sustainable. This can
be achieved through a strengths-based approach where
programming draws on a person’s skills and abilities
instead of setting unreasonable expectations that are
often counterproductive and can lead to frustration and
feelings of failure. This type of client-centered approach
that corresponds with participants’ learning styles and
abilities is associated with lower levels of recidivism.
viii.
Skills Oriented and CognitiveBehavioral Treatments
Programs that target skills and abilities through
education and employment alone are not as effective as
programs that are rooted in cognitive behavioral
treatment models.38 Such models improve problem

David A. Andrews and James Bonta, The Psychology of
Criminal Conduct. 5th ed. New Providence, NJ, (2010).
37
Tony Ward and Shadd Maruna, Rehabilitation: Beyond the
Risk Paradigm. New York, NY: Routledge, (2007).
38
Wilson, D. B., Bouffard, L. A., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2005).
Quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-

solving skills and target people’s thinking through a
system of reinforcement, pro-social modeling and roleplaying. This is particularly important given that time in
jail and prison exacerbate psychological distress and
maladaptive coping strategies. Reentry programming
should teach social learning principles and skills that
help people respond to stressors in adaptive ways and
thus refrain from engaging in harmful behavior.
Developing and reinforcing positive cognitions is critical
to promoting successful reentry and has been linked to
reducing recidivism.39 Adaptive mental actions or
processes help formerly incarcerated people respond
rather than react to the disorienting experiences of
returning home after incarceration. Addressing the
psychological turbulence people experience is as
important as tackling the structural problems they face,
like access to housing, employment or drug treatment.
Social support and strong social bonds, including
familial and marital relationships, also can help reduce
stress and subsequent negative emotions, as well as yield
higher levels of self-control and predictability.40 Such
relationships are important protective factors for dealing
with stressors both while incarcerated and when
returning to the community. Hence, including a person’s
family into reentry programming is strongly encouraged.
Programming that facilitates repairing and cultivating
relationships with loved ones, peers and positive role
models can help formerly incarcerated people gain a
sense of connectedness and healthy coping. 41 Improved
coping strategies can be applied to different facets of a
person’s life and promotes wellbeing. Adaptive
behavioral and psychological efforts to manage and
reduce stressors particularly related to the use of drugs
and alcohol is associated with lower recidivism rates
among formerly incarcerated people.
ix.

Researcher Involvement

Researcher involvement in reentry program
development, implementation and evaluation has been
linked to more effective programming. It is important to
design programs and deliver services that are based in
best practices and monitor progress through rigorous
evaluations that measure more than just recidivism rates.

behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 32,172-204.
39
Lindsay A. Phillips and Mary Lindsay, “Prison to Society: A
Mixed Methods Analysis of Coping with Reentry.” (2011),
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology 55 (1): 136-54.
40
Colvin, M., Cullen, F. T., 8c Vander Ven, T. (2002).
Coercion, social support, and crime: An emerging theoretical
consensus. Criminology, 40, 19-42.
41
Pettus-Davis, Carrie, Matthew O. Howard, Amelia RobertsLewis, and Anna M. Scheyett. 2011. “Naturally Occurring
Social Support in Intervention for Former Prisoners with
Substance Abuse Disorders: Conceptual Framework and
Program Model.” Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (6): 479-88

Model Reentry Program Summaries

We researched and visited reentry programs in Southern
California that are widely believed to be model reentry
programs. All three organizations provide varied
programming in a community and therapeutic setting to
address the multifaceted needs of formerly incarcerated
people.
i.

Project Kinship

Program Philosophy and Mission. Founded in 2014 in
Santa Ana, California, its mission is to increase
community safety, promote hope, health and well-being
among the formerly incarcerated and their families, and
help individuals successfully re-enter the community.
Services. Project Kinship provides services to address
the needs of the reentry population. Services include both
direct service and capacity training for systems and
community agencies. Project Kinship’s staff provides
emotional support and advocacy as they assist
individuals through the stages of re-entry and system
network of care. A strong emphasis is centered on
promoting system care access, individual and family
driven case management services, short-term individual
and group counseling services, group educational/skills
classes, and short-term group support services, program
participants are provided with supports that help develop
the coping skills that to lead meaningful and productive
lives.
Measures of Success. Individuals are able to enroll in
Project Kinship’s 6 month re-entry program upon
release, but the demand for this program in Santa Ana
outweighs current capacity.
ii.

expanded its programming to include therapy, substance
abuse treatment and life skills classes. The organization
still provides employment to more than 200 trainees at a
time through an 18-month training program intended to
serve as a stepping stone for formerly gang-involved and
previously incarcerated people returning to their
communities. Trainees who graduate from the program
can go on to become navigators, who mentor others and
guide cohorts of trainees through the same program.
Thousands more, known as community clients, receive
free services through the organization’s comprehensive
programs, including tattoo removal, workforce
development, educational services, case management,
legal services and mental health services. Homeboy
Industries also operates nine different social enterprise
businesses, including the Homeboy Bakery, Homegirl
Café and Catering and Homeboy Silkscreen and
Embroidery, where trainees receive valuable job training.
More than just providing a job, Homeboy Industries
provides a trauma-informed and therapeutic community
setting that allows people to work on repairing and
building healthy relationships with loved ones and coworkers.
Measures of Success. Members of Homeboy Industries
have a recidivism rate of about 35%. More than one
third of the organization’s staff members are former
trainees who graduated from the 18-month program and
have been promoted from within. Homeboy Industries’
model works because its free programming and services
are developed in and by the community they serve.
iii.

Homeboy Industries
45

Program Philosophy and Mission. Homeboy Industries is
one of the largest and most comprehensive gang
intervention, rehabilitation and reentry programs in the
United States. The organization’s mission is to provide
hope, training, and support to formerly gang-involved
and previously incarcerated individuals to allow them to
redirect their lives and become contributing members of
the community. Our visit to Homeboy Industries in the
city of Los Angeles yielded important details about the
specific programs and practices that are instrumental in
making a reentry center successful.
Services. Homeboy Industries started as a job program
called “Job for a Future” in 1988. At the outset
programming focused on employment and education as a
way to combat violence and involvement in gangs. Over
the years, Homeboy Industries recognized the
importance of therapeutic and support services, so it

Anti-Recidivism Coalition

Program Philosophy and Mission. The Anti-Recidivism
Coalition (ARC) is a support and advocacy network that
provides reentry and supportive services to formerly
incarcerated youth. Its mission is to provide a support
network for formerly incarcerated young people and
advocate for fairer criminal justice policies. The ARC
network consists of more than 300 members, and
hundreds of volunteer mentors and allies committed to
helping youth through reentry programming and
advocating for a just criminal justice system.
Services. ARC serves nearly 450 formerly incarcerated
individuals—a majority of which live in Los Angeles
County. ARC was founded in Los Angeles County but
has expanded its network to also include members in San
Bernardino, Riverside and Orange Counties in addition
to Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. The
organization fights to reduce recidivism through varied
programming including inreach services, support and
mentoring, supportive housing, access to jobs, and
education and policy advocacy. This comprehensive
approach to reentry improves individual outcomes
and increases the health and safety of communities.

ARC staff and members regularly travel to prisons and
detention facilities across the state of California to
provide rehabilitative programming and host policy
workshops among several other things. Specific inreach
programs include youth offender parole workshops, peer
mentorship programming, ARC/PUP college program,
and the Ride Home Program. Upon release, ARC
members have access to counseling services to help them
navigate the process of reentering their communities.
Services include one-on-one counseling sessions and
group sessions in addition life coaches who connect them
to other resources such as legal support, public benefits
and transportation needs.
ARC’s mentorship program is designed to help members
develop a strong sense of self and connection to the
community. New members are paired with peer mentors
at intake and, eventually, become mentors themselves.
ARC also hosts regular retreats to promote peer
mentorship, strong social bonds, and to provide
opportunities for healing, self-reflection, and goalsetting. In 2014, the organization launched a Supportive
Housing and Education Initiative in partnership with the
California Community College System to provide
housing (Bromont Housing and Magnolia Housing),
counseling and academic support to formerly
incarcerated members. ARC also mobilizes systeminvolved and system-impacted young people and their
families to advocate for fairer criminal justice policies
and a more humane system. To do this, ARC offers
regular advocacy trainings and leadership development
opportunities that are trauma-informed.

this as the “Treatment Industrial Complex” or TIC. 42
TIC permits the same corporations to profit from
providing privatized treatment-oriented and reentry
focused services.
Simply because private prison corporations, who have
profited from mass incarceration, are embracing the
language of reentry does not mean that they are
implementing best practices. The bottom line of said
entities is to generate profit for their investors. Similar

to private prisons’ track records, treatmentoriented services operated by the same
corporations are vulnerable to spending
reductions on staff and important services.
Doing so comes at the expense of the quality of services.
Private reentry services including, but not limited to,
residential programs, electronic monitoring and day
reporting centers prioritize restrictive environments,
which is contrary to the best practice of the least amount
of restrictions for people reintegrating into their
communities. Restrictive environments and surveillance
are most lucrative and thus corporations are pushing for
increased levels of supervision and surveillance in the
private realm. When advocating for comprehensive
reentry programming and services, it is important to
address the potential dangers of allowing said services to
be sources of profit for the same corporations that
incentivized putting people behind bars in the first place.
4.

Reentry and Santa Ana

Measures of Success. ARC’s advocacy efforts have been
integral to many reforms in California’s justice system
that have improved the treatment of young people in the
justice system, including, but not limited to, restricting
the practice of sentencing juveniles to life without the
possibility of parole. Members of ARC have a
recidivism rate of less than 5%.

There remains much to learn about what works best and
how to effectively reintegrate formerly incarcerated
individuals into the community. The City of Santa Ana
has the opportunity to join local organizations in an
effort to equip formerly incarcerated people to handle the
challenges they encounter upon release and become
contributing members of society for the betterment of all.

If the City of Santa Ana repurposes its jail as a
Community-Based Reentry Center, Orange County
residents will likely be in support, as the majority of
residents support criminal justice reform.43 In fact, 53%
of Orange County residents voted in favor of Proposition
47, which reduced some crimes from felonies to
misdemeanors. In addition, 58% of Orange County
residents voted in favor of Proposition 57, which
increased parole chances for some individuals in prison.
And 65% of Orange County residents voted in favor of
Proposition 36, which reformed the “three strikes” law.

The Dangers of Reentry

As is the case with alternatives to immigration detention
(explored in detail on page 67), entities bidding for
reentry contracts are oftentimes the same groups
benefiting from mass incarceration. Profit-driven
corporations like the Geo Group and Corrections
Corporation of America (recently rebranded as
CoreCivic) have expanded their “services” to include
alternatives to incarceration and reentry as mass
incarceration reform becomes a bipartisan issue. Said
corporations have invested significantly on rehabilitation
services, mental health centers, residential reentry
programs and electronic monitoring in order to follow
growth and make money. Many people are referring to

See
https://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/TIC_
report_online.pdf
43
https://meetyourda.org/

If the City of Santa Ana were to consider a communitybased reentry center as an alternative to the Santa Ana
City Jail, it should prioritize the following:
• Oppose any and all efforts to privatize reentry
services, including, but not limited to, day
reporting centers, home arrest, and electronic
monitoring.

•

Prioritize community-based organizations for
any Request for Proposals (RFP). Organizations
that directly or indirectly profit from mass
incarceration should not be considered.

•

Services must be comprehensive and address
the varied needs of formerly incarcerated
people. The City of Santa Ana could
employ a blended model and combine
cognitive-behavioral treatments with skills
oriented programming, including work
opportunities, job training, and a community
garden. Both reentry clients as well as the entire
community would have access to said programs.
For example, clients returning home could
operate a small farmers market or vegetable
stand by selling produce from the garden.
Exploring such blended models could further
support reintegration and promote relationship
building and connectedness among the
community at large.

•

Ensure a community benefit by providing
services primarily to Santa Ana residents
reintegrating into their community.

