Grand jury urges changes to transgender housing and education in county jails; sheriff disputes some findings

The Government Audit & Oversight Committee heard the 2016–17 civil grand jury report "Educational Parity in Custody: Ensuring Equality of Women's Education in the San Francisco Jail System" and debated recommendations focused on education services, data collection and the treatment of transgender inmates.

Grand jury member Ray Rauchi told the committee that while educational services such as the 5 Keys Charter School "for the most part met the needs of female inmates," the jury found gaps in training for deputies, in data collection on educational outcomes, and in housing that in practice places some transgender inmates in a separate holding pod rather than in the general population aligned with their gender. Rauchi said the holding-pod practice conflicts with guidance from the PREA Resource Center and urged the committee to recommend drafting legislation or a compliance order — a "Trans Inclusion Act" — to implement recommendations 10–14 from the report, with a proposed two-year implementation window and potential financial penalties for noncompliance.

Sheriff Vicki Hennessy responded that the report contained well-intentioned observations but that several characterizations were inaccurate. "Trans women are not kept in a holding cell. They are in a living pod that allows them to go to school with the women on a daily basis," the sheriff said. She described a four-hour gender-awareness training developed with transgender community members that the department has provided to staff and said it will be added to core training for new deputies. Hennessy cited architectural constraints — including limited single cells and the small number of women in custody (about 88) compared with men — that complicate creating a women-only education dorm and implementing some housing changes.

Board members pressed for clarity on two related issues: whether deputies have refused to search transgender inmates and whether the Sheriff's Department maintains written disciplinary measures specifically tied to such refusals. Hennessy said she was not aware of an instance in which a deputy refused to perform a search, that discipline would follow the department's existing policies (retraining, reprimand, suspension) if an order were refused, and that she had sought an Attorney General opinion confirming that "gender identity" can be considered for search procedures. The sheriff also said the department is developing a statement-of-preference form to record inmates' preferences about who should conduct searches.

Rauchi defended the grand jury's methodology and said investigators visited the jail five times and interviewed inmates and staff; she said the jury had received critical communications after releasing the report and concluded an exit interview would not alter its findings. Rauchi proposed the committee recommend drafting enforceable legislation with an implementation schedule (March 2018–March 2020) and fines of roughly 1% of the sheriff's general fund budget for continued noncompliance.

The committee filed the grand jury report "without opposition," and supervisors asked the sheriff to provide written policy documents and a comparison of educational programming for men and women so the board can better evaluate gaps and improvement steps. The committee indicated it will follow up on staffing, overtime and education access in subsequent hearings.

Next steps: the Sheriff's Department to provide written transgender housing and search policies, distribution status for those policies and a listing of educational programming for comparative review.