Contra Costa County Grand Jury

2019-2020

8 reports

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (8)
Findings & Recommendations 12 findings
F1: EBMUD’s response to the American Water Infrastructure Act is timely and conforms to all requirements of this Act.
F2: EBMUD’s use of staff rather than an outside consultant for the Risk and Resilience Assessment complies with the American Water Infrastructure Act requirements.
F3: EBMUD expects to reuse existing plans to comply with the American Water Infrastructure Act Emergency Response Plan. The Act does not discuss the reuse of existing plans, and the impact on EBMUD’s certification cannot be determined.
F4: EBMUD’s public security notice on its website does not include a discussion about previous risk assessments.
F5: EBMUD’s public security notice on its website does not discuss the American Water Infrastructure Act requirements, or how EBMUD intends to comply with this Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: EBMUD Board of Directors should consider publishing its conformance with the American Water Infrastructure Act on its public webpage by December 31, 2020.
F6: Federal funding is available through the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and Resilience Program that could strengthen EBMUD’s cybersecurity infrastructure. These grants help offset water rate increases that customers might otherwise pay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: EBMUD Board of Directors should consider applying for a grant to offset new technology costs and strengthen its cybersecurity infrastructure under the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and Resilience Program by December 31, 2020.
F7: CCWD's response to the American Water Infrastructure Act is timely and conforms to all requirements of this Act.
F8: CCWD’s use of staff and an outside consultant for the Risk and Resilience Assessment complies with the American Water Infrastructure Act requirements.
F9: CCWD’s designated Risk and Resilience Assessment & Emergency Response Plan team received specific, relevant training in the areas specified under Section 2013 of the American Water Infrastructure Act.
F10: There is no CCWD public website statement on the issue of cybersecurity or its program to counter cyberattacks.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: EBMUD Board of Directors should consider publishing a cyber policy acknow- ledging the cyberattack threat and informing the public of its programs to overcome and prevent attacks on the public water supply by December 31, 2020.
R4: CCWD Board of Directors should consider publishing a cyber policy acknow- ledging the cyberattack threat and informing the public of its programs to overcome and prevent attacks on the public water supply by December 31, 2020.
F11: The Grand Jury found no evidence regarding CCWD’s National Institute of Standards and Technology Tier level. The National Institute of Standards and Technology Tier level is releasable to the public and essential to inform CCWD of how safe its water supply is from cyberattacks.
F12: Federal funding is available through the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and Resilience Program that could strengthen CCWD’s cybersecurity infrastructure. These grants help offset water rate increases that customers might otherwise pay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: CCWD Board of Directors should consider applying for a grant to offset new technology costs and strengthen its cybersecurity infrastructure under the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and Resilience Program by December 31, 2020.
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: Customer Satisfaction Surveys reveal that Contra Costa County riders are increasingly dissatisfied with safety, cleanliness, and fare evasion on the BART system.
F2: BART is actively addressing safety and cleanliness.
F3: BART has no published strategic plan beyond 2020.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The BART Board of Directors should consider publishing an updated strategic plan to address improvements to safety, cleanliness, and fare evasion over the term of the plan by December 31, 2020.
F4: Fare inspectors alone are not effective in deterring fare evasion.
F5: BART has not allocated the funds to complete the fare gate modification program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The BART Board of Directors should consider continuing to modify or replace fare gates and establish a timeline and funding for implementation by December 31, 2020.
F6: County riders want more police officers throughout the system – inside and outside the stations, and on trains.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: The BART Board of Directors should consider reconfirming its plan to add 19 police officers per year over the next five years, with 66 of them on the trains, by December 31, 2020.
R4: The BART Board of Directors should consider constructing station booths and staffing the booths with agents at the Pittsburg Center and Antioch eBART stations by December 31, 2021.
F7: Contra Costa County’s revenue contribution to BART is increasing while overall fare collections are decreasing.
F8: There is no evidence that BART has attempted to systematically survey non-riders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The BART Board of Directors should consider developing a plan to systematically survey non-riders by county by December 31, 2021, and implement that plan along with the 2022 Customer Satisfaction Survey.