•

Program development and implementation must
be driven by empirical research on effective
interventions, inclusive of varied factors.
Program and outcome evaluation should include
more than just measures of recidivism.
Funding/Cost-Benefit Analysis

As discussed in the budget analysis section above, the
jail is currently running a deficit of over $8 million,
largely due to the ongoing cost of operating the facility.
Deficits have been consistently high for the last several
years, even before the cancellation of the ICE contract.
While there are some outstanding debt payments—
roughly $2 million a year on net through FY24—these
are much smaller than the spending associated with
ongoing operation.
There are certainly transition costs associated with
shifting staffing to account for the closure of the jail and
spending to reconfigure the space. The only alternative to
reuse, however, is to run multi-million dollar deficits,
which will only be ameliorated partially by the end of
bond repayment in seven years. In the medium and long

terms the city’s fiscal outlook appears likely to improve
if current jail operations can be replaced with a new use
that at least covers its operating costs.
A full fiscal analysis of the costs and revenues associated
with converting the jail to a reentry facility would be
premature. The city would need to make many decisions
that could have significant impacts on the expected costs.
A threshold question is whether the city would operate
the facility directly or contract with a service provider
instead. It could also choose to sell the facility outright
to a new owner. The city would also need to take action
to assess need to determine a target capacity (especially
important since errors in over-estimating the need for
incarceration led to the city's present challenges). In
addition, as the preceding discussion suggests, a specific
model and approach would need to be chosen, as would
staffing levels and many other considerations.
If this recommendation is taken, the city should begin a
planning process, with robust community involvement,
to determine how to answer these questions in a way that
would provide a clear community benefit. One aspect of
this process should involve creating a plan for financial
sustainability. While City General Fund support would
likely be an important piece of this plan, it would not be
the only one—and indeed, one of the benefits of shifting
the jail to a reentry use is that it could potentially bring in
a broader set of funding sources to support operations.
Much public funding for reentry programming passes
through counties in California, as they are primarily
responsible for incarceration and probation. Thus, if the
city pursues a strategy of turning the jail into a reentry
facility, it would be well-advised to create a partnership
with the county to explore potential funding streams to
support reentry operations. This is especially the case
because the financing for such programming often
involves multi-year grants—even if it took several years
to perform facility reconstruction and reconfiguration,
immediate engagement with the county could help create
a plan to build the city into future grants and ensure that
there are operating funds available to support the new
reentry housing once it is operational.
For illustrative purposes, some of the county's most
significant recent revenues that could potentially support
(or, for grant funding, could have supported) reentry
include:
•

State Prop 47 grant funds: Last year, Orange
County received an allocation of $6 M over
three years, to support housing, reentry,
and health services for justice system-involved
residents.

•

A Medi-Cal Whole Person Care pilot with $31
M in funding over five years to provide health

services for homeless individuals. The dollars
come from a mix of state and federal dollars,
matched by local funding including General
Fund support, Mental Health Services Act
funds, and dollars from the tobacco settlement.
•

The county also receives significant state dollars
to support its general public safety operations,
over which it has significant discretion.
This includes AB109 realignment funding (in
FY14, this amounted to $63 M, of which $15 M
went to the health care agency for services,
and $17 M for probation for post-release
supervision); and recidivism-reduction funding
via the state's SB678 (in FY16 this came to $4.6
M; the county receives more funding through
this program if it makes greater progress in
reducing recidivism).

Beyond public funding, there are numerous potential
kinds of revenue a reentry provider could access. For
example, in 2016, Los Angeles’ Homeboy Industries saw
more than 250 clients go through their primary 18-month
reentry program and provided free services to thousands
more, supporting this work with over $16 million in
revenue. Over $6 million of the organization’s income
comes from social enterprises, such as their bakery and
catering service, over $4 million from individual
contributions, $2.3 million in foundation and corporate
support, another $2.3 million from events, and $1.7
million from public sources (including funding from the
City of Los Angeles). While bringing a new provider to
such a scale would obviously take multiple years, the
basic model of leveraging multiple funding streams
beyond governmental ones could be applied in Santa
Ana, too.

IV.
a.

Civil & Human Rights Conditions in the Santa Ana City Jail
Analysis of Santa Ana City Jail Grievances

There is a lengthy and disturbing history of human rights
violations and inhumane conditions at the Santa Ana
City Jail that have been well documented and reported on
to the public. Unfortunately, there have been no apparent
improvements in conditions, despite the recent
widespread media and community outrage over the state
of the facility and the plight of those confined there:
• In November 2015, a 55-year-old inmate died in
custody in the Santa Ana City Jail medical
ward.
• In January 2016, 31 transgender and cisgender
women in the custody of U.S. Immigration &
Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the jail filed a
civil rights complaint against the City of Santa
Ana and ICE. CIVIC called for a federal
investigation and for the City of Santa Ana to
abandon a degrading strip search policy and
practice in which women in immigration
detention were routinely forced to remove all of
their clothing and use their hands to spread apart
their private parts as officers peered into them.
These searches often occurred under unsanitary
conditions and sometimes in full view of other
people in immigration detention. Two days after
this complaint was filed, CIVIC and its allies
spoke at a City Council meeting where the City
chose not to expand the number of immigration
detention beds at the jail.
• In March 2016, Human Rights Watch published
an investigative report that documented that
transgender women in ICE detention at SACJ
had been regularly subjected to humiliating and
abusive strip searches by male guards, not able
to get adequate medical services, including
hormone replacement therapy, and had spent
unreasonably long periods of time in solitary
confinement.
• In May 2016, activists from Familia: Trans
Queer Liberation Movement and Orange
County Immigrant Youth United began a
hunger strike, vowing to continue it until Santa
Ana stopped renting out its city jail to ICE.
• In December 2016, the City of Santa Ana
became the first sanctuary city in Orange
County and ordered that the number of people
in ICE detention at SACJ be reduced.
• In February 2017, ICE officials notified the city
that they planned to terminate its detention
contract.
• On June 10, 2017, the Santa Ana police
detained a man on suspicion of public
intoxication. Officers transported the man to the
Santa Ana City Jail to be booked after he

•

allegedly became uncooperative. At the jail, the
man became unresponsive and was transported
to a hospital where he was pronounced dead two
days later on June 13, 2017. Santa Ana police
say the man was never booked.
In June 2017, the ACLU of Southern California
Jails Project published a two-year investigation
that revealed violent, abusive and unhealthy
conditions in Orange County's jails system and
a record of denial and indifference by the
officials in charge.
On August 4, 2017, a man was found
unresponsive in his cell at the Santa Ana City
Jail. The man, who was detained under the
City’s contract with the U.S. Marshals, died six
days later on August 10, 2017. Santa Ana police
said the man died after going into “medical
distress” at the hospital. The official cause of
death is unknown.
On August 17-19, 2017, the Office for Civil
Rights & Civil Liberties at Department of
Homeland Security conducted an audit of the
Santa Ana City Jail. One of the auditors, Wendy
Still, MAS subsequently issued a memo, “Santa
Ana City Jail Initial Recommendations”
outlining multiple areas of concern.
On December 11, 2017, the Office of Inspector
General at Department of Homeland Security
published a report that raised concerns about
ICE detainee treatment and care at five
detention facilities, including the Santa Ana
City Jail.

To learn more about the conditions of confinement at the
Santa Ana City Jail (SACJ) and determine how
responsive the facility has been to these complaints,
CIVIC filed a public records request on July 26, 2017
which requested the following records, among others:
• the number of grievances filed at the SACJ
since January 2014 and the subject of the
grievances, including data on which complaints
were investigated and what the outcomes or
decisions of the investigations were, as well as
the reasons for any decisions not to investigate
complaints or take action;
• any grievances or complaints filed with the City
of Santa Ana; the County of Orange; or the
SACJ by people detained/incarcerated at the
SACJ since January 2014; and
• any audits conducted by state or federal
agencies, by companies, or by any other audit
body since January 2014.

In response to this public records request, we received a grievance log of 1,449 grievances, and only 366 grievance forms:

The SACJ administrator informed us that the City is only
able to provide the itemized medical grievances but the
content is in the possession, care and custody of a nonpublic entity, their medical contractor NaphCare.
Furthermore, the information is also protected by HIPAA
(Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996), and therefore the SACJ is not provided the
specific information regarding each grievance due to
privacy concerns. The SACJ administrator also informed
us that grievances found to be based on personnel
complaints are not subject to public release per Govt
Code 6254(c). However, medical grievances and
personnel complaints combined only make up 517
grievances in the grievance log, meaning that at least 566
grievance forms were not provided to us without
acknowledgement or justification. In addition, many
grievances refer to additional pages due to the limited
space available for writing (e.g., “see attached letter”),
but almost none of the grievance attachments were
provided.
The inability to review all grievance forms subject to
public release unfortunately inhibited our ability to fully
analyze the most common grievances and outcomes. The
grievance summaries in the grievance log are often brief
and vague. Many grievances had been filed under the

categories of “Complaint” or “Other.” To assist our
analysis, we recategorized these based on the
information provided in the grievance summaries,
however limited. Furthermore, the log does not include
data on whether complaints were investigated, what the
outcomes or decisions of the investigations were, or the
reasons for any decisions not to investigate complaints or
take action, as was requested. Some grievance forms
include this information, but many do not. Disturbingly,
we also received many copies of grievance forms that
were never logged in the grievance log, calling into
question whether the grievance log is truly representative
of all the grievances submitted to the facility.
Despite the apparent inadequacy of the SACJ’s record
keeping, the grievance log and grievance forms provided
paint a chilling portrait of conditions inside the facility.
The breadth of the sample size—1,471 grievances
submitted by 452 different individuals over the course of
over 3.5 years—demonstrates that the issues raised in the
grievance forms are systemic and long-term, in addition
to being extremely concerning. In this section, we
analyze the grievances and describe the complaints
within each category, beginning with the most common
grievance (medical care):

In addition to the grievance log and grievance forms, we
received copies of audit reports completed by the Board
of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), the
Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of
Detention Oversight (ODO), and the U.S. Marshals
Service (USMS). When compared with the number and
severity of the grievances submitted to the jail by people
detained there, these audit reports demonstrate the
limitations of governmental oversight, as they for the
most part do not contain information about many of the
issues that appear to be systemic and long-term.
However, there are a few categories for which these
audits did report deficiencies, and they are included in
our analysis when appropriate.
1.

Medical Care

The most common grievance submitted by people
detained at the SACJ from 2014 to 2017 focused on the
inadequate medical care provided at the facility, the
category of approximately 27.1% of all grievances
recorded (398 out of 1,471). While we were only
provided with approximately 50 of the 398 grievance

forms due to HIPAA regulations cited by the city, these
forms indicate specific trends. Individuals most
commonly lament that their requests for care were
refused, ignored, or unreasonably delayed. They offer
examples of being denied treatment even for serious and
possibly life-threatening medical conditions such as
HIV/AIDS and high blood pressure.
Many individuals have to submit several grievances
before being granted access to medical services. As one
individual wrote, “yet again (3rd time) [I] did not have
my Atripla (HIV med). I can only miss one dose a month
without compromising my health.” (Name redacted,
August 21, 2014.) The shift supervisor responded by
citing the medical service policy of not providing
prescribed medication before an individual is seen by a
staff doctor, despite lengthy waiting periods of weeks or
months: “detainee needs to be seen… before treatment is
given. Once detainee is seen… the meds prescribed will
be ordered.” Another grievance form stated, “this is
[the] 4th request that I turn in… my [HIV] meds that I
need to take everyday, I’ve been a month without.”
(Name redacted, October 10, 2014). The medical

supervisor noted in their response that they were still
“awaiting medical records.” Individuals on lockdown
face additional barriers to medical care, and lockdowns
may go on for several days.
The quality of medical care and advice, when it is
provided, is poor and provided by ill-informed medical
staff who are not responsive to patients’ wishes or
concerns. One woman, anxious about the possibility of
having breast cancer, explained that she had to consult
outside advocates to get accurate information about the
appropriate course of action, albeit to no avail: “The
recent ultrasound of both breasts… confirmed two
masses in my right breast and one mass on my left
breast… I was told… that the masses were not
malignant. She also stated I would be seen again 6
months… and for now to still continue with the
treatment, when in fact NaphCare has not given me any
treatment for said issue. I spoke with my advocate, who
informed me that ultrasound tests cannot differentiate
between malignant and benign masses. Only a biopsy of
actual tissue cells from the masses can confirm the
type… I therefore am requesting a biopsy… I am entitled
to a second opinion therefore asking to also be referred
to an oncologist.” (Name redacted, March 21, 2016.)
The medical supervisor did not allow the woman to seek
a second opinion, and instead just reiterated the original
medical order: “Patient educated about treatment
program… [and] will have a follow-up to measure for
any changes in the mass.” Another individual observed
this phenomenon, noting that “the ubiquitous response to
all medical queries is to reiterate the drugs I have
already been prescribed… My health has

deteriorated in this facility and the lack of
information and humane treatment is to
blame.” (Name redacted, November 20, 2014).
In addition to the lack of thoughtful care, there were
many documented instances of medical staff mistreating
individuals in highly unprofessional manners. One
individual described his feeling of humiliation after
being repeatedly treated in a disrespectful manner by a
specific nurse: “after 3 medical request forms
(unanswered), I was finally called down to the
infirmary… [The nurse] is angry and rude, replying with
smart aleck remarks, for example, ‘It’s not my fault that
your health sucks.’... I told him if he could give me some
eye drops to clean my eyes and he said ‘I can’t do that,
instead when you shower, hold your eyelids to the
running water and stay for a minute or two,’ resulting in
me burning my eyes. I trusted his expertise… Today I
went to see the R.N.… my neck is still in severe pain and
[the nurse] in an angry way said, ‘You just keep
throwing shit to my face.’ Then I asked him, ‘Excuse me
sir, why is it that everytime I come to see you, you
answer me in a very angry and disrespectful way,
discriminatory way?’ By then, his face red like a tomato,

