In just under five years, the civilian oversight board responsible for overseeing the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department has issued nearly 100 policy recommendations — proposals to formally change rules and requirements to improve practices and save lives , time or money.

But the sheriff and chief probation officer rejected or delayed nearly two-thirds of those suggestions, saying the Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Committee proposals were impractical or unworkable or needed further study.

Since January 2020, the oversight board known as CLERB has issued a total of 91 formal recommendations to sheriff’s and probation officials, according to an analysis released by the review board last week.

Of these proposals, 34 were accepted, 29 were rejected and 26 remain under consideration. Some of the policy recommendations that have not yet been accepted or rejected date back to last year, the review panel’s study shows.

Two recommendations were partially accepted. They include plans to expand the number of people in prisons who are monitored by drug-sniffing dogs and to add to what a family liaison officer can tell relatives of people who die or are seriously injured in custody.

The lack of action on most of the suggestions comes at a time when both the Sheriff’s Office and the Probation Department are publicly at odds with the board of supervisors over unrelated requests for documents and information. Each of those disputes prompted the review board to hire outside counsel, potentially pitting a San Diego County agency against two others in lengthy or expensive legal proceedings.

The vast majority of referrals were made to the sheriff’s office — 79 of the 91 noted in the study.

Most of the 29 suggestions accepted by sheriff’s officials were relatively modest, such as changing the department’s business cards to make it easier for the public to identify employees.

The Sheriff’s Office also agreed to help reduce deaths in the jail by adding family members and medical personnel to the list of people called to report when someone who has been arrested expresses suicidal tendencies before or during a home evaluation .

But the sheriff rejected 26 different recommendations that would be harder to implement.

For example, Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez refused to require MPs to check the safety of people who are arrested at least once an hour. She also refused to require that deputies use only cells with working surveillance cameras unless other housing is not available.

The sheriff has too he repeatedly refused recommendations to body scan everyone entering county detention centers as a means of keeping drugs out of jail. Instead, Martinez introduced a random screening process she said it would help limit overdoses.

Twenty-two referrals to the Sheriff’s Office have yet to be accepted or rejected.

Lt. David LaDieu said each policy change presented by the review board undergoes a comprehensive analysis that evaluates potential impacts on public safety and employees, existing legal frameworks and office resources.

“While not all recommendations were accepted, many policy changes proposed by CLERB were implemented,” he said via email. “These changes have led to improvements in areas such as use-of-force guidelines, de-escalation training, custodial health care, training and education.”

LaDieu said the length of time it can take the office to respond to policy recommendations does not reflect on the merits of the suggestion.

“The timeline for evaluating recommendations may vary depending on their complexity and scope,” he said. “Policy changes must be evidence-based and tested for real-world application to ensure they serve their intended purpose without unintended negative consequences.”

Probation officials accepted five of the 12 policy recommendations outlined in the CLERB report — including a plan to implement a program for home inspections of facilities that are contracted to house people under their jurisdiction.

The review panel’s report says the department rejected three recommendations and has yet to complete assessments of four others.

One of CLERB’s suggestions that failed to meet Probation Department approval was a rule prohibiting employees from engaging with racist or other discriminatory groups, including on social media.

“Such participation or association undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the Probation Department and creates doubt that all communities will be served equitably,” the CLERB analysis said.

The board also recommended that probation managers regularly review employees’ publicly available social media posts, as well as department-issued cellphones and computers for biased or discriminatory content.

But Chief Probation Officer Tamika Nelson said she doesn’t have the budget she would need to monitor her staff’s social media posts.

“This recommendation presents challenges that we cannot currently address.” she wrote on board. “However, if our staff resources and fiscal outlook improve in the future, we will reevaluate adopting this recommendation.”

The sheriff’s office received the same policy recommendation and also rejected the idea.

Probation Department spokesman Chuck Westerheide said the office values ​​its relationship with CLERB and takes all of its policy recommendations seriously.

“The review process involves consultation and coordination with necessary and appropriate personnel who have subject matter expertise in those policy areas to ensure compliance with federal and state laws and regulations,” he said via email.

“Furthermore, these policies need to be reviewed to ensure they are aligned with best practices,” Westerheide added. “The Probation Department looks forward to further coordination with CLERB to protect public safety and support those involved in the justice system.”

San Diego County’s two main law enforcement agencies are both embroiled in major disputes with the civilian board set up to oversee them.

In separate cases that unfolded over the past two months, both Martinez and Nelson withheld information from CLERB as it sought to hold the Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department accountable to the public.

Sheriff’s officials took unusual position to assert that the review board has no authority over the department, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported early last month. They argue that CLERB can only investigate individual deputies, not the agency as a whole.

“The sheriff believes that the alleged findings of misconduct against the entire sheriff’s office, as the officer(s) involved, are not within San Diego County statute nor the authority granted to CLERB by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.” Martinez wrote.

That claim came after the review board repeatedly issued findings of misconduct against the Sheriff’s Office in cases involving fatal drug overdoses.

In another dispute that became visible just last week, sheriff’s officials for months were retention of documents and other information requested by a consulting firm hired by the evaluation committee.

The company was hired in 2022 to learn why so many people are dying in San Diego County jails and what changes the agency could make to reduce “excess deaths” in custody.

Instead of releasing the information, the Sheriff’s Office directed consultants to request the documents under the California Public Records Act. Researchers have made several requests but have not received the records.

The result “was a lengthy and frustrating attempt to obtain the necessary data from the sheriff’s office, which was largely unsuccessful,” CLERB President MaryAnne Pintar wrote in a letter to the sheriff.

“Despite CPRA’s numerous requests … the data has not been fully provided, with multiple requests refused or delayed,” she added.

Probation Chief Nelson adopted a similar strategy in processing CLERB applications.

Twice in recent months, the Probation Department has withheld documents requested by the review board as part of its investigations. Those cases later had to be closed due to lack of cooperation.

Westerheide insisted the county must protect the rights of people in custody.

“If probation improperly releases information from the juvenile record, it will violate the law and the youth’s privacy rights — the effects of which could be catastrophic for the youth’s rehabilitation,” the spokesperson said via email.