Additional Recommendations 25

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Increased staffing and patrols during a Red Flag Warning
R2: Expanded weed abatement programs
R3: Advising homeowners on hardening their homes and Contra Costa County manages two facilities for property juvenile detention: John A. Davis Juvenile Hall located • New technology to detect fires earlier and aid in in Martinez and Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility evacuation located in Byron. The Grand Jury examined both • Evacuation planning facilities in the County and during the investigation • Public education on fire hazards and preparation for fires found that their staff were dedicated and professional. The Grand Jury recommends that County fire districts The Grand Jury examined behavioral management and fire departments consider updating their wildfire systems, mental health services, staffing in detention evacuation plans and incorporating advanced routing technology. The Grand Jury also recommends that the facilities, educational services, post-release care, and CountyfiredistrictboardsandthecitiesofElCerrito,Pinole cooperation between the Probation Department and and Richmond consider identifying funds to adopt or Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services. expandtheuseofnewtechnologiestohelpdetectfiresin high-risk areas. Additionally, the Grand Jury recommends The Grand Jury found that it is difficult to obtain data that East Contra Costa Fire Protection District consider on program effectiveness and recommends hiring identifyingoptionstofundadditionalfirestationsandstaff a case manager and acquiring a case management to restore fire services to pre-2008 levels. system to compile data on recidivism and program effectiveness. In addition,the Grand Jury recommends hiring additional mental health care staff to reduce the wait time for post-release services for youth and families. The Jury further recommends that the Probation Department consider expanding the use of the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility to include both male and female low-level youth offenders to allow girls to benefit from the work experience programs. CONTRACOSTACOUNTYCIVILGRANDJURY2019-2020 7 IMPROVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT DO OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE WHAT’S NEXT? ADEQUATE EMERGENCY SUPPLIES? After the grand jury’s reports have been finalized and approved by the supervising Superior Court judge, they are distributed to the agencies addressed in the reports. The reports, including
R4: Canyoukeepasecret? Allwork Benefits Ifyouhavethetimeandthedeep mustbeconfidential. TheGrandJuryprovidesyouwiththe interestinyourcommunity,youare
R5: Areyouagoodlistener? opportunitytomakeadifference.You urgedtoapply.
R6: Doyouhavetheenergytocommit willbecomeinvolvedinachallenging ACivilGrandJurymemberisanofficer toayearofproductivework? andeducationalyear. oftheSuperiorCourtandoperates
R7: Canyouaskthoughtfulquestions, underitsauspices. reviewdocuments,andhelpwrite Eligibility lucidreports? Youwillfinditavaluableand GrandJurycandidatesmust:
R8: Areyouinterestedintryingto rewardingexperienceinapleasant
R9: BeacitizenoftheUnitedStateanda increasetheefficiencyoflocal andstimulating government,savetaxpayersdollars residentofContraCostaCountyfor atmosphere. atleastoneyear. andimproveservices?
R10: Beatleasteighteenyearsofage. Itisarare
R11: Wouldyouenjoydeveloping
R12: Possessordinaryintelligence,sound privilege solutionstoproblems? toserve judgment,andfaircharacter. onthe
R13: Possesssufficientknowledgeofthe Ifyouansweredyestotheabove Contra Englishlanguage. questions,youcouldmakeavaluable Costa
R14: Neverhavebeenconvictedofa memberoftheCivilGrandJury. County felony,malfeasance,orotherhighcrime. Civil GrandJury. YtnUoc atsoc artnoc 0202-9102 YrUj dnarg LIVIc TheContraCostaCountyCivilGrandJuryiscomposedofnineteencitizens, fully independent of administrators, politicians, and legislators. With its investigatory powers, it makes recommendations that improve city and HOW DOES IT WORK? county services and save taxpayers dollars. The Grand Jury speaks out whengovernmentdoesnotperformeffectively. Youwillfinditavaluableand rewardingexperienceinapleasant States andstimulatingatmosphere. It is a rare privilege to serve on the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury. Referacomplaintorissueforinvestigation!Youcanmakepublicagenciesbetter! TheGrandJurywelcomesinquiriesfromthepublic,residents,andemployeesofContraCostaCounty. Call925-608-2621orgotohttp://www.cc-courts.org/grandjuryandsubmittheonlineform. NB>5B;P R’@;5B;P KB;*" :<;!V KBP N5>’ N5VP /NB>5B;P++E)A)+ /KB;*"+) /O>7’;3!’S9S!VV@’ /6=5;7 /N5>’++D)A)AD)A)+ /4B7’9.84L6BV!%=;>!B 1’*;5!7?’>7 :<9 9*"’(5V’( :(?!>!97;B7!=> Q;B>(N5;P 4!9*"B;#’ Q;B>(N5;P:99=*!B7!=> 8’#!>9 45’ /M!3’0*B>HR!>#’;<;!>7G S!VV?=>!7=;M!3’ B>()A)+C)A))Q;B>( H6QN:G.;B!>!># /:<7 :<<=!>7?’>79 0*B>1’95V79 N5;PO?’V?’>7 2;!’>7B7!=> 9*"’(5V’( B>(9*"’(5V’ 6’;’?=>P H0*"’(5V’(%=; ;’<;!>7!># /N5>’+&L+X 2;!’>7B7!=> 7"’’>(=% B<<=!>7?’>79 /N5>’))L)$2;!’>7B7!=> KB;*"G B9>’’(’( *=>7!>5’( )A)+D)A)) 6O,OM Q1:J4 N-1I 1T61-O.KTJ. U 21OTJ.:.O2J F0*"’(5V’?BP@’95@W’*77=*"B>#’
R15: Canyoukeepasecret? Allwork Benefits Ifyouhavethetimeandthedeep mustbeconfidential. TheGrandJuryprovidesyouwiththe interestinyourcommunity,youare
R16: Areyouagoodlistener? opportunitytomakeadifference.You urgedtoapply.