he stands up and with a loud voice, he said ‘Look, we
could end this conversation right here now.’ For a
moment I thought he wanted to hit me… I got up and
walked out… I’m supposed to be treated with dignity and
respect. I felt humiliated.” (Name redacted, June 25,
2014.) The fact that this nurse suggested that this
individual flush out their eyes in the shower is especially
troubling, given that the Immigration & Customs
Enforcement Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) 2013
audit of the facility expressed concern that its water is
not tested by a state laboratory, which “is critical,
because contaminants can form within the internal water
system” (p. 18).
The incidents of disrespect described in the previous
grievance are not the isolated consequences of a single
unprofessional staff member. As another example, one
individual complained about a different nurse’s refusal to
provide even a bandage after he cut his face while
shaving: “I asked [the nurse] for a Bandaid or some little
antibiotic lotion and she said, ‘Even if you are badly
bleeding I would not give you anything…’ Officer
[redacted] made me a recommendation just to put a little
piece of paper on my injury… [The nurse] says she does
not want to lose her ‘license’ only because we require a
simple Bandaid.” (Name redacted, January 13, 2016.)
Transgender individuals face even additional
discrimination and barriers to receiving quality care. The
ODO 2016 audit reviewed 30 medical records and found
that the medical intake screening form used does not
include a requirement for the screener to inquire about a
transgender individual’s gender identification or their
history of transition-related care (p. 11). As a result,
many transgender individuals submitted grievances about
not receiving necessary hormone therapy for months:
“I’d like to know why you don’t want to give me my
hormones. You took my blood and I saw the psychologist
two and a half months ago… I need them now.”
(Translated from Spanish, name redacted, February 13,
2016). Medical staff also exhibit transphobic tendencies,
refusing to acknowledge their patients’ transgender
identities: “I felt discriminated today with this

nurse… she called me ‘Sir.’ She shouldn’t say
that, she knows this is a transgender
module… I am a transgender woman. I need
respect.” (Name not provided, December 2, 2013.)
The mental health services and provision of mental
health medications are particularly inadequate, which is
especially troubling given the psychological and
emotional toll that the lack of adequate mental health
care can cause. One individual anxiously wrote about the
consequences of being denied his psychiatric medication:
“It’s been 3 days since I have not have my medication.
I’ve not slept. I need my medication. I’m hearing voices.”
(Name redacted, October 4, 2014.) Another common

issue noted by individuals is being forced to take drugs
that they do not wish to be taking, likely because of
unpleasant side effects: “I have put in several requests to
be seen by the psych doctor to be weaned off my
Wellbutrin.” (Name redacted, October 4, 2014.)

practitioners when classifying transgender individuals;
excessive use of isolation as punishment; segregation
caused by personnel shortage or other administrative
reasons; and no consistency regarding recreation or law
library access for people in segregation.

Indeed, there appears to be a lack of informed refusals of
care, not only in mental health services. For example,
during the medical record review conducted by the ODO
in 2013, they identified two individuals who had
undergone dental extractions but never signed informed
consent forms specific to the procedure. Unfortunately,
while the ODO is provided access to medical records,
which contain crucial data about the flaws of the medical
services provided, medical records are routinely not
released to individuals or even their attorneys. Such
records may be very salient to someone’s case.

Individuals held in separate housing or in segregation
submitted almost 200 grievances, reflecting the
systematic failure of the jail to address their needs and
ensure their safety. In July 2016, an individual in
segregation at SACJ submitted three medical complaints.
Six months later he asked for his classification to be
reviewed, as he was not receiving the appropriate care
while in segregation, stating that “I was left in SHU for
longer than 11 months…I experienced audible
hallucinations and deterioration of my medical
condition. Resulting in muscle atrophy, pain and loss of
mobility” (Name redacted, December 16, 2016).

As recently as December 2017, the Office of the
Inspector General at the Department of Homeland
Security, explained, “Although the facilities provided
health care services, as required by PBNDS [ICE’s
Performance-Based National Detention Standards], some
detainees at the Santa Ana City Jail and Stewart
Detention Center reported long waits for the provision of
medical care, including instances of detainees with
painful conditions, such as infected teeth and a knee
injury, waiting days for medical intervention. In addition,
two detainees, one at the Hudson County Jail and another
at the Santa Ana City Jail, waited several months for
eyeglasses following a vision exam that confirmed a
need for them. Finally, not all medical requests detainees
claimed they submitted or the outcomes were
documented in detainee files or facility medical files.”44
2.

Classification System

Classification is the process of assessing every person in
custody in order “to identify the level of risk and needs
presented by each so that appropriate housing and
program assignments can be made.” This process
supposedly functions to “reduce escapes and escape
attempts, suicides and suicide attempts, and inmate
assaults.” According to complaints made by individuals
jailed at the SACJ as well as observations made by the
ICE ODO, both the classification protocols and the
conditions in which people are confined as a result of
particular classifications are very concerning. The main
issues that have been flagged include: limited or no
access to medical services for people in segregation;
failure to first consult with medical and mental health

“Concerns about ICE Detainee Treatment and Care at
Detention Facilities,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Inspector General,
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG18-32-Dec17.pdf on January 12, 2018

Individuals reported that staff would repeatedly ignore
classification review status for long periods of time, even
up to four years, as one person recounted: “I was told on
October 15, 2013 that I was going to be reclassified 30
days later to go to the general population. It’s been 39
months now and I still haven’t got any response” (Name
redacted, January 1, 2017). This same individual later
submitted a follow up grievance, writing: “This is cruel
and unusual punishment. I’ve never been given any
specific answer in almost 4 years” (Name redacted,
April 18, 2017). Nor was this an isolated incident, as a
different individual submitted a similar grievance: “Mr.
Classification Supervisor, I need to speak with you. I’ve
been trying to speak with you for the past 83 days.
Please speak with me, I need to solve this problem”
(Translated from Spanish, Name redacted, November 3,
2014). The ODO flagged this issue as recently as
September 2016, and suggested substantial changes in
the SACJ classification practices.
3.

Disciplinary Actions

There are many complaints that recount excessive or
inappropriate punishments or “disciplinary actions” on
the part of SACJ staff towards people confined in the
facility. Grievances reviewed include references to
“excessive force” and “unlawful punishment.” These
include violations against people with conditions that
make them particularly vulnerable: “I am 62 years

old, wheelchaired…with a heart condition,
making me easily go into fatal heart attack.
[Being] attacked by a taser by your mental
patient staff and your facility employees is a
violation…I am being set up to be afraid for
my life… [due to] civil rights violations
against me and others” (Name redacted, November
26, 2016).

In addition, there is a reported absence of due process in
the determination of disciplinary actions. The grievances
reviewed contain several requests to speak with a
supervisor due to unjust or excessive disciplinary
actions. Staff responses tend to be either unresponsive to
individuals’ concerns or, more disturbingly, missing
entirely. For example, one person wrote “I need to
urgently speak with a supervisor. I consider that you are
violating my rights and due process. Today, Friday, I’ll
start a hunger strike, as it is my right to protest the
abuses committed against me. I hope you’ll address my
petition. Thank you” (Translated from Spanish, Name
redacted, April 4, 2014). Instead of addressing his
concerns, the facility’s staff instead simply denied that
the individual was indeed going to carry out his protest,
writing: “You’re not going on a hunger strike if you are
eating your cart meals or commissary” (Name redacted,
April 12, 2014). Additionally, another person detained at
SACJ complained about his due process being violated
after he was placed in isolation for 20 days, even though
the incident that led to the punishment was “still being
investigated” (Name redacted, November 25, 2016).
Complaints regarding disciplinary actions were often
related to grievances over classification actions, as
individuals are often placed in segregation as punishment
and not given information regarding when the
punishment would end. In her CRCL audit report,
Homeland Secuirity auditor Wendy Still recommended
that the jail formulate a process to identify punishment
abuses and trends, as certain people seemed to be
disproportionately targeted and punished.
4.

Personnel Complaints & the Grievance System

The SACJ Inmate/Detainee Orientation Handbook states
that “non-emergency grievances shall be responded to
within 72 hours, excluding weekends and holidays…
Grievances that are emergent in nature, must be
responded to within 24 hours. Examples of emergency
grievances may be related to medical treatment or in
cases involving a 23 hour lockdown” (p. 9). However,
scores of grievance forms refer to previous grievance
forms that had gone unanswered for days or weeks. One
individual expressed his concern over this after multiple
personnel complaints he filed seemed to disappear
entirely: “I don’t mean to question the integrity and
honesty of the Santa Ana Jail staff on how they handle
grievances, but I filed a grievance on 11/16/16 and a
follow up on 11/21/16 and a 3rd follow up grievance on
12/6/16 all in hope to resolve and shed some light on the
excessive force resulting in injuries. All have gone
unanswered.” (Name redacted, December 20, 2016.)
The staff’s apparent utter disinterest in reading and
responding to grievances, or even documenting them at
all, unsurprisingly creates a strong disincentive for
individuals to submit them in the first place. Among the

“Initial Recommendations” issued by Still was a
suggestion that the facility’s Administrator and
Grievance Coordinator “provide a secure locking
grievance box for detainees to directly place grievances
into, in order to ensure they are routed appropriately and
to prevent staff from destroying them” (p. 1-2). Still also
recommends that they “develop a regular meeting
schedule to review detainee grievance data that has been
analyzed for trends, grievance type, location, staff who
are identified as mistreating detainees, and additional
systemic issues; develop a reporting system to ensure
that facility personnel respond to and resolve the
detainee grievance issues assigned to them by the
Grievance Coordinator and to ensure that detainees
receive responses to all submitted grievances; [and]
ensure that detainees suffer no retaliation from staff for
filing grievances” (p. 1-2).
Such a secure locking box would also help resolve the
issue of confidentiality, another concern widely
expressed by individuals. When corrections officers do
review the grievances, they do not take any steps to
avoid unnecessarily sharing ones that may contain
sensitive information (such as medical data or personnel
complaints) with others. One woman had a private
medical issue shared in this manner without her
permission: “I would please like to speak with a
supervising officer in regards to an issue I have with an
officer regarding one of my medical requests that has
now been made known to others, when I trusted it was a
private and resolved situation.” (Name redacted, May
16, 2016).
In the same way that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) individuals face discrimination by
the medical staff, they suffer targeted mistreatment from
the corrections officers: “I am reporting the mistreatment
that I receive from Officer Ginnis as he is an officer that
does not have anything to do with us transgender people,
because he is homophobic, discriminatory and racist.”
(Translated from Spanish, F. P., October 10, 2015,
grievance form missing.) Still’s “Initial
Recommendations” make the following suggestions for
the jail administrator to reduce officer discrimination
against LGBT individuals: “hold facility staff
accountable for substantiated verbal abuse and
mistreatment of the Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender
(GBT) detainees... meet with GBT detainees to improve
communication and develop resolutions to mistreatment
complaints… [and] replace the male counselor that was
reported to make inappropriate and degrading comments
to the Transgender detainees, and hire a licensed
clinician to provide appropriate counseling services to
GBT detainees” (p.2.)
The increased discrimination and mistreatment suffered
by transgender individuals at the SACJ is perhaps most
clearly demonstrated by the fact that although they made

up only 37 of the 452 (or 8.2%) individuals who
submitted grievances, they submitted 242 (or 16.5%) of
all 1,471 grievances.

expressed distress over not receiving refunds for orders
that are not delivered to them, either because the items
are out of stock (a common complaint) or the delivery is
heavily delayed (another common complaint.) Finally,
when items do arrive, they may arrive in bad condition
(for example, a torn article of clothing), or simply not
function at all (for example, a broken radio).
6.

Commissary

For many incarcerated people that have the ability to
purchase commissary items, the commissary can serve to
offer them small comforts, however exorbitantly priced,
that may make their daily experience slightly more
bearable. At SACJ, the commissary is often a source of
distress and confusion, as information and opportunities
for input regarding its inventory are not provided to the
people detained there. One common complaint is that the
food choices offered tend to consist almost entirely of
unhealthy and processed junk food such as pork rinds,
bacon cheeseburgers, ice cream, and candy bars.
Individuals lament the lack of healthy food choices, in
particular people who are attempting to follow specific
diets such as cardiac, diabetic, or bland diets. Many
grievances request fresh food choices for purchase.
Examples of such requests include sandwiches,
avocados, and nuts.

