Laserfiche WebLink
6.1 F <br /> Page 17 <br /> the most likely explanation for the decline in Keller Center examina.fi�ons in light of the ' <br /> static arrest rate is due to a Iack of assigned person.nel within the Sheriff's Off ce. <br /> 4. Wlule sophisticated tools are available to identify violators of child porno,graphy Iaws <br /> and to catch internet sexual predators. San Mateo County law enfoxcement resources are <br /> insufficient to use these tools to pursue investigati on of these criminals in a timely <br /> manner. Local police depar�m�nts do not have the specialized resources or the personnel <br /> to pursue the predators who are increasingly using the ��ternet. <br /> 5. The re�.atively low sexual offendex recidivism rate achievec� by the County Probation <br /> Department is at risk due to reprioritized funding that will eliminate its permanent, <br /> dedica�ed sexual offender tuv.�. <br /> 6. City Police Department practices vary dramatically across the County. Sharing and <br /> coordination of inforn�ation regarding sexuai offenders among the law enforcement <br /> agencies in the County �s insufficient to effectively eontrol sexual offender activity. <br /> 7. In 2009-2010, if e�ther {a) 1% of the County's $SO million contribution to thc Sheriff s <br /> Office's $160 million budget or (b) 2% of the State's Proposition 172 funding for <br /> enhanced law enforeement would have been xeprioritized, the Sheriffls O�'fice could have <br /> operated a full-tim.e, 3 person team dedicated to sexual offender enforcement. <br /> Recommendations <br /> The 2009-2410 San Mateo County Civil Gxand Jury xecommends to the San Mateo County <br /> Board of Supervisors and to the San Mateo County Sheriff that they: <br /> I. Reinstate the SAFE Task Force. Sased upon othertask force formulas, the Sheriffs <br /> O�'ice and �the combined cities would each contribute 50%. <br /> 2. Regardless of funding, the Sheriff s Office should reinstate its permanent, dedicated three <br /> to four person sexual offender investigation unit, including all SHOP activities. <br /> 3. Priori�ize funding wi�Chin the County Probation Department to keep sexual offender <br /> recidivism at a relatively low level by re-establishing a pe,rmanent, dedicated sexual <br /> offender unit. <br /> The 2009-2010 San �ateo County G`ivil Grand Jury recommends to the City Councils of San <br /> Mateo County that they work through the San Mateo County Police Chiefs' Association to: <br /> 1. Coordinate City Palice Department sex o�fendex policies and practices to reach increased <br /> uniform levels of enforcement thxoughout the County. <br /> 2. Reinstate the SAFE Task Force in partnership with the Sari Mateo County Sheriffs <br /> Of$ce by contributing appropriate resotuces. <br /> 3. Deveiop a county► wide plan to improve the sharing of infozxnat�on regarding sexual. <br /> offender Iaw enforcement. <br /> 14 <br />