R17: Doyouhavetheenergytocommit willbecomeinvolvedinachallenging ACivilGrandJurymemberisanofficer toayearofproductivework? andeducationalyear. oftheSuperiorCourtandoperates
R18: Canyouaskthoughtfulquestions, underitsauspices. reviewdocuments,andhelpwrite Eligibility lucidreports? Youwillfinditavaluableand GrandJurycandidatesmust:
R19: Areyouinterestedintryingto rewardingexperienceinapleasant
R20: BeacitizenoftheUnitedStateanda increasetheefficiencyoflocal andstimulating government,savetaxpayersdollars residentofContraCostaCountyfor atmosphere. atleastoneyear. andimproveservices?
R21: Beatleasteighteenyearsofage. Itisarare
R22: Wouldyouenjoydeveloping
R23: Possessordinaryintelligence,sound privilege solutionstoproblems? toserve judgment,andfaircharacter. onthe
R24: Possesssufficientknowledgeofthe Ifyouansweredyestotheabove Contra Englishlanguage. questions,youcouldmakeavaluable Costa
R25: Neverhavebeenconvictedofa memberoftheCivilGrandJury. County felony,malfeasance,orotherhighcrime. Civil GrandJury. YtnUoc atsoc artnoc 0202-9102 YrUj dnarg LIVIc TheContraCostaCountyCivilGrandJuryiscomposedofnineteencitizens, fully independent of administrators, politicians, and legislators. With its investigatory powers, it makes recommendations that improve city and HOW DOES IT WORK? county services and save taxpayers dollars. The Grand Jury speaks out whengovernmentdoesnotperformeffectively. Youwillfinditavaluableand rewardingexperienceinapleasant States andstimulatingatmosphere. It is a rare privilege to serve on the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury. Referacomplaintorissueforinvestigation!Youcanmakepublicagenciesbetter! TheGrandJurywelcomesinquiriesfromthepublic,residents,andemployeesofContraCostaCounty. Call925-608-2621orgotohttp://www.cc-courts.org/grandjuryandsubmittheonlineform. NB>5B;P R’@;5B;P KB;*" :<;!V KBP N5>’ N5VP /NB>5B;P++E)A)+ /KB;*"+) /O>7’;3!’S9S!VV@’ /6=5;7 /N5>’++D)A)AD)A)+ /4B7’9.84L6BV!%=;>!B 1’*;5!7?’>7 :<9 9*"’(5V’( :(?!>!97;B7!=> Q;B>(N5;P 4!9*"B;#’ Q;B>(N5;P:99=*!B7!=> 8’#!>9 45’ /M!3’0*B>HR!>#’;<;!>7G S!VV?=>!7=;M!3’ B>()A)+C)A))Q;B>( H6QN:G.;B!>!># /:<7 :<<=!>7?’>79 0*B>1’95V79 N5;PO?’V?’>7 2;!’>7B7!=> 9*"’(5V’( B>(9*"’(5V’ 6’;’?=>P H0*"’(5V’(%=; ;’<;!>7!># /N5>’+&L+X 2;!’>7B7!=> 7"’’>(=% B<<=!>7?’>79 /N5>’))L)$2;!’>7B7!=> KB;*"G B9>’’(’( *=>7!>5’( )A)+D)A)) 6O,OM Q1:J4 N-1I 1T61-O.KTJ. U 21OTJ.:.O2J F0*"’(5V’?BP@’95@W’*77=*"B>#’
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F1: The Contra Costa County Probation Department has changed services and added services for youth in detention since the settlement of the class-action lawsuit in 2015.