Food Services

In addition to commissary deliveries, individuals receive
foods inappropriate for their dietary needs or religious
preferences at mealtimes as well. Kitchen staff routinely
give inappropriate food trays to individuals who may
have vegetarian, vegan, kosher, bland, gluten-restricted,
lactose-intolerant, diabetic, cardiac, liquid or soft food
diets, or allergies to certain foods such as nuts. As one
individual described, “I have a court order from the
Judge to receive a high fiber diet… For dinner they
brought me white bread… [Officer Perez] called the
kitchen and whoever is in charge refused to bring wheat
bread or corn tortillas… Is Officer Perez the ‘Supervisor
or a Doctor’? Cause I feel discriminated and neglected.”
(Manuel Ochoa, February 9, 2014.) Another individual
lamented the lack of having enough food to eat due to a
dietary mix-up: “I am on the vegetarian diet and I am
being given the kosher/Muslim diet by the kitchen… I’ve
been starving because of it.” (Name redacted, July 12,
2015). The response of the module officer to his
grievance was that the kitchen staff did not know which
diet he was on.

Furthermore, there are restrictions placed on individuals
regarding what they can purchase from the commissary
based on the diets that they have requested from the
kitchen or that the medical staff have ordered. However,
there are frequently both staff and technical mix-ups
regarding the diets that people are supposed to follow.
For example, when one individual asked why he was
suddenly denied certain commissary items that he knew
he was allowed to consume as part of his bland diet, the
kitchen supervisor explained that “it appears our
computer program glitched and placed all bland diets on
a cardiac diet” (February 19, 2014).

In general, the menus lack variety and the food is of poor
quality. One individual expressed disbelief that the food
was ever even tasted by kitchen staff: “Why are we
eating the same pasta over and over with no flavor? You
should have a dog taste it; if the dog eats it, then it’s
good, maybe. We are not animals.” (Name redacted,
December 23, 2015.) Other examples of the poor food
quality detailed in the grievances include soggy bread,
expired milk, and mystery ground meat made up of
various types. In addition to tasting bad, the meals lack
nutritious value. Many individuals lament the lack of
fruits and vegetables, which of course they cannot
purchase from the commissary either. Even for those
willing or desperate enough to consume the meals
provided, the portions are very small, causing individuals
to have to purchase food from the commissary in order to
not feel hungry or lose weight: “I order some hot food…
because the amount [in] Santa Ana Jail is not sufficient
for me and I have lost tremendous amounts of weight."
(Name redacted, May 12, 2015).

Beyond the food options, there are sudden, excessive
hikes in the prices of many items without any
notification to the people detained there, leading to
confusion and concerns among individuals that they are
being overcharged. More troublingly, many individuals

Finally, both individuals and facility auditors have
expressed concern that the food service workers are not
given the proper equipment or training to prevent the
transmission of bacteria or disease. As one individual
observed, “the food workers in mod might be violating

health standards. Inmates with facial hair do not cover it
with a hairnet; others do not cover all their hair
(sideburns). New gloves should be used to pass bread on
trays, and before serving ice. I’ve witness the workers
touch their body, face, clothes, personal cups, laundry
bin/trash bin, and occasionally playing ping pong with
the same gloves they serve with. The person dispensing
ice should not need to touch every cup, as it could pass
germs or bacteria from cup to cup.” (Name redacted,
September 2, 2015.) The Local Detention Facility

Health Inspection conducted by the Board of
State and Community Corrections (BSCC)
in 2016 also observed a lack of cleanliness
and proper food treatment in the kitchen, and
ordered the facility to clean and remove residue from
kitchen appliances, and store food containers on shelves
instead of on the floor to prevent contamination (p. 10).
7.

Law Library Access

Many individuals face the necessity of representing
themselves or doing their own research for their legal
cases while incarcerated. For this reason, access to legal
materials through the law library is essential and timesensitive. However, the SACJ appears to provide
inadequate access to its law library. People at the SACJ
frequently complained about not being given access to
use the law library. When they are granted access, the
computers and software are often not functioning.
Access to computers in the law library is especially
limited in the areas designated for LGBTQ individuals.
Access to the law library in the SACJ has been reported
to be unreliable since 2014 up until and including this
year, which has had direct negative consequences on the
legal cases of the people detained there. Numerous

people stated that computers were down for
several weeks at a time, and that they were
not provided with the information necessary
to use the legal research software. One
individual wrote: “The computer in the module has
[been] out of service since January 1, 2014. I have told
several officers about the situation. I have not finished
translating my story and typing it on the computer. My
court date is tomorrow” (Name redacted, January 7,
2014). Another person politely asked about the need for
computer repair: “Does routine maintenance take from
November 20th to December 2nd? As a detainee, I need
access to [the] computer [in the] law library to work on
my immigration case. The so called routine maintenance
is happening too often. Thank you” (Name redacted,
December 3, 2014)”. Concerned with the lack of access
to the law library, some individuals started to submit
grievances if only to keep records of the durations during
which access was unavailable. For example, “This is for
the record, as of May 24th [the] law library has been

down for maintenance since May 15th. As a result, I have
not been able to access discovery. Furthermore, all
motions and files are erased” (Name redacted, May 24,
2017). This individual actually lost all of his files due to
the ongoing computer glitches. In response, he was told
by staff that he “…needs to have files
uploaded/requested from attorney” (Name redacted,
May 28, 2017).
There are multiple incidents in which individuals were
prevented from doing legal research and working on
their legal cases due to the lack of access to a functioning
law library. Another individual at the SACJ reported the
same problem: “After now 6 grievances…you have
compromised my constitutional rights to due process by
making it impossible to prepare and get any documents”
(Name redacted, September 27, 2016). Yet another
individual was unable to access the legal library not
because the system was down, but because he was not
provided with the information necessary to access it: “I
have repeatedly requested my password for the law
library and computer account…my first request was on
May 16, second was May 26” (Name redacted, June 1,
2017).
These reoccurring problems are due in part to
insufficient staff, but also because of ineffective
protocols. There is no clear communication about law
library hours and holdings available to people
incarcerated at the SACJ, as highlighted in the ICE ODO
September 2016 audit report. As a result, ICE directed
the facility to post information about the law library
hours, maintenance protocols and on how to use the
computer’s legal programs for all inmates to see. It is
unclear if the facility has yet carried out these
recommendations, but given the ongoing complaints, it
appears that it has not.
8.

Mail

Corrections officers are permitted to open and read mail
in the presence of the recipient, with the exception of
legal mail, which should not be read as it is privileged.
Several grievances reported that this policy is not
followed. One woman’s privileged legal mail was not
only read but moreover forwarded on by a corrections
officer without her permission or knowledge to ICE: “I
received legal mail from my family and my original birth
certificate was also sent. Mail Officer Alvarez took the
liberty to send the original to DHS without my consent. I
need original papers for the Immigration Judge and I
would like the original birth certificate paper given back
to me.” (Name redacted, July 25, 2015).
According to the inmate/detainee handbook, indigent
individuals are supposed to be allowed to send three
pieces of mail per week for non-legal correspondence
and to send unlimited legal mail. Multiple grievances

report that corrections officers do not observe this crucial
policy.

whether they infringed on the privacy and rights of
detainees.”45

In addition, individuals cite lengthy delays in mail
deliveries, including important and timely items such as
legal documents, newspapers, and magazines. The SACJ
administrator explained to CIVIC that the “mail system
is quite complex.” The City mail service is only open
Monday through Thursday and every other Friday. After
mail from the jail is placed in outgoing mail, it is only
picked up on one of these days. It is then delivered to
City Hall where it is sorted. At some point later in the
day, the outgoing mail is dropped off at the Post Office
(or possibly picked up by the U.S. Post Office
Personnel).

Individuals believe that some of the reasons for the
unfair treatment that guards are inflicting upon them
include racism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism.
In one grievance, a transgender woman wrote that
another cleaning crew was given two servings of
chicken, two slices of pizza, two bags of popcorn, and
two full soda glasses each as an incentive for their work
whereas her team only received one of each (Name
redacted, October 10, 2015, grievance form missing).
Notably, although this woman identifies as a transgender
woman, she is referred to as a “he” by personnel staff in
the grievance summary log. Such staff favoritism toward
certain individuals or groups can lead to interpersonal
tensions among those detained at the facility.

Unfair Treatment

Several individuals report being unfairly treated by
facility personnel, stating that they are being singled out
for “bullying” or that they are “getting picked on.”
Examples of ways in which guards unfairly treat certain
people include: making them undergo excessive cell
inspections or strip searches; putting them in lockdown;
denying them their time in the dayroom or law library;
taking them off work teams; not providing necessary
auxiliary aids such as wheelchairs; falsely accusing them
of misconduct; and not responding to or resolving their
grievances. One individual described feeling targeted
after he had his grievance form returned to him without
any attempt to resolve the relevant issue: “You cannot
oblige me to accept a returned grievance form that I’ve
submitted when you still have not resolved it. I know that
the staff have problems with me but you cannot
intimidate me in this way. I have rights. I know you’re
corrupt, which is why I am complaining to you and you
have to resolve the problem.” (Translated from Spanish,
Name redacted, May 21, 2016).

The Office of Inspector General at the
Department of Homeland Security found
that “at the Santa Ana City Jail, staff
confirmed detainee reports of personnel
strip searching all detainees upon admission,
which they did not document in detainee
files as required. This raises two concerns. First,
according to the 2011 PBNDS, staff are not to routinely
subject detainees to strip searches unless there is
‘reasonable suspicion’ based on ‘specific and articulable
facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that
a specific detainee is in possession of contraband.’
Second, without documentation, there is no way to
ascertain whether these searches were justified or

10.

Lockdown Periods

The SACJ staff has made excessive use of lockdowns,
both as a means of punishment and for administrative
reasons, as discussed earlier. The practice of putting
individuals on lockdown for administrative purposes is
disturbingly common, despite its severe negative effect
on individuals’ mental health. One person writes: “I’m

being housed for almost 2 weeks 23 hours a
day…It’s emotionally exhausting to only be
out 1 hour a day when I am not on
punishment” (Name redacted, July 6, 2014). Another
individual echoed the impact that the extensive lockdown
periods had on his mental health, stating: “I cannot take
it anymore, my anxiety is growing. I need to speak with a
supervisor, please we’ve been locked out for more than 9
hours” Translated from Spanish, Name redacted, July
30, 2014). In response, the staff at the facility wrote that
“[lockdowns] will continue to occur if operational needs
require it” (Name redacted, August 3, 2014). We did not
find any evidence of staff taking steps to ensure that
lockdowns take place only when necessary, adding to the
collective feeling of arbitrariness and injustice reflected
in the grievances.
Lengthy and frequent lockdowns appear to be the
consequence of the jail often having insufficient staff,
resulting in unjust limits on recreation time and access to
services. This can even affect legal cases, as one
individual reported: “I have a big issue with the amount
of program hours…I can’t even call my lawyer and
that’s a problem” (Name redacted, August 22, 2015).
Another woman raised concerns about the unhygienic

and unhealthy conditions that result during lockdowns.
She states that “[this is the] second unreasonable
lockdown and deprivation of clean water/air/shower for
33 hours non-stop” (Name redacted, August 5, 2015).
The Office of Inspector General at the Department of
Homeland Security noted similar concern. ““The Otero
County Processing Center, Stewart Detention Center,
and the Santa Ana City Jail were violating the PBNDS in
the administration, justification, and documentation of
segregation and lock-down of detainees. Staff did not
always tell detainees why they were being segregated,
nor did they always communicate detainees’ rights in
writing or provide appeal forms for those put in punitive
lock-down or placed in segregation. In multiple
instances, detainees were disciplined, including being
segregated or locked down in their cells, without
adequate documentation in the detainee’s file to justify
the disciplinary action.”46
11.

Telephone Usage

Personal telephone calls in detention facilities are
notoriously expensive to make, but certain types of calls
are supposed to be provided non-collect. At SACJ, calls
that should be provided non-collect, such as legal and
court-ordered calls, or calls to consulates, are often not
provided to individuals when requested. One father
found himself unable to speak with his children, despite
the fact that this contact had been ordered by a judge: “I
spoke to C/S Villa about my court ordered phone calls
with my children... Please see minute order, please
provide non-collect phone usage on weekends.” (Name
redacted, May 22, 2017.) Another individual described
requesting a non-collect legal phone call to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Western Regional officer
several times without success, noting that “this is my
third request to make a legal call non-collect.” (Name
redacted, June 28, 2015, grievance form missing.)
Even when non-collect legal calls are allowed,
individuals are sometimes not informed of their right to
make unmonitored calls to their attorneys. The ICE

ODO 2016 audit found that the procedures
to make unmonitored calls to counsel were
not consistently posted near all telephones in
English and Spanish. Even when individuals are
trying to make collect calls, they are not always allowed
by the guards to do so, and the hours for telephone
access are not posted consistently near all telephones.

