Response synthesis and audit

Responses to report 2606

Sheriff agrees with all six findings, promises a Sheriff-only cost-scope clarification, questions an additional audit and declines Marsh Creek closure and separate CAF cost accounting. Response R4 discusses denial reasons rather than the formal cost-methodology recommendation. Visibly draft Board document is excluded from these audits.

Official response PDF Official report PDF

Response by Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner

Addressed

Partially addressed

Not addressed

Unclear

County's stated disposition

These categories reflect the County's response to each recommendation, separate from this audit's assessment.

Implemented

Will be implemented

Requires further analysis

Will not be implemented

Unclear

How to read this audit

Editorial engagement review only, not a legal ruling or verification of factual claims, forecast accuracy or completed implementation. Finding scores assess the response’s stated position, reasons and traceability, not agreement with the jury. Each audit selects its unchanged original and physical PDF page. Dates are included only when supplied by the document; undated responses are not assigned inferred dates. Recommendation deadlines are not copied into agency commitments unless independently stated in the answer.

Commitments

Actions stated in the response

These are commitments extracted from the County's response. They describe what the response says will happen; they do not verify that implementation occurred.

Extracted commitments

Definite or bounded timing

Conditional timing

No timeframe

SHERIFF2606-R3 · No timeframe stated

Clarify in future Quarterly Oversight Reports that detention figures include only Sheriff expenditures.

No target date stated

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 12 of 12 items

finding · SHERIFF2606-F1

F1: The Sheriff’s Quarterly Oversight Report to the Board of Supervisors regarding the cost of detention borne by the Sheriff’s Department does not include costs borne by other County departments, such as the costs of medical and mental health services.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F1; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 2/2
Reason specificity: 0/2
Support traceability: 0/2

Explicit agreement engages F1; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 7 Response page 1

Discuss finding and response

finding · SHERIFF2606-F2

F2: In 2025, the average daily cost to detain an adult in custody at the County’s three detention facilities, including mental and medical services, was $396.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F2; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 2/2
Reason specificity: 0/2
Support traceability: 0/2

Explicit agreement engages F2; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 7 Response page 1

Discuss finding and response

finding · SHERIFF2606-F3

F3: At $627 per day, Marsh Creek Detention Facility (MCDF) costs more to house inmates than Martinez Detention Facility ($511) or West County Detention Facility ($278).

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F3; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 2/2
Reason specificity: 0/2
Support traceability: 0/2

Explicit agreement engages F3; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 7 Response page 1

Discuss finding and response

finding · SHERIFF2606-F4

F4: MCDF operates at 20% of its capacity.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F4; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 2/2
Reason specificity: 0/2
Support traceability: 0/2

Explicit agreement engages F4; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 7 Response page 2

Discuss finding and response

finding · SHERIFF2606-F5

F5: The Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) does not separately report the costs of the programs it administers: Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program, Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring, and Electronic Home Detention.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F5; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 2/2
Reason specificity: 0/2
Support traceability: 0/2

Explicit agreement engages F5; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 7 Response page 2

Discuss finding and response

finding · SHERIFF2606-F6

F6: The most recently available Sheriff’s Community Transparency Portal does not report the costs to manage the adult detention facilities.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F6; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 2/2
Reason specificity: 0/2
Support traceability: 0/2

Explicit agreement engages F6; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 7 Response page 2

Discuss finding and response

recommendation · SHERIFF2606-R1

R1: By January 1, 2027, the Board should consider requiring an audit to determine the full costs of adult detention facilities.

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

Acknowledges the audit recommendation but leaves the policy choice to Board and questions additional value.

Audit analysis

Explains institutional responsibility and concerns without selecting a clear implementation disposition; acknowledgement is not refusal or acceptance.

Report page 7 Response page 2

recommendation · SHERIFF2606-R2

R2: Upon completion of the audit and no later than June 30, 2027, the Board should consider directing the auditor to report on the review of the full costs of operating each of the adult detention facilities.

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

Says Board may choose an audit and should weigh expense and usefulness before directing reporting.

Audit analysis

Addresses decision-making considerations but gives no implementation commitment or clear formal disposition.

Report page 7 Response page 2

recommendation · SHERIFF2606-R3

R3: By October 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider clarifying in its Quarterly Oversight Report that the detention costs reflect only the Sheriff’s Office costs.

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Will clarify future Quarterly Oversight Reports as including only Sheriff expenditures.

Audit analysis

Specific future reporting change; no separate agency completion date beyond the quoted recommendation.

Extracted commitments

Clarify in future Quarterly Oversight Reports that detention figures include only Sheriff expenditures.

Responsible party: Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner
Timing: No timeframe stated

Report page 7 Response page 3

recommendation · SHERIFF2606-R4

R4: By January 1, 2027, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office and the County Administrator’s Office to identify a methodology for determining and reporting the full costs of the adult detention facilities operated by Contra Costa County.

County: UnclearAudit: Not addressed

Response says

The response labelled R4 discusses publishing CAF denial/disqualification reasons, not a full detention-cost methodology.

Audit analysis

Published R4 concerns methodology with Sheriff and County Administrator. The unrelated prompt and answer do not engage that recommendation; numbering alone is not semantic coverage.

Report page 7 Response page 3

recommendation · SHERIFF2606-R5

R5: By July 1, 2027, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office to close MCDF.

County: Will not be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Declines closing MCDF, citing lower-restriction dormitory custody, programming and housing flexibility.

Audit analysis

Explains the operational alternative-value rationale; does not independently verify costs or outcomes.

Report page 8 Response page 3

recommendation · SHERIFF2606-R6

R6: By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office to collect and report operating cost data separately for each CAF program.

County: Will not be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Declines separate CAF cost reporting because allocating shared costs needs new methods and substantial staff resources.

Audit analysis

Concrete accounting/resource explanation; refusal remains agency position.

Report page 8 Response page 3

Responses to report 2606

Actions stated in the response

Clarify in future Quarterly Oversight Reports that detention figures include only Sheriff expenditures.

Findings and recommendations

F1: The Sheriff’s Quarterly Oversight Report to the Board of Supervisors regarding the cost of detention borne by the Sheriff’s Department does not include costs borne by other County departments, such as the costs of medical and mental health services.

F2: In 2025, the average daily cost to detain an adult in custody at the County’s three detention facilities, including mental and medical services, was $396.

F3: At $627 per day, Marsh Creek Detention Facility (MCDF) costs more to house inmates than Martinez Detention Facility ($511) or West County Detention Facility ($278).

F4: MCDF operates at 20% of its capacity.

F5: The Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) does not separately report the costs of the programs it administers: Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program, Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring, and Electronic Home Detention.

F6: The most recently available Sheriff’s Community Transparency Portal does not report the costs to manage the adult detention facilities.

R1: By January 1, 2027, the Board should consider requiring an audit to determine the full costs of adult detention facilities.

R2: Upon completion of the audit and no later than June 30, 2027, the Board should consider directing the auditor to report on the review of the full costs of operating each of the adult detention facilities.

R3: By October 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider clarifying in its Quarterly Oversight Report that the detention costs reflect only the Sheriff’s Office costs.

R4: By January 1, 2027, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office and the County Administrator’s Office to identify a methodology for determining and reporting the full costs of the adult detention facilities operated by Contra Costa County.

R5: By July 1, 2027, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office to close MCDF.

R6: By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office to collect and report operating cost data separately for each CAF program.

Electronic Home Detention

Ambulance Patient Offload Delays: Time Is of the Essence