F2: In Contra Costa County’s juvenile detention facilities, information on recidivism and effectiveness of programs is not available due to a lack of a case management system.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider directing the Contra Costa County Probation Department to acquire and install a case management system to compile data on recidivism and program effectiveness, by June 30, 2021. The system would also facilitate coordination of post-release services for youth with other agencies.
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider directing the Contra Costa County Probation Department to hire a case manager to coordinate the use of the case management system, by June 30, 2021.
F3: The Probation Department and other Contra Costa County agencies such as Behavioral Health Services are not able to share data when coordinating post- release care for youth, due to the lack of a case management system in the Probation Department.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider directing the Contra Costa County Probation Department to acquire and install a case management system to compile data on recidivism and program effectiveness, by June 30, 2021. The system would also facilitate coordination of post-release services for youth with other agencies.
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider directing the Contra Costa County Probation Department to hire a case manager to coordinate the use of the case management system, by June 30, 2021.
F4: The percentage of mental health diagnoses in Contra Costa County juvenile detention facilities is between 35% and 50% of the youth population in detention.
F5: Post-release, youth and families may have to wait up to a month to access mental health services provided by Behavioral Health Services and a community-based organization called Community Options for Family and Youth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider directing the Contra Costa County Health Services Department to hire additional mental health care staff to reduce the wait time for post-release services for youth and families, by June 30, 2021.
F6: In 2016, cognitively based programs for anger management, drug and substance abuse, and positive social skill development were initiated at both Juvenile Hall and Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility.
F7: All residents at both Juvenile Hall and Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility have access to these cognitively based programs.
F8: All girls in juvenile detention in Contra Costa County are housed at Juvenile Hall.
F9: Work experience programs at Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility such as carpentry, landscaping, food service, and small engine repair are unavailable to girls in detention at Juvenile Hall.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider directing the Contra Costa County Probation Department to evaluate the propriety of relocating girls in detention with low-level offenses to Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility, by June 30, 2021.
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: The California Education Code does not specify the type of supplies schools should maintain for emergencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Each Contra Costa County school district board should consider adopting the Contra Costa County Office of Education Emergency Supplies list (minimum standard list) for its schools and identifying funding sources to purchase the supplies, by December 31, 2020.
F2: Each Contra Costa County school district determines its own emergency preparedness plans (based on California State Education Department guidelines), including the amount and type of emergency supplies to maintain at its schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Contra Costa County Board of Education and the Contra Costa County Office of Education should consider assisting school districts by identifying and applying for federal, state, corporate, and non-profit organization grants that fund the acquisition of school emergency supplies, by June 30, 2021.
F3: The Contra Costa County Office of Education posts on its website a recommended list (minimum standard list) of emergency supplies for school districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Contra Costa County school district boards should consider applying for federal, state, corporate, and non-profit organization grants to fund the acquisition of school emergency supplies, by June 30, 2021.
F4: Some Contra Costa County school districts did not demonstrate that they maintain supplies in conformity with the Contra Costa County Office of Education minimum standard list.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Each Contra Costa County school district board should consider developing a plan to identify organizations that provide CPR and First Aid certification refresher training for district teachers, by December 31, 2020.
F5: Some Contra Costa County school districts fund purchasing and replenishment of emergency supplies through their annual budgets, but most school districts in Contra Costa County fund them through parent or community donations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Each Contra Costa County school district board should consider developing a plan to identify funding, if necessary, to provide CPR and First Aid certification refresher training for district teachers, by December 31, 2020.
F6: Contra Costa County school districts can apply for federal, state, corporate or non-profit organization grants to help pay for the cost of acquiring and maintaining school emergency supplies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The Contra Costa County Board of Education and the Contra Costa County Office of Education should consider applying for federal, state, corporate, and non-profit organization grants to fund voluntary CPR and First Aid certification refresher training for teachers, by June 30, 2021.
F7: Each Contra Costa County school district has either a designated safety/resource officer or a school administrator who fills the safety/resource officer role.
F8: There is no legal requirement that teachers renew CPR and First Aid certification training after teachers initially obtain their teaching credential.