The ODO 2016 audit found that of six housing units,
only one unit had the hours for telephone access posted.
The telephone services provided also do not comply with
the American Disabilities Act, as telephone services to
assist people with hearing disabilities do not work. One
deaf woman in ICE detention lamented not being able to
speak with family members for 6 weeks because the
teletypewriter (TTY) phone was not working (July 6,
2015). Furthermore, this woman, who seemingly had
limited English proficiency, might find communication
via a TTY phone ineffective in any case, which almost
always only operate in English. Videophone services,
which would allow deaf individuals to use sign language,
are not provided. Many individuals submitted grievances
stating that they were not able to use the telephone due to
the voice recognition service not working either.
Many people state they are not able to connect
successfully but are still charged. Phones stop
functioning entirely or will cut off repeatedly and are not
repaired. Despite this common occurrence, the ODO
2016 audit found that no designated staff member
inspects the detainee telephones daily to promptly report
out-of-order phones for service and/or repair (p. 11-12).
12.

Programming

According to the Santa Ana City Jail website, “Santa
Ana Jail is a leader in inmate programming.” However,
multiple complaints shed light on the unreliable access to
the jail’s programs, which negatively impacts
individuals’ wellbeing and legal cases. Many individuals
either would like to or are ordered to participate in
rehabilitation programs such as anger management,
parenting, and substance abuse prevention. However,
even when the facility is fully operational and not in
lockdown, people struggle to have access to
programming. For example, one individual in the facility
who was required to participate in court-mandated
programs stated the following: “I made the facility
supervisor aware of [my need to attend court mandated
programs] and was told I would be provided with these
programs via home study, I have not. Instructor [name
redacted] seen me at my door and told me he would
return, he has not. I ask to be allowed to participate in
these programs” (Name redacted, April 30, 2017). There
are often gaps or delays in programming, with no
explanation, as one individual wrote: “I’ve been waiting
for seven months to take [the] GED test. I was told it
would start in January and I’ve asked recently and still
no word on when it is going to start” (Name redacted,
January 19, 2017). Additionally, even when programs
are in place, people are not able to take advantage of all
the programs they would like to attend that would help
them gain valuable skills. One individual wrote, “I put
about five for school and they only add me in the ESL
class. No GED, no music, no computer and no breaking

barriers” (Name redacted, February 9, 2016). Another
common complaint raised was people being prevented
from participating in programs as punishment.
13.

Visitation

People jailed at SACJ greatly value their access to
visitation, so that they can spend time with their families,
loved ones and/or legal counsel. However, several
grievances voiced concerns regarding deficiencies in the
facility’s visitation policies that lead to limited or no
access to visitation. One common occurrence is when the
sudden administrative transfer of individuals from one
module to another results in changes in visitation
schedules. Because these transfers are done without
notice to families or other visitors, individuals are unable
to see their visitors when they come during their
previously scheduled hours: “I have not been able to let
my family know [about the different visiting hours]”
(Name redacted, April 11, 2015). Another individual
similarly noted the facility staff’s disregard for how the
module change affected his visitation hours: “…this
whole move has gone from bad to worse…my family
comes from far to see me... for them to pay for someone
else’s bad decisions or poor management is not fair. My
main concern is that this move was done and planned
ahead of time.” (Name redacted, March 1, 2015).
Other visitation issues beyond module changes were
reported, such as accessibility issues and long waiting
times. In 2014, people hoping to be visited by elderly or
handicapped loved ones were not able to receive them
for at least two months due to elevator malfunctions. As
someone recounted , “…please note the dates of the
elevator malfunction or give me further notes. My family
keeps coming and [not being able to] visit. This is
creating hardships on my family ties. Thank you” (Name
redacted, November 12, 2014). The officer handling the
complaint confirmed the elevator issues and said that
“[the facility] has had irregular elevator problems
throughout the year and more recently. We are working
towards a long term solution” (Name redacted,
November 12, 2014). There were also complaints of
visitors having to wait up to four hours despite having
visitation spaces available: “On 2 separate visits my
family was turned away…after they drove for hours [they
were told] that I was in class, which I don’t take
any…today they were told at 4 [pm] that [the] 8 was the
second [visitation slot] available” (Name redacted,
February 20, 2017).
14.
Staff

Lack of Communication with Bureau of Prisons

Due to the lack of access to a BOP counselor or
representative, and the apparent lack of communication
between jail staff and the BOP, individuals often do not
know their BOP case statuses and have no way of

finding out information. Many try to contact the BOP
without any results. Even when they know that they have
received release orders from a judge, they are not
provided with their release date and some individuals
state that they are being held past their release date. In a
clear disregard for due process, the jail does not provide
specific BOP forms that would allow people to file
appeals in their BOP cases. One individual noted that
this was essentially denying her the right to appeal.
15.

Hygienic Conditions

The SACJ is responsible for providing a clean, safe and
healthy environment so people can live with dignity and
without any threats to their health. To this effect, the
facility should provide access to potable water, unsoiled
and necessary clothing, hygiene products and be clean at
all times. Nevertheless, people jailed at SACJ reported
lack of access to showers, not having access to water for
days at a time, insufficient hygiene supplies, receipt of
soiled uniforms, laundry machines malfunctioning and
broken hair clippers and razors. Also, the Health
Inspection Report that evaluated the Health and Safety
Code Section 101045 in 2016 found that food items were
stored on the floor and utensils and kitchen premises
were not adequately clean.
The deficient plumbing conditions of the SACJ were
pointed out by the 2016 Health Inspection Report, and
again by Vanir in its initial jail reuse report update on
August 1, 2017. During CIVIC and Torti Gallas’ tour of
the Santa Ana City Jail on September 11, 2017, we could
see a greenish yellow substance resembling mildew
seeping from the ceiling of the 4th floor units. When
asked what the substance was, Jail Administrator
Holland explained that it had to do with a plumbing issue
that Vanir had recently pointed out to the City.
Despite the fact that the City was on notice about the
deficient plumbing since at least 2016, the plumbing
problem affected and continues to affect people’s quality
of life in terms of access to clean water and ability to
maintain a clean environment. After some inmates were
moved to a different module, people complained that

“this [module is] dirty, unsanitary and
unlivable…We’re going on four days with no
running water” (Name redacted, March 11, 2015).
Another person also said that “I have not had running
water in my cell for days” (Name redacted, March 11,
2015). The bad plumbing conditions also affected the
ability to maintain clean clothes, as someone wrote in a
grievance that “the color laundry comes with a bad smell
and dirty. The white laundry comes yellow” (Name
redacted, February 27, 2017). The aforementioned
CIVIC inspection also found that showers did not have
the appropriate pressure or temperature control and the
walls and ceilings in the shower area and kitchen were
deteriorating.
60

While at the SACJ, people should have the right to
maintain a clean appearance. However, people often had
to submit several complaints in order to have access to
working hair clippers and razors. Per an individual jailed
at SACJ: “Can you please provide us with a set of new
hair clippers, the ones we have now are old and pull
when using.” (Name redacted, May 21, 2015). Five
months later another person complained about the same
issue, stating: “…we are in dire need of hair clippers
again. Those that were purchased last time did not last
because they were cheaply made. We need some good
ones. A standard valuable brand” (October 10, 2015).
16.

Property

According to the Inmate/Detainee handbook, detainees
have the right to protection from property damage (p. 1).
However, guards frequently handle individuals’ personal
property with carelessness during property/cell searches
(called “shakedowns”) and transfers, resulting in the loss
or damage of clothing items, glasses, hygiene products,
and books: “Incompetence and oppression… Careless
handlers of my personal property.” (Name redacted,
February 20, 2015.)
Guards read and censor the reading and written materials
that individuals have in their cells. One shift supervisor
wrote in a condescending manner to an individual from
whom he took such materials: "You are encouraged to
express your feelings in healthy ways. Writing and
keeping materials that reasonably infer violence towards
staff or others is not productive." (February 20, 2015.)
Individuals are not told what to do about property that is
lost or damaged in the facility, or even given the security
to prevent such loss or damage in the first place.
According to the ODO audit in 2016, the facility
handbook fails to inform people “what the procedure is
for claiming property upon release, or identify the
procedure for filing a claim regarding lost/damaged
property.” Another concerning discovery from their
inspection found that the bins in which people are
permitted to store personal property within the housing
unit are not securable.
17.

Religious Freedom

All individuals incarcerated at the SACJ have the right to
practice their religion. Yet, grievances reported
violations to religious freedom through delays or denial
of kosher meal requests, insufficient nutritional value for
religiously mandated meals, denial and confiscation of
items needed to practice religious acts and not allowing
people to practice their religion while on lockdown.
Mainly, people were concerned with the long periods of
time they had to wait in order to get their religiously
mandated diets. For example, an individual wrote “this is

my second request within a week to start getting kosher
meal and a Quran. This request is being made for
religious reasons” (Name redacted, January 5, 2017).
The supervisor’s response was “provided January 10,
2017” (Name redacted, January 10, 2017). Yet, on
January 12, 2017 the same individual submitted another
grievance saying that his kosher diet was not yet
provided. Moreover, this individual was effectively
forced to decide between practicing his religion and
eating for at least seven days.
At the SACJ, people’s religious freedoms were also
violated by not allowing religious items at the facility. A
man recounts such an incident: “I was asked yesterday at
the second shift around 7:30 pm by [an] officer to
remove my yamaka [cloth cap required by the Jewish
religion] and hand it to her. I am a person of Orthodox
faith and have to keep my religious item on at all times
[and] during prayers” (Name redacted, January 12,
2014). Another person also complained about the
violation to his right to wear religious items, writing that
“…I was denied my [first] amendment right to
exercise and practice my religion. I was denied
my right to receive my Eleekie necklaces, or my Santeria
Cowrie shells…inmates are allowed to receive items
including the Santeria ceremonial [objects]” (Name
redacted, September 29, 2016).
18.

Worker Issues

One of the most exploitative aspects of
detention facilities is that individuals are desperate to
work for low or no wages in order to escape the
monotony of confinement. As a result, not being allowed
to work can be a source of severe distress for people. As
one woman pleaded, “I’ve been relieved from my work
crew for no reason. I want this problem handled. Please,
I need this job. This is what keeps me going mentally. I
have no money like that so the extra meals is very
helpful.” (Name redacted, February 11, 2017.) The staff
responded to her that they “have the discretion to use or
not to use eligible workers. I understand having this duty
is beneficial, but other inmates also need an opportunity
to work.... It is a privilege.”
Meanwhile, many of those who are “privileged” enough
to work expressed concerns about being exposed to
dangerous chemicals while handling the cleaning
supplies. The facility does not take the

necessary steps to ensure the safety of the
workers tasked with maintenance. According to
the 2013 ODO audit, cleaning supplies that workers may
handle include industrial strength detergent, fabric
softener, bleach, floor stripper, wax, insecticide, glass
cleaner, degreaser, and stainless steel cleaner. The ODO
audit report continued to observe that “running
inventories of all hazardous substances are not

maintained in the laundry area, maintenance department,
or housing units. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
for hazardous substances stored and used in the laundry
area and housing units were not present. It is critical that
MSDS are available in all areas where hazardous
substances are stored and used, because of potential lifesafety issues” (p. 9). This finding is even more disturbing
once you consider that the medical care that would need
to be provided in the case of such “life-safety issues”
would likely be inadequate.
b.

Jails in California – the Context

This section provides an overview of California laws that
regulate the maintenance of facilities such as the Santa
Ana City Jail. The section also provides an overview of
the California laws that regulate conditions of
confinement in facilities such as the Santa Ana City Jail.
1.

Jail Buildings

California law requires any city operating a local
detention facility to abide by state fire safety standards,
building standards, and the health and safety code. Court
holding facilities built in accordance with standards at
the time of construction are considered in compliance
with California regulations unless the condition of the
structure is determined by the appropriate authority to be
dangerous to life, health, or welfare of minors.
Under California law, jails must also contain a sufficient
number of rooms to allow all persons belonging to a
certain specified class of prisoners to be confined
separately from persons belonging to any other classes.
The specified classes of prisoners include: persons
committed on criminal process and detained for trial;
persons already convicted of a crime and held under
sentence; and persons detained as witnesses or held
under civil process or under an order imposing
punishment for a contempt. Court holding facilities must
also be designed to provide for segregation of minors in
accordance with an established classification plan.

2.
Facility Conditions
2.1 Solitary Confinement/Administrative Segregation
California law requires individuals detained for trial to
be segregated from individuals already convicted of
crimes and serving their sentences. Additionally,
individuals who are held pending civil process under the
sexually violent predator laws must be held in
administrative segregation. Administrative segregation
must consist of separate and secure housing but cannot
involve any other deprivation of privileges than is
necessary to obtain the objective of protecting inmates
and staff.
The California Court of Appeals has held that inmates
placed in administrative segregation are entitled to a
hearing with advance written notice for initial placement
except in case of a genuine emergency, and an
opportunity to present witnesses and documentary
evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit has also imposed Due Process limitations
on segregated confinement. The Ninth Circuit has held
that segregated confinement of pretrial detainees, where
that confinement amounts to punishment, must be
accompanied by a due process hearing.
The Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court have also imposed
Eighth Amendment limits on living conditions within
segregation. Whether segregation constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment depends upon the living conditions
of such segregation including the length of time such
conditions are imposed.
Local jails, regardless of size, are also subject to the
Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) of 2003, the first
federal law dealing with the sexual assault of prisoners.
Under PREA, the federal government has limited jails
from denying youthful inmates daily large-muscle
exercise and any legally required special education
services to comply with this provision absent exigent
circumstances.
2.2 Mail Delivery

Federal law directs facilities to consider the effect of the
design, acquisition, expansion, or modification upon a
local agency's ability to protect inmates from sexual
abuse when designing or acquiring any new facility and
in planning any substantial expansion or modification of
existing facilities. When installing or updating a video
monitoring system, electronic surveillance system, or
other monitoring technology, local agencies shall
consider how such technology may enhance the ability to
protect inmates from sexual abuse.

