Laserfiche WebLink
6.1 F <br /> Page 16 <br /> Law Enforcement <br /> 1. The most effective preventa.t�ve measure against sexual offenders is making regular�y <br /> scheduled and random contact, plus ongoing observation. <br /> 2. Due to the economy as we11 as State budget reductions, the San Mateo County Board of <br /> Supervisors has had Co xeduce a11 department budgets, including law enf`orcemen�. <br /> 3. Sex offenders re-offend at a rate of 50% or more. Yn the past, the Sheriffs Office and all <br /> locallaw en#'orc�mcrit agencies actively monitored San Mateo County's offenders. Due to <br /> budget cuts, this activity has diminis�ed and dedicated sex unit personx�el have been <br /> roIled into general investigations. <br /> 4. Consistent and in#ensive monitoring of convicted sex offenders when released from <br /> parole/probation is performed inconsistently throughout San Mateo Covnt}�. Some city <br /> police departments have extensive procedures in place to monitor sex offenders whi.le <br /> others perfonn the minimum required by law. <br /> 5. There is i.nsufficient sharing and coordiriation of infozlnation abQUt sexuat offenders <br /> among the Iaw enforcement a.geacies within the County. <br /> 6. The S�eriff requested a Lieutenant's positzon from the BOS to oversee the new jai,l <br /> construction. The request was tumed down. In order to fund fihe position, iix A.pril 2007 <br /> the Sheriff eliminated the sergeant's position for Sexual Habituai Offender Program <br /> (SHOP} and sexual offender/predator coordination. As a result, the San Mateo County <br /> sex crimes unit currently functions with one FTE composed of fractiona.I commitments of <br /> four invesfigators. <br /> 7. The Sheriff's Office successfully oversees and coordin.ates many taskforces in <br /> cooperation with San Mateo County cities' poliee foxces: Gang, D�ug, Vehzcle Theft and <br /> White Collar Crime, among them. These taskforces remained in place because they <br /> received funding from either the Ioca1, state or federal governments. <br /> S. According to the Sheri�fls Office, a joint task force fox county-wide, coordinated <br /> investigation and enfozcement of sexual offenses (similar #o SAFE) could be <br /> implemented for $1.�5 m.illion with SOI50 resource-sharing between the Sh.eriff s Office <br /> and cities simi�ar to the fu�ading model used for other joint task forces (e.g., white-collar <br /> crime, drugs, gangs). <br /> Conclusions <br /> 1. The citizens of San Mateo County, especially children, a�re at a greater risk of being the <br /> victims of sexual offenses because some law enforcement agex�cies (a) nv longer <br /> vigorously monitor sexual offendexs nor investigate sexual predators to the same degree <br /> and (b) no longer coordinate such activi�ies on a county-wide basis. <br /> 2. Enfarcement in San Mateo County has dras�ically declined during the past 3'/z years with <br /> {a) the January 2007 elimination of county-wide law enforceznent coordination through <br /> SAFE, (b) the April 2007 elimination of the dedicated four person sexual offender <br /> investigations unit in the Sheriffl s Office, and {c) the forthcoming elimination of the <br /> dedicated sexual of�ender unit in the County Probation Depart�nent. <br /> 3. The registered sexual offender population and the total sexuai abuse crime rate against <br /> children in San Mateo County did not decIine from 2��4-2009. The Grand Jury belier�es <br /> 1? <br />