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F1: During a Red Flag Warning, fire districts and fire departments in Contra Costa County often deploy pre-positioned firefighting strike teams to maximize the ability to respond to wildfires.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Directors of Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, and San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District should consider directing their Fire Chief to update wildfire evacuation plans and incorporate pre-determined polygons and advanced routing technology, by June 30, 2021.
F2: Fire districts and fire departments in Contra Costa County require property owners to perform weed abatement on their property to reduce the risk of fire spread.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Directors of Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District, Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, and San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District should consider identifying funds to adopt or expand the use of new technologies, such as ground sensors, drones, satellites, and fire spotting cameras, to help detect fires in high-risk areas, by June 30, 2021.
F3: Not all fire districts and fire departments in Contra Costa County use pre- determined polygons and routing algorithms in their evacuation plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board of Directors should consider identifying options to fund additional fire stations and staff to restore fire services to pre-2008 levels, by June 30, 2021.
F4: Fire districts and fire departments in Contra Costa County recommend that residents comply with law enforcement’s orders to evacuate during an emergency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Board of Directors of Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District, and Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District should review and consider mechanisms, such as the ordinance passed by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, that would enable their fire district to recover labor and equipment costs from PG&E for overseeing electrical utility work that presents a high fire risk, by June 30, 2021.
F5: Not all fire districts and fire departments in Contra Costa County use new technologies, such as ground sensors, drones, satellites, and fire spotting cameras, for early detection of fires.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The City Councils of El Cerrito, Pinole, and Richmond should consider directing their Fire Chief to update wildfire evacuation plans and incorporate pre- determined polygons and advanced routing technology, by June 30, 2021.
F6: The October 2019 Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events disrupted emergency response efforts and communications in Contra Costa County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The City Councils of El Cerrito, Pinole, and Richmond should consider identifying funds to adopt or expand the use of new technologies, such as ground sensors, drones, satellites, and fire spotting cameras, to help detect fires in high-risk areas, by June 30, 2021.
F7: Fire districts and fire departments in Contra Costa County are not always informed by PG&E when the utility is performing non-emergency maintenance work that presents a high fire risk during a Red Flag Warning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The City Councils of El Cerrito, Pinole, and Richmond should review and consider mechanisms, such as the ordinance passed by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, that would enable their fire department to recover labor and equipment costs from PG&E for overseeing electrical utility work that presents a high fire risk, by June 30, 2021.
F8: An ordinance passed by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, requiring PG&E to give advance notice of non-emergency maintenance work that presents a high fire risk, enables the fire district to pre-position a team at the utility worksite and recover labor and equipment costs.
F9: Due to a lack of funding, the number of fire stations and staffing levels in East Contra Costa Fire Protection District has not been restored to pre-2008 levels.
Findings & Recommendations 14 findings
F1: Low officer staffing ratios and/or unfilled officer positions present challenges in maintaining police services.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: The Sheriff, and the City/Town Councils of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek should consider directing their police departments to apply annually, or when offered in 2021, to the Department of Justice COPS Hiring Program, which provides funding for hiring additional officers, by June 30, 2021.
R5: The City/Town Councils of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek should consider identifying funds that would permit their police departments to over-hire officer positions as a strategy for keeping departments fully staffed, by June 30, 2021.
F2: Low officer staffing ratios and/or unfilled officer positions have resulted in reducing or eliminating staffing of traffic units, school resource officers, community outreach, or other police services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The City/Town Councils of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek should consider identifying funds to increase the number of authorized sworn officers to fill understaffed units, such as traffic patrol and school resource officers, by June 30, 2021.
F3: Due to low officer staffing ratios and/or unfilled officer positions, officers are often required to put in mandatory overtime to cover critical services.
F4: Mandatory overtime can lead to officer stress, which creates retention challenges.
F5: Low officer staffing ratios and/or unfilled officer positions may contribute to increased average response times for Priority 1 (emergency) calls.
F6: Recruiting officers is challenging due to fewer applicants who meet the required hiring standards and complete the rigorous testing process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should consider identifying funds to develop a countywide outreach program to attract more applicants to police agencies in Contra Costa County, by June 30, 2021.
F7: Negative perceptions of policing and the availability of less dangerous job opportunities contribute to fewer applicants for law enforcement positions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should consider identifying funds to develop a countywide outreach program to attract more applicants to police agencies in Contra Costa County, by June 30, 2021.
F8: Each Contra Costa police agency (except those that contract with the Sheriff’s Office) conducts its own recruiting program to attract potential applicants.
F9: The process of hiring and training new officers takes an extensive amount of time and resources to complete.