California law provides various protections for inmates’
mail correspondence. For example, section 2601 of the
California Penal Code grants inmates the broad right to
receive and read written materials accepted for
distribution by the post office. However, authorities may
exclude: (1) obscene publications or writings, and mail
relating to how to obtain such matter; (2) matter tending
to incite any form of violence; and (3) matter concerning
gambling or a lottery. Authorities may open and inspect
packages received by an inmate and establish reasonable
restrictions on the number of newspapers, magazines,
and books that an inmate may have in the cell or
elsewhere at one time. Moreover, inmates’ rights to

receive mail are subject to regulations reasonably related
to legitimate penological interests.
Under California law, prisoners are explicitly guaranteed
the right to correspond confidentially with any member
of the State Bar. Moreover, federal courts have
interpreted interference with inmates’ correspondence
with counsel as constituting a violation of the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel.
While the Supreme Court has recognized the right to
mail correspondence, the Court has also upheld federal
regulations authorizing prison officials to reject
incoming publications found to be detrimental to prison
security.
2.3 Medical Treatment
California law requires city jails with a daily average of
more than 100 persons to have a duly licensed and
practicing physician available at all times. In defining
“licensed physicians” in the context of abortion, the
Supreme Court has noted that nurses are not licensed
physicians.
When a prisoner requires medical or surgical treatment
necessitating hospitalization, a judge may order the
prisoner removed to a hospital. The city or county bears
the costs unless the prisoner is able to pay. California law
provides for removal from jail and commitment of
mentally ill prisoners, and for voluntary application by a
prisoner for inpatient or outpatient mental health
services.
Jails cannot deny inmates medical care because of a lack
of funds in his or her personal account at the facility. A
sheriff, chief or director of corrections, or chief of police
is authorized to charge an inmate’s personal account a $3
fee for each inmate-initiated medical visit while confined
in city jail. If the inmate has no money in his or her
personal account, there shall be no charge for the
medical visit.
When a prison is in lockdown, inmates in the general
population housed in the general population are unable to
leave their housing units to access medical care; instead,
clinical staff must go from cell to cell to see the prisoner,
or prisoners must be escorted by correctional officers to
and from clinic areas. The Supreme Court has recognized
overcrowding in a California jail as the primary cause of
Eight Amendment violations, including where
overcrowding demands increased reliance on lockdowns
and impedes the effective delivery of care because staff
must either escort prisoners to medical facilities or bring
medical staff to the prisoners.
California law also requires city jails to provide femalespecific medical care. Female prisoners are also entitled

to continue using materials necessary for personal
hygiene and prescribed birth control measures. They
must be given information regarding family planning
services, and offered those services at least 60 days prior
to their scheduled release dates. A prisoner who is
pregnant and desires an abortion, if eligible under the
law, is entitled to obtain the abortion.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment as requiring a duty to provide medical care.
Federal courts have also held that the minimum
constitutional level of medical care that must be provided
prisoners is care that does not evince a deliberate
indifference to their serious medical needs. When staff
purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s pain
or possible medical needs, they act with deliberate
indifference. Courts have defined serious medical needs
as those sufficiently serious such that the failure to treat
the prisoner's condition could have resulted in further
significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain. For example, serious needs for medical
treatment include an injury that a reasonable doctor or
patient would find important and worthy of comment or
treatment; the presence of a medical condition that
significantly affects an individual's daily activities; or the
existence of chronic and substantial pain.
Courts have noted that while not every request for
medical attention must be heeded, where circumstances
are clearly sufficient to indicate the need of medical
attention for injury or illness, the denial of such aid
constitutes a deprivation of due process. Moreover,
constitutional rights are violated if prison officials fail to
provide medical care to inmates that is reasonably
designed to meet their routine and emergency health care
needs.
In treating transgender inmates, a medical indifference
claim will not fail where an inmate has received some
treatment for gender dysphoria, as an inmate need not
prove they are completely denied medical care in order
to prevail.
In providing for inmates with dietary needs, jails cannot
refuse special diets based on religious beliefs without
violating the First Amendment. Moreover, inmates who
are disabled because of severe dietary restrictions enjoy
the protections of the American with Disabilities Act.
Adequate food is a basic human need protected by the
Eighth Amendment, and thus requires that prisoners
receive food that is adequate to maintain health.
Within the PREA regulations, the only references to
medical care involve ensuring that prisoners who have
experienced sexual abuse have access to medical care.
These protections include requiring facilities to offer
medical and mental health evaluations and, as

appropriate, treatment to all inmates who have been
victimized by sexual abuse. PREA also requires full and
part-time medical and mental health care practitioners
who work regularly in its facilities to have been trained
in the following: (1) how to detect and assess signs of
sexual abuse and sexual harassment; (2) how to preserve
physical evidence of sexual abuse; (3) how to respond
effectively and professionally to victims of sexual abuse
and sexual harassment; and (4) how and to whom to
report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse and
sexual harassment.
The PREA regulations leave the area of nonconsensual
medical interventions virtually unregulated. It appears
that, according to the regulations, nonconsensual medical
interventions would consist of sexual abuse only where
the healthcare provider “has the intent to abuse, arouse,
or gratify sexual desire,” which would not cover most of
the forms of sexually violent medical interventions.
2.4 Strip Searches
California law expressly limits strip and body cavity
searches based on widely varying law enforcement
policies and practices for conducting strip or body cavity
searches of detained persons throughout California. The
purpose of section 4030 was to create statewide policies
that respect arrestees’ rights.
Limits on strip searches under section 4030 of the
California Penal Code apply only to pre-arraignment
detainees arrested for infraction or misdemeanor offenses
and to any minor detained prior to a detention hearing
alleged to have committed a misdemeanor or infraction
offense. Individuals arrested for any misdemeanor or
infraction cannot be subject to a physical body cavity
search except pursuant to a search warrant issued by a
magistrate specifically authorizing the search.
Pre-arraignment detainees may not be subject to a strip
search or visual body cavity search prior to placement in
the general jail population unless an officer has
determined there is reasonable suspicion, based on
specific articulable facts, to believe the person is
concealing weapons or contraband and that a strip search
will result in their discovery. Such a search, however,
cannot be conducted without the supervising officer’s
prior written authorization, which includes the
circumstances giving rise to the reasonable suspicion.
Prior written authorizations must be placed in the
agency’s records and made available on request to the
person searched or his or her authorized representative.
Persons conducting or otherwise present or within sight
of the inmate during a strip search or visual or physical
body cavity search must be of the same sex as the person
being searched, except for physicians or licensed medical
personnel. Persons conducting a strip search or a visual

body cavity search cannot touch the breasts, buttocks, or
genitalia of the person being searched. A physical body
cavity search must also be conducted under sanitary
conditions and must be conducted by a specified licensed
medical practitioner. Additionally, jails are to avoid
knowingly using a body scanner to scan a pregnant
woman.
The Ninth Circuit has found strip searches to be
unconstitutional when strip searches are excessive,
vindictive, harassing, or unrelated to any legitimate
penological interest. In 2012, however, the Supreme
Court's decision in Florence v. Burlington permitted
agents of the government to conduct strip searches of
misdemeanor arrestees without reasonable suspicion.
Federal regulations under PREA incorporate substantial
limitations on cross-gender searches, limiting who can
conduct a search. However, the PREA regulations leave
virtually unregulated when, where, how, and whether a
search may be conducted.
2.5 Disciplinary Action
A detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication
of guilt in accordance with due process of law. Thus,
courts must distinguish conditions whose purpose is to
effectuate detention and conditions which are punitively
imposed. Institutional restrictions that infringe upon
constitutional guarantees must be evaluated in the light
of the central object of prison administration and
safeguarding institutional security.
For a prison disciplinary hearing, the procedural due
process safeguards include: (1) written notice of the
charges, no less than 24 hours prior to the hearing; (2) a
written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence
relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action; and (3)
a limited right to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence when it would not be unduly hazardous to
institutional safety or correctional goals to allow the
inmate to do so. The California Supreme Court has
extended these requirements to prison inmates placed in
administrative segregation because of a pending
disciplinary charge.
Where disciplinary action and loss of privileges are
express manifestations of punitive intent—that is, action
taken solely for retribution or deterrence—they are
invalid. Inmates are subjected to cruel and unusual
punishment where jails impose administrative
segregation on inmates and deprive them of the use of
the day room, chapel, exercise, and visitation rights
based upon an assessment of their propensities instead of
their offenses committed within the jail.
The Ninth Circuit has found a prison’s policy of not
permitting any outdoor recreation to inmates in long-

term incarceration in continuous segregation as violating
the Eighth Amendment. However, courts have also
upheld the denial of exercise rights to inmates. For
example, the Ninth Circuit upheld the denial of exercise
rights to an inmate who had attacked prison guards in an
exercise yard and vowed to attack them again. The
Ninth Circuit has also upheld a month-long deprival of
outdoor exercise during a lockdown issued in response to
a genuine emergency.
Restrictions placed on use of the day room—such as
limiting administrative segregation detainees’ use of the
room to one or two inmates at a time—have been found
to be reasonably related to institutional security concerns
instead of punitive intent. Moreover, where there is an
emergency such as extreme physical violence within a
jail, the Ninth Circuit has upheld substantial lockdown
restrictions including a five-month lockdown where
privileges were partially or wholly revoked, showers and
exercise limited for around two or more months, and
inmates were confined to their cells for 24 hours a day
for two weeks without access to hot meals.
c.

Legal Liability for City

The City of Santa Ana is at risk of losing
millions defending and settling claims
against its jail. The living conditions that individuals
incarcerated at the SACJ are forced to endure are at best
deficient. We believe many of the situations we have
documented at the Santa Ana City Jail raise state and
federal legal concerns. This analysis has highlighted
some of the many issues that take place in this facility;
yet, it is crucial to keep in mind that this is a very small
sample of problems described in the hundreds of
grievances submitted each year. People held at this
facility were mainly concerned with access to adequate
medical care, procedures and practices of classifying
inmates, and excessive use of disciplinary actions. Other
significant categories analyzed included personnel
complaints and ineffective grievance system, problems
related to commissary items, inadequate food services,
lack of access to the law library, issues with receiving
and sending mail—including legal mail—unfair
treatment by the staff, excessive lockdowns, problems
related to telephone services, inability to participate in
programs, no visiting access, ineffective communication
with the Bureau of Prisons Staff, serious hygiene
deficiencies, unfair seizure of property, violations to
religious freedom and work related issues.
The complaints, along with the inspections made by
different government agencies, underscored the
substandard environment at the facility. Even more, a
significant amount of grievances are concerned with life
threatening situations, especially when dealing with
medical care deficiencies. Many grievance forms
reference inadequate or absent medical treatment,

disregard of severe or potentially severe symptoms and
mistreatment by the medical staff.
Dozens of cases involving absent or negligent medical
treatment has resulted in large settlements or jury awards
against cities. For example, a jury awarded $3 million
where untreated asthma resulted in an inmate’s death
and, after trial, the city agreed to pay the estate over $3
million. Brummett and Sisson on Behalf of Sisson, Estate
of v. Cty. of San Diego, JVR No. 1504220025, 2014 WL
8664199 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2014) (verdict and
settlement summary).
In addition to finding an unreasonable use of force
against a deceased inmate, a jury also found that
defendants were negligent and denied the decedent
medical care in violation of the inmate’s constitutional
rights where an arrestee died in police custody following
an alleged beating. The jury rendered a verdict of
$3,215,000. Confidential v. City of Los Angeles, No.
09CV00842(PLA), 2012 WL 3541937 (C.D. Cal. Apr.
25, 2012) (verdict and settlement summary).
A decedent’s parents, brother, and daughter sued a
county and several officers and nurses and received a $3
million settlement. A day before the his death, he
informed a jail nurse he was experiencing anxiety. The
decedent was subsequently placed in a restraint chair,
handcuffed and shackled, tased, and restrained with a
spit mask over his face. The autopsy revealed that the
cause of death was anoxic encephalopathy due to
cardiopulmonary arrest, asphyxiation, and chest
compression during the restraint procedure. Estate of
David Cross v. Santa Cruz County, No. 5:06-cv-04891RS, 2008 WL 3166807 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2008) (verdict
and settlement summary).
The unfair treatment of individuals at the Santa Ana City
Jail is not limited to medical staff, as people, especially
members of the LGBTQ community, reported
discrimination and being targeted by staff. This unfair
treatment may be the result of a lack of proper protocols
or adherence to protocols when classifying individuals,
including when putting them into segregation. The City
of New York settled a lawsuit in August 2017 against
470 former inmates over solitary confinement, costing
the City $5 million. And here in California, an Ontario
judge awarded two inmates $85,000 for excessive
lockdowns caused by staff shortages. The judge
explained that these lockdowns resembled segregation or
solitary confinement. Excessive lockdowns have been a
consistent and documented problem at the Santa Ana
City Jail, especially in recent years. This could lead to a
class-action lawsuit against the City.
Strip searches continue to be an issue at the Santa Ana
City Jail. In Illinois, two separate lawsuits resulted in $60
million settlements under 42 U.S.C. §1983. In one case,

former detainees were subjected to humiliating mass
strip searches while being verbally abused by guards;
CIVIC and other organizations have documented a
similar incident that occurred at the Santa Ana City Jail.
The other lawsuit concerned strip searches that were
occurring after prisoners were returned to the jail from
court before being released.

