A newly released Riverside County Civil Grand Jury report is calling for major changes to oversight of the county’s jail system, citing concerns about inmate deaths, transparency and accountability. Sheriff Chad Bianco, however, is sharply criticizing the report, calling it politically motivated and filled with inaccuracies.
The report, titled “After a Decade of Record Deaths in County Jails, the Community Deserves Transparency Through Oversight,” urges county leaders to establish an independent civilian oversight body to monitor jail operations and review critical incidents involving inmates.
According to the Grand Jury, Riverside County remains one of the largest counties in California without a formal civilian oversight system for sheriff operations and county detention facilities. The report concludes that current oversight mechanisms are largely internal and lack the independence necessary to identify systemic issues or maintain public confidence.
The findings come amid years of scrutiny surrounding Riverside County’s jail system. In 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a civil rights investigation into the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office following concerns over a rising number of in-custody deaths and allegations involving jail conditions.
The Grand Jury reported that 29 inmates died while in Riverside County custody between the start of the state investigation and April 2026.
Jurors found that investigations into inmate deaths often lack independence and that public reporting on jail operations remains inconsistent and limited. The report also criticized the Sheriff’s Advisory Committee, concluding that it has not provided meaningful oversight or produced documented recommendations regarding jail operations.
To address those concerns, the Grand Jury recommended that the Riverside County Board of Supervisors establish an independent civilian oversight body with investigative authority, dedicated staffing, public reporting requirements and the ability to review critical incidents and deaths occurring within county jails.
The report also recommends an independent audit of jail medical and mental health services, the creation of a public data dashboard and the development of a long-term strategic plan for county jail operations.
The recommendations revive a debate that surfaced last year when the Board of Supervisors considered creating an oversight body for the sheriff’s department. In July 2025, supervisors ultimately declined to move forward with the proposal.
Sheriff Bianco responded forcefully to the report, rejecting its conclusions and accusing the Grand Jury of advancing a predetermined agenda.
“The report is nothing but an attempt to pressure the Board of Supervisors into creating an oversight board and/or inspector general,” Bianco said in a statement. “The report is ridden with inaccuracies and patently false statements, combined with apples-to-oranges comparisons.”
Bianco argued that the report reflects a misunderstanding of jail operations and the factors contributing to inmate deaths. He maintained that most deaths occurring in county custody involve fentanyl overdoses, suicides, natural causes or inmate-on-inmate violence rather than failures by jail staff.
According to the sheriff, Riverside County’s correctional facilities continue to serve as a model for other counties throughout California and already operate under extensive state oversight.
Bianco pointed to the California Board of State and Community Corrections, which regulates jail operations statewide, as well as ongoing court-ordered supervision by the Prison Law Office. He argued that the Grand Jury failed to adequately consider those existing oversight systems before making its recommendations.
The sheriff also disputed claims that inmate deaths represent a systemic problem.
“Going to jail does not prevent anyone from dying,” Bianco stated. “No one has died because they were in jail, they died while they were in jail.”
He further contended that demands for civilian oversight are being driven by political activists rather than evidence of widespread misconduct within the department.
The sheriff pledged that his office will submit the legally required response to the report but indicated that he does not intend to implement the oversight recommendations.
“We will not implement any of their recommendations concerning oversight,” Bianco wrote.
Under California law, Civil Grand Jury reports are advisory and do not carry the force of law. However, agencies named in the reports are required to provide written responses addressing the findings and recommendations.
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office has 60 days to respond formally to the report, while the Riverside County Board of Supervisors has 90 days to issue its response.
Whether county leaders act on the recommendations remains uncertain. The report, however, ensures that the debate over transparency, accountability and oversight within Riverside County’s jail system will remain a prominent issue in local government discussions for months to come.
Source: Riverside County Civil Grand Jury Report, News Channel 3 (KESQ), Riverside County Sheriff’s Office statement.