F10: Each Contra Costa police agency (except those that contract with the Sheriff’s Office) manages its own screening process for police officer positions, resulting in a replication of efforts across the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The City/Town Councils of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, El Cerrito, Hercules, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek should consider identifying funds to study the cost/benefit of a countywide screening process for police officer positions, to avoid replication of these steps while allowing each city police department to select and evaluate candidates, by June 30, 2021.
F11: Contra Costa cities that contract with the Sheriff for police services are generally able to fill vacancies faster than non-contract cities.
F12: Recruits and young officers have different expectations than in the past regarding work/life balance.
F13: Recruits and young officers’ expectations about work/life balance contribute to the challenges of officer recruiting and retention.
F14: Wellness and Employee Assistance Programs offered by Contra Costa police agencies aid retention of police officers.
Findings & Recommendations 15 findings
F1: As of the date of this report, the County does not have a comprehensive operational PSPS response Master Plan for County departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By December 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should consider commencing the development of a unified approach to PSPS events to be used by all County departments which includes: requirements for backup power, communications, Community Resource Center coordination, and training of additional staff to support essential activities.
F2: Not all County departments have formalized PSPS plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By December 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should consider commencing the development of a unified approach to PSPS events to be used by all County departments which includes: requirements for backup power, communications, Community Resource Center coordination, and training of additional staff to support essential activities.
F3: The County Office of Emergency Services has a supporting plan to the Contra Costa County Emergency Operations Plan dated June 16, 2015, that is used for long-term power outages.
F4: There is no evidence that all County departments have used the County Office of Emergency Services plan as a guide for the development of their departments’ specific PSPS plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By December 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should consider commencing the development of a unified approach to PSPS events to be used by all County departments which includes: requirements for backup power, communications, Community Resource Center coordination, and training of additional staff to support essential activities.
F5: During the October 9 and 26, 2019 PSPS events, PG&E did not provide the County departments with accurate descriptions of impacted areas in real time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: By December 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing County departments to develop a list of real-time information to be required of PG&E before initiation and during PSPS events.
F6: With cell, cable, and internet phone service impacted by the loss of power, Health Services could not easily communicate with at-risk residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: By December 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing Contra Costa Health Services to have a protocol in place for working with PG&E to ensure that CCHS receives the information it requires to notify medical base-line customers of a PSPS event.
R4: By December 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should consider evaluating alternative communication coverage during a PSPS event to address service disruption to cell sites, internet, and cable providers dependent on the PG&E power distribution system.
F7: With cell, cable, and internet phone service impacted by the loss of power, there were communication issues among the staff of public safety departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: By December 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should consider evaluating alternative communication coverage during a PSPS event to address service disruption to cell sites, internet, and cable providers dependent on the PG&E power distribution system.
F8: There were not enough emergency generators pre-positioned for adequate backup to essential County services during the October events.
F9: During the PSPS event of October 9, 2019, the PG&E Community Resource Center location in San Ramon was not close to areas most impacted by the shutdown. The locations of the Community Resource Centers were improved in the second event on October 26.
F10: The interface between some County entities and the resource facility providers was not clearly established. Therefore, the County did not have enough information about available services at non-PG&E resource facility locations.
F11: As of the date of this report, the Grand Jury has found no evidence that the County has a process for tracking its labor costs and other expenses directly associated with a PSPS event.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County Administrator to establish a means of tracking PSPS costs by December 31, 2020.
F12: As of the date of this report, the Grand Jury has found no evidence that the total fiscal impact of the two October 2019 PSPS events has been provided.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: By December 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should consider establishing a requirement that a final After-Action Report and a fiscal impact report be completed no later than 60 days after a PSPS event.
F13: Grant opportunities for County PSPS support are available through various State and Federal agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The Board of Supervisors should consider developing a plan to take advantage of funding available for PSPS events from various programs at State and Federal levels by December 31, 2020.
F14: The County may be able to use existing and pending State of California legislation to mitigate negative impacts of a PSPS on the County and its residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: By December 31, 2020, The Board of Supervisors should consider tracking and communicating to County departments the status of existing and pending legislation which may mitigate the effects of a PSPS event on the County and its residents.
F15: As of the date of this report, the County’s After-Action Report for the two October 2019 PSPS events has not been made publicly available.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: By December 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should consider establishing a requirement that a final After-Action Report and a fiscal impact report be completed no later than 60 days after a PSPS event.