In determining its jail reuse strategy, the City should take
into consideration the potential for hefty settlements
resulting out of these concerning conditions at the Santa
Ana City Jail.

V.
City & Community-Based Partnerships on Alternatives to Immigration
Detention
Immigration detention is a civil form of confinement.
The City of Santa Ana no longer operates an immigration
detention facility at the Santa Ana City Jail. However,
Orange County operates two immigration detention
facilities, the Theo Lacy Facility and James Musick
Facility. The City of Santa Ana, now a sanctuary city,
has an opportunity to lead the nation in communitybased alternatives to immigration detention (ATD).
Community-based ATD programs are run by community
groups or nonprofits in a similar manner to the federal
Refugee Resettlement Program. Instead of being
detained, immigrants are allowed to remain living with
family. If they are recent asylum seekers without family,
then they are housed with volunteers or in group homes
while the courts process their immigration cases.
Community-based programs demonstrate that people
nationwide can build effective and humane pathways
away from our punitive immigration detention system.

Currently, there are 20 community-based
ATDs in operation across the United States,
according to CIVIC’s own survey. Internationally, there
are over 250 examples of alternatives in 60 countries,
according to the International Detention Coalition.47
CIVIC views community-based ATD programs as
similar to the ad hoc Refugee Task Force, which was
made up of ethnic and religious groups in the 1970s and
gave rise to today’s robust federal Refugee Resettlement
Program. In other words, community-initiated programs
are the precursor to a system where detention is replaced
by federally funded, community-based alternatives.
We believe the City of Santa Ana has a unique
opportunity to work with community leaders to run a
community-based alternative to detention program. This
could set a precedent at the county, national, and even
international levels for how municipalities can help to
eliminate immigration detention. It also would be in line
with what the majority of Californians believe is best for
their communities. Independent poll results show that
68% of Californians favor community alternatives over
incarceration.48
As explained below, CIVIC believes that all people
currently in immigration detention are eligible for a
community-based alternative to immigration detention

https://idcoalition.org/publication/there-are-alternativesrevised-edition/
48
The Field Poll, Field Research Corporation, available at
https://www.politico.com/states/f/?id=00000157-b071-dd2aa37f-b8f14a380001.

that would not require the payment of a bond. However,
under the current political climate, the only viable way to
get someone released from immigration detention is
through payment of an immigration bond. Therefore, in
this section, CIVIC provides an overview of the problem,
legal analysis of the viability of community-based
alternatives to detention, domestic and international
examples of community-based alternatives to detention,
and a clear path forward for the city that involves the
creation of the first city-supported revolving bond fund.
a.

The Problem in Orange County

Although Santa Ana ended its contract with ICE,
residents of Santa Ana can still be arrested by ICE and
detained in over 200 immigration detention facilities
across the country, including two immigration detention
facilities that remain in Orange County—Theo Lacy
Facility and James Musick Jail.
From June 2016 to May 2017, CIVIC conducted incustody surveys with people in immigration detention at
these two facilities to determine language abilities,
national origin, age range, legal representation, and
eligibility to stay in the United States. The surveys were
conducted in person, over the phone, or via mail. We
conducted these surveys with 261 people in immigration
detention in Orange County. Approximately 55% of the
participants spoke English, often in addition to another
language. Other languages spoken included Spanish,
French, Arabic, Chinese, Tagalog, Hausa, Portuguese,
Punjabi, Wolof, and Igbo. Participants were originally
from 18 different countries with the largest
representation from Mexico, Ghana, and Nigeria. Most
people were under 30 years old (40%) with the oldest
person being 78 years old.

Of the 261 participants CIVIC surveyed,
only 8.9% were represented by an attorney,
far below the national average of 16%. Over
80% of the participants had a possible form of relief,
including asylum parole or bond. The most common
types of relief from removal were
asylum/withholding/convention against torture (20.19%)
and cancellation of removal (15.93%).
From August 2015 to April 2017, the ACLU of Southern
California received and collected complaints and reports
from incarcerated individuals in the Orange County jail
system through 120 post-release surveys as well as
multiple jail visits with, and correspondence from,
incarcerated individuals. They found that the frequency
and normalcy of issues identified—ranging from
excessive use of force and verbal abuse to inadequate

medical treatment and deprivation of due process—
strongly suggest subpar conditions and potential
violations within the Orange County jail system.49
Because immigration is a civil form of confinement,
there is no time limit for how long someone can be held
in immigration detention. And now under the Trump
administration, not only are more people being detained,
but also fewer people are being released. Data from the
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at
Syracuse University shows that 61% of immigrants given
a Notice to Appear, or NTA, under Trump have been
detained, compared to 27% under Obama.50 The Trump
administration’s January 25th Executive Order, “Border
Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”
and the subsequent Implementation Memo by the
Department of Homeland Security, released February 20,
2017, also have had a chilling effect on the use of parole
and bond.51
For those who are fortunate to be granted a bond by an
immigration judge, it is often impossible for them to pay
the bond. The Department of Homeland Security does
not keep statistics on the number of people who languish
for years in U.S. immigration detention simply because
they are poor and cannot pay an immigration bond,
which may be as low as $1,500. It is widely recognized,
though, that thousands of immigrants have been granted
bonds and cannot pay them in Orange County and
nationwide.
Unlike in the criminal justice context, most immigrants
are required to pay their entire immigration bond rather
than a portion that is negotiated through bail bondsmen.
Traditionally, there have been very few bail bondsmen
willing to operate in the immigration detention context
because the Department of Homeland Security requires
the entire bond to be paid in cash. Similarly,
immigration bonds typically take at least five years to be
returned to the obligor, since there is such a backlog in
immigration cases. This reality has given rise to
exploitative companies, such as Libre by Nexus, that
strap an ankle monitor on the immigrant, charging them
$420 a month until their case is closed plus 20% of the
original bond each year in what is called a “yearly
renewal premium” for the life of the loan.
b.

Legal Analysis of Viability of CommunityBased ATDs

This section provides legal analysis of immigration
detention statutes, concluding that all detained

immigrants should be eligible for release

https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/ocjails2017aclu-socal-report.pdf
50
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/466/
51
http://www.endisolation.org/parole-denials

into a community-based alternative to
immigration detention. A noncitizen can be held
in civil immigration detention under various federal
statutes. Under most statutes, ICE and immigration
judges have the legal ability to release a person from
immigration detention on parole, bond, or their own
recognizance so that they can fight their immigration
case from the outside.
Only one statute provides for mandatory custody.
Section 1226(c) provides that the Attorney General
“shall take into custody” aliens who are either
“inadmissible” or “deportable” “by reason of having
committed” certain offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). A
review of the case law and legislative history of §1226(c)
does not foreclose on the idea that “in custody” includes
the use of community-initiated ATD programs. The term
“in custody” is open to a broad interpretation, which can
be supported by policy arguments for these programs.
Additionally, the INS’s involvement in the Vera Institute
Appearance Assistance Program is promising precedent
that a similar community-initiated ATD program would
be acceptable under the statute. Therefore, all
noncitizens held in immigration detention in Orange
County—and across the country—should be eligible for
release on a community-based ATD.
i.

Overview of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1226(c) –
Detention of Criminal Aliens”52

The U.S. immigration detention system is a relatively
recent phenomenon. Prior to the 1980s, there were only
approximately 30 people in detention each day. The
1980s gave rise to two major prison corporations that
lobbied the government for laws that expanded detention
and other forms of incarceration. In fact, various federal
and state laws were passed that resulted in a new prison
built every 15 days throughout the 1990s, such as the
Santa Ana City Jail. In 1996, President Clinton signed
two laws, which doubled the number of people in
immigration detention from 8,500 each day in 1996 to
16,000 in 1998. Today, the detention population has
increased nearly fivefold to over 40,000 asylum seekers
and other migrants held in over 200 jails and private
prisons each day.
Congress passed the 1996 laws out of misplaced fear,
following the first World Trade Center attack and the
Oklahoma City bombing. On April 24, 1996, Congress
passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996 (AEDPA) adding to the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) a provision requiring automatic
mandatory detention without bond for any “alien”
convicted of an "aggravated felony" and for certain other
non-citizens with criminal convictions. This provision
was replaced on September 30, 1996, with the Illegal

187 A.L.R. Fed. 325 (2003)

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (IIRIRA), which amended the INA to include 8
U.S.C.A. § 1226(c), a mandatory pre-deportation
detention provision directed at noncitizens with criminal
convictions. Congress intended it to serve two main
purposes: to protect the community at large from further
criminal acts by these noncitizens and to ensure
deportation (“removal”) by preventing a noncitizen from
fleeing.
The 1226(c) provision is entitled “Detention of Criminal
Aliens,” and it directs the Attorney General to hold in
immigration detention without the right to a bail bond
hearing “deportable” “criminal aliens” following release
from their original criminal sentences, without regard to
whether they were released on parole, supervised release,
or probation (i.e. when released from physical criminal
custody) and without regard to whether they could be
arrested or imprisoned again for the same offense, prior
to decisions on their removal from the United States. The
statute does not provide a time period for review of
detention or for conducting a deportation hearing, nor
does it allow for the exercise of discretion in determining
whether continued detention is reasonable.
Section 1226(c) provides for detention "when the alien is
released" from criminal custody. The courts construing
this language have concluded that the statute is
applicable any time after release from incarceration, and
does not require that a noncitzen must be detained by the
ICE immediately upon release from prison. Congress
anticipated that the ICE, and previously the INS, would
not have sufficient detention space and personnel to
enforce the new law immediately, so it provided the
Attorney General with a grace period during which
mandatory detention of “criminal aliens” would not be
the general rule. Thus, the IIRIRA contained "transition
period custody rules" (TPCRs) where lawfully admitted
noncitizens who had been convicted of aggravated
felonies could be released from detention during the
pendency of their removal proceedings under certain
circumstances. These TPCRs provided immigration bond
hearings to noncitizens with criminal convictions, at
which they could demonstrate that they had entered
legally and did not present a substantial risk of flight or
threat to persons or property. These transition rules
expired on October 9, 1998, and §1226(c) became
effective on October 10, 1998, requiring mandatory
detention without bond pending final removal orders for
both lawfully and unlawfully admitted noncitizens with
criminal convictions requiring deportation who were
released after that date.
ii.

No case law has excluded the use of
community-based ATD programs as a form of
custody and the legislative history indicates that
the term “custody” is broader than “detention.”

