Celia Jiménez here, thinking about the process people facing criminal charges have to go through to determine if they can stand trial, and the consequences local government faces when the numbers of those who cannot are considered too high.
This week, my colleague Katie Rodriguez dived into this issue after County Administrative Officer Sonia De La Rosa brought it up at the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 1. De La Rosa shared that 44 and 84 individuals were unable to stand trial in 2022-23 and 2023-24, respectively. She also said the county owed the state $1.4 million in penalties because the county exceeded its state-set cap by 25 people for the 23-24 fiscal year.
“We have no control over this,” Supervisor Luis Alejo said. “We’re getting fined for some artificial number. Don’t penalize the county.”
I asked Rodriguez her thoughts about this issue. “Our baseline numbers—or cap—are based on counts from 2021, when we were still very much in the pandemic,” she says. “It makes you wonder what our true baseline number is—or whether you can even be certain about one at all.” Determining these numbers is complicated—highly dependent on things like the strength of social programs, mental health infrastructure and access to those resources.
Felony defendants undergo a series of evaluations and treatments to determine if they are fit to stand trial (treatment varies, including medication and outpatient care).
In her story, Rodriguez explains why the incompetent to stand trial process, known as IST, was established in California and the types of treatments defendants might receive.
If we looked at these numbers today, would we come up with the same results? Probably not. But perhaps the bigger question is this: how can the county reduce the number of these individuals and, in doing so, get mental health resources to people before they commit a felony?