No authority exists that has definitively determined that
“in custody,” as used in §1226(c), excludes or includes
the use of community-based ATD programs. Only one
immigration case has interpreted the word “custody”; in
2009, the Board of Immigration Appeals was tasked with
interpreting the term “custody” as used in 8 C.F.R. §
1236.1(d)(1) and INA §236(a). Matter of AguilarAquino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 747 (BIA 2009). Section
1226(a) allows for detention of an arrested noncitizen,
but does not require it, whereas 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1),
allows an immigration judge to grant an amelioration of
the terms of release within seven days of a noncitizens
release from custody. The BIA determined that in this
context, “custody” was the “actual physical restraint or
confinement within a given space.” Id. at 747.
In reaching this decision, the BIA sought to construe the
regulation in a way that would effectuate the intent of the
enacting body. It first looked to the plain and ordinary
meaning of the word “custody” and noted the broad
definitions in Black’s Law Dictionary and The Random
House Dictionary of English. From these definitions the
BIA determined that “custody” could be interpreted in
different ways and looked to the legislative history
behind the regulation and statute. Comparing Congress’s
language in the former § 242(a)(1) and the revised
language used in § 1226(a), the BIA noted that Congress
substituted the word “detain” where “custody” has
previously been used. Therefore, the BIA interpreted this
change as Congress’s intent that “custody” means the
actual physical restraint or confinement in a given place.
Id. at 752.
There have been no other decisions from the BIA
defining the term “custody” or extending its decision in
Aguilar-Aquino to other parts of §1226, such as the
mandatory custody provision of § 1226(c). Therefore,
there is a strong argument that the BIA’s decision in
Aguilar-Aquino was limited to §1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. §
1236.1(d)(1). Many law review articles have adopted this
argument, while at least one has examined the legislative
history behind § 1226(c): Katie Mullins, Mandatory
Detention? Why the Colloquial Name for §236(c) is a
Misnomer and How Alternatives to Detention Programs
Can Fulfill its Custody Requirements, 72 Nat’l Law
Guild Rev. 34 (2015). The article argues that Congress
did not intend for “custody” to require physical
confinement. The first version of the bill when presented
to the House of Representatives made no reference to the
words “detention” or “detain.” Furthermore, when
proposed to the Senate, the bill used the term “custody”
and not detain. In fact, the title “Detention of Criminal
Aliens” is the first mention of the word “detain” and was
obtained when the bill was copied and put into the
appropriations bill. The accompanying report by the
House is silent on the addition of “detain” to the title.
The article also noted that the Supreme Court has been
reluctant to give the titles of statutes controlling authority

over the statute’s interpretation. Furthermore, Congress
revised §1226(c) and §1226(a) concurrently but only
affirmatively changed the word “custody” to “detain” in
the latter.
While case law and the BIA’s decision in AguilarAquino indicate an inclination toward a narrow
interpretation of the term, there has yet to be a decision
that establishes “in custody” to mean physical detention
for §1226(c). Additionally, when applying the logic of
the BIA’s decision in Aguilar-Aquino it would suggest
that the legislative history of the statute supports an
argument that “custody” does not exclusively mean
“detain.” Furthermore, we believe the Vera Institute’s
Appearance Assistance Program is promising precedent
for a community-initiated ATD since it was contracted
by INS and used similar monitoring methods as proposed
by CIVIC.
iii. Vera Institute – Appearance Assistance
Program
In 1996, the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS)
contracted with the Vera Institute for Justice to run a
three-year demonstration program in New York testing
the alternative-to-detention program strategy. The
reasoning behind the program was that many of those
arrested for immigration violations were routinely
released, and never re-detained, when detention space
was not available while others were detained from
apprehension until their removal proceedings were
complete.
In order to participate in the program, individuals needed
to meet criteria demonstrating a lack of threat to public
safety, strong community ties and satisfactory
compliance with prior reporting requirements.
Participants also had to live in the New York
metropolitan area. If a detained noncitizen met this
criteria, the Appearance Assistance Program (AAP)
would recommend release from custody, without bond,
conditioned upon complying with the program’s
requirements. INS had discretion to approve or deny the
recommendation.
AAP tested two levels of supervision: intensive and
regular. The intensive track was designed for those the
INS would otherwise have detained and was in practice
similar to the supervision provided in U.S. criminal cases
by pretrial service agencies. It included mandatory
personal and telephonic reporting, home visits
(sometimes at pre-arranged times, others not), and
consistent monitoring. The regular track’s only required
attendance at an orientation session, a verified address,
and a stated commitment to comply with the
requirements of the law. Notably, neither track involved
ankle monitoring.

Additionally, there were three groups of participants.
Members of the first group were detained at JFK and
were primarily asylum seekers. Members of the second
group were “criminal aliens” who had resided in the
United States for decades and had U.S. citizen relatives.
Members of the third were undocumented individuals
arrested at their workplaces.
INS’s involvement in the AAP provides good evidence
that similar community programs are not foreclosed by
Section 1226(c). However, given the date of this
program (1996), it likely took place under the TPCRs
discussed above, which gave INS more flexibility in
enforcing the custody requirement of 1226(c). Despite
the program year, the appearance rate for program makes
a strong case for why people held even under 1226(c)
should be eligible for release on an alternative to
immigration detention:
• 93% of asylum seekers appeared for their
hearings
• 94% of people with past criminal convictions
showed up for their hearings
iv. Additional federal support for alternatives to
detention
Since the Vera Institute for Justice’s pilot program, the
federal government has recognized the viability of
community-based ATDs to some extent. For example, in
2013, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services
(LIRS) and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
(USCCB) both signed Memorandum of Understanding
with ICE to administer self-funded alternatives to
detention pilot programs. LIRS administered its program
in the New York/Newark area and in San Antonio.
USCCB administered its program in Baton Rouge and
Boston. The pilot programs were small in size, working
with approximately 50 to 75 individuals total.
The fact that the federal government has acknowledged
community-based ATD programs became a driving force
behind the Gang of Eight’s decision to include a
provision in the 2013 immigration reform bill that passed
the Senate to clarify that all immigrants, including those
who fall under mandatory immigration detention, can be
released on alternatives to immigration detention.
In addition, the Democratic Party in its 2016 platform
pledged the following: “We will fight to end federal,
state, and municipal contracts with for-profit private
prisons and private detention centers. In order to end
family detention, we will ensure humane alternatives for
those who pose no public threat. We recognize that there
are vulnerable communities within our immigration
system who are often seeking refuge from persecution
abroad, such as LGBT families, for whom detention can
be unacceptably dangerous.”
70

The problem has been that each time the
federal government has partnered with a
nonprofit on a true community-based
alternative to detention program, the private
prison industry has swooped in and changed
the game. For example, after the LIRS/USCCB pilot,
ICE issued an RFP, awarding the $11 million program
contract to GEO Care, a subsidiary of GEO Group, to
provide social, medical, and legal services to 1,500
mothers and children who would otherwise be detained.
Advocates had deep concerns about the viability of
allowing a private prison company to run an ATD, which
was terminated in June 2017.
Similarly after the Vera Institute’s pilot, ICE issued an
RFP for an ATD. Vera applied, but Behavioral
Interventions (BI), another subsidiary of GEO Group,
won the contract. BI created the Intensive Supervision
Appearance Program (ISAP). ISAP relies on the use of
electronic ankle monitors, biometric voice recognition
software, unannounced home visits, employer
verification, and in-person reporting to supervise
participants. GEO Group generates approximately $47
million in annualized revenues from ISAP. We believe
this is not a true alternative to detention, but rather, an
alternative form of detention because it privileges
surveillance over support.
c.

Examples of Community-Based Alternatives
Today
i.

Domestic Examples

Currently, there are 20 community-based alternatives to
immigration detention in operation across the United
States in Washington, New Jersey, Texas, Minnesota,
Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and
California, according to CIVIC’s own survey.
Only one of these programs is supported by a local
municipality: the City of Austin, Texas, provides a
social service grant to Casa Marianella, a nonprofit that
operates an emergency homeless shelter for immigrants,
many of whom are released from immigration
detention.53 To get a person—usually an arriving asylum
seeker—out of immigration detention, Casa Marianella
will sponsor the person by providing them with an
address and place to live once they are released from
immigration detention. In addition, Casa Marianella
offers three levels of English classes four nights a week,
a legal clinic with three attorneys open on Thursday
afternoons, and an Eastern medicine clinic seeing
patients twice a week. Staff members, most of them

http://www.mystatesman.com/lifestyles/casa-marianellafresh-start-for-asylum-seekers-austinhouse/rdLPDh4fSDT4maUb6Qy63H/

AmeriCorps members doing a year of volunteer service,
help the residents with anything they need, be it finding a
doctor, a mode of transportation or a job.
In California, CIVIC has partnered with Centro Legal de
la Raza and Interfaith Movement For Human Integrity to
create the Post Release Accompaniment Program
(PRAP). PRAP is a community-based alternative to
detention model based in the San Francisco Bay Area,
which provides immigrants who would otherwise be
detained with the ability to fight their case from the
outside. PRAP assists in helping immigrants obtain
release on parole and provides them with housing,
connections to attorneys, transportation to immigration
court, and limited financial support. When a person does
not have a place to live, a network of local volunteers
open their homes to people so that they can be released
and have a safe place to live. For those who have
families, PRAP helps the person reunite with the family
and then transfer their immigration case to the
jurisdiction closest to their family. In the first year and a
half of the program, PRAP secured the safe release of
approximately 300 asylum seekers from the West County
Detention Facility.
ii.

International Examples

There exist over 250 examples of alternatives
in 60 countries, according to the International
Detention Coalition.54 For example, Poland has passed
legislation providing for a mandate to consider
alternatives to immigration detention. Poland’s New Act
on Foreigners of 2014 gives authority to the Polish
Border Guard to require people to report at specified
intervals to the Polish Border Guard, pay a security
deposit, and direct people to stay in certain locations
instead of being held in immigration detention. In
Sweden, rather than being immediately detained which
is the law in the United States, arriving asylum seekers
are taken to an open reception center where they are
registered and screened for health or other support needs.
They are registered on arrival and issued with a plastic
photo identity card. This is used by immigration to track
the case and used by the asylum seeker to access services
in the community. The asylum seeker is assigned a
caseworker. In China, the Exit and Entry Law of 2013
excludes certain vulnerable migrants from detention,
including minors under 16 years of age, persons with
disabilities, persons with serious illnesses, pregnant
women, and those over 70 years of age. Even in
Greece, which has faced heavy criticism for falling
short of international minimum standards, announced a
policy change in 2015 for the immediate release and

https://idcoalition.org/publication/there-are-alternativesrevised-edition/

referral to accommodation facilities of vulnerable
groups.55
The City of Madrid, Spain, has taken a local
approach to supporting community-based alternatives to
immigration detention. Like the United States,
municipalities in Spain do not have the authority to
manage immigration policy, but within its authority,
Madrid’s City Council (Ayuntamiento de Madrid) voted
to offer housing and food in protected homes in Madrid
so that immigration judges have an alternative to
deprivation of liberty. The City Council did a number of
others things, including hiring and training social
workers in Madrid so that they understand the effects of
migration and detention, including on the families of
people in detention. These social workers then work with
the people being released from detention and work to get
vulnerable people out of detention and housed in one of
the City’s homes.56
d.

Santa Ana’s Opportunity

As a self-proclaimed “sanctuary city,” the City has a
responsibility to live up to its stated values and protect
all residents, regardless of national origin or immigration
status. The City of Santa Ana could follow in the
footsteps of cities such as Austin, Texas, and Madrid,
Spain, by supporting community-based alternatives to
detention.
Specifically, the City of Santa Ana could set up a
Revolving Immigration Bond Fund supported by a
public/private partnership that would ensure that no
immigrant will remain imprisoned in immigration
detention in Orange County for years or months simply
because they are poor. Paired with case management
and social services that the California legislature and the
City of Santa Ana have already partially invested in,
such as legal services, this Revolving Immigration Bond
Fund could lead the nation in immigration detention
reform.

support of this Revolving Bond Fund would also have
the support of the services provided by the reentry
programming.
A Revolving Immigration Bond Fund would be
especially beneficial to immigrants in Orange County
who are under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit held in Rodriguez v.
Robbins that people in immigration detention—including
those in mandatory detention—have the right to request a
bond hearing after six months in detention. Therefore,
everyone in California, including everyone detained in
Orange County, is eligible for bond hearings.
In addition, in 2017, the ACLU litigated the case
Hernandez v. Sessions asserting that the federal
government sets unreasonably high immigration bonds
without consideration of a person’s ability to pay. A
preliminary injunction issued by the Ninth Circuit
requires the government to consider a person’s ability to
pay an immigration bond and alternative conditions of
release. This decision means that in the state of
California, immigration judges are likely to set bonds for
lower amounts, such as the minimum amount of $1,500.
Even this minimum amount is too much to pay for many
people in immigration detention. However, Hernandez
guarantees that Santa Ana’s Revolving Immigration
Bond Fund will assist as many people to be released
from immigration detention as possible, while loaning
the least amount of money.
A Revolving Immigration Bond Fund also complements
the statewide and national movement to reform the
criminal bail system. The California Bail Reform Act of
2017 was a positive step in this direction as is Senators
Kamala Harris and Rand Paul’s National Bail Reform
Bill, introduced in July 2017. While we hope the state of
California will introduce and pass legislation that also
reforms the immigration bond system, the City of Santa
Ana can lead our state with the creation of the first
Revolving Bond Fund.

The Fund would provide no-interest and non-exploitative
loans that facilitate freedom from immigration detention.
As immigration bonds are eventually returned to the
obligor at the conclusion of the person’s immigration
case, the funds may be recycled in perpetuity. If the City
also opts to reuse the city jail as a reentry center, people
who are released from immigration detention through the

Id. (Information in this paragraph was obtained from the
International Detention Coalition.)
56
See,
http://www.madrid.es/portales/munimadrid/es/Inicio/Actualida
d/Noticias/Madrid-exige-el-cierre-del-Centro-deInternamiento-de-extranjeros-deAluche?vgnextfmt=default&vgnextoid=6431c4abc4c2d510Vg
nVCM2000001f4a900aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a12149fa40ec9
410VgnVCM100000171f5a0aRCRD

The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Side