Kern County 2024-2025 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 17, 2025 — Report - Kern County Fentanyl Misuse And Overdose Prevention (Website Only)

22 pages 3 findings 3 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F2: The Arvin City Council has not approved the APD 's use of the $700,000 allocated for community education initiatives, as of this report.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: By August 31, 2025, the City of Arvin use available methods to educate the public on the Automatic License Plate Readers as a tool that helps prevent drug traffic and criminal activity in the community. (Finding #2) R2. By August 31, 2025, the City of Arvin acquire advanced technology to aid in the enhancement of law enforcement methods for apprehension of criminal and drug trafficking activities. (Findings #1, #3 and #4) 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury Report 3 R3. By September 30, 2025, Arvin Police Department use drones and ALPR, as a tool to combat criminal activity. (Finding #3) NOTES: The Arvin City Council should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kemcounty .com/govemment/other-agencies/grand -jury Present and past Kem County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kem County website: http://www.kemcounty.com / govemment/other-agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITIDN 90 DAYS FROM: Arvin City Council Findings #1 through #4 Recommendations #1 through #3 • REQUIRED WITIDN 60 DAYS FROM: Mayor of Arvin Findings #1 through #4 Recommendations #1 through #3 RESPONSES ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE §§933(c) AND 933.05: • PRESIDING JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 • TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 2024-2025 Kem County Grand Jury Report 4

F3: Law-enforcement data has shown that ALPR are helping to find and apprehend drug activity and crime in the state. Adding ALPR in Arvin should generate county-wide enhancement oflaw enforcement continuity.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: By August 31, 2025, the City of Arvin acquire advanced technology to aid in the enhancement of law enforcement methods for apprehension of criminal and drug trafficking activities. (Findings #1, #3 and #4) 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury Report 3

R3: By September 30, 2025, Arvin Police Department use drones and ALPR, as a tool to combat criminal activity. (Finding #3) NOTES: The Arvin City Council should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kemcounty .com/govemment/other-agencies/grand -jury Present and past Kem County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kem County website: http://www.kemcounty.com / govemment/other-agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITIDN 90 DAYS FROM: Arvin City Council

F4: The funds allocated for the acquisition of equipment have not been approved by the Arvin City Council as of the date of this report.

Related Recommendations (2)

June 17, 2025 — Report - Welcome to the City of Shafter (Website Only)

19 pages 7 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Considering ordinances and resolutions and adopting those which it determines to be necessary for the governance, proper administration and adequate financing of the City.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Shafter City Council review the City Charter and establish accountability measures for adherence by October 1, 2025. (Finding # 1) R2. The Shafter City Council provide a definition of "Council Norms" and publish them on the City's website by October 1, 2025. (Finding #2) 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury Report 5 R3. By November 1, 2025, the Shafter City Council allocate funds for signage at the Shafter Police Department that will give the building a higher street visibility. (Finding #7) NOTES: The City of Shafter City Council should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kemcounty .com/govenunent/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kem County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kem County Grand Jury website https://www.kemcounty.com /govemment/other- agencies / grand- juty RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITIDN 90 DAYS FROM: • Shafter City Council Findings # 1 through #7 Recommendations # 1 through #3 RESPONSES ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE §§933(c) AND 933.05: • PRESIDING JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN . 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 • TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Cal. Penal Code §929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand 2024-2025 Kem County Grand Jury Report 6

F2: Council Members state there are "Council Norms," but Council Members could not give an accurate definition of these "Norms" causing lack of accountability.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The Shafter City Council provide a definition of "Council Norms" and publish them on the City's website by October 1, 2025. (Finding #2) 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury Report 5

F3: The Shafter Animal Control Unit is clean and well-maintained. This unit continues to be a valuable resource for the community.

F4: During a visit to the Shafter Police Department, the Grand Jury observed staff members and officers to be professional and fully engaged. This reflects their commitment to the community.

F5: The jail located at the Department was clean and unoccupied. It passes compliance and inspection every year. This demonstrates the high level of accountability and performance within the department.

F6: Through grant funding, the Shafter Police Department was able to build a gym inside the main headquarters. This gives staff members and officers the opportunity to work out and relieve stress.

F7: Due to lack of visible signage, some members of the community may find it difficult to locate the Police Department building. COMMENTS: The 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury would like to thank the City of Shafter Council Members, Police Department, and Animal Control, which is under the jurisdiction of the Police Depmiment , for their contributions to the investigation. The City takes a proactive management approach, which is reflected in economic growth and community atmosphere.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: By November 1, 2025, the Shafter City Council allocate funds for signage at the Shafter Police Department that will give the building a higher street visibility. (Finding #7) NOTES: The City of Shafter City Council should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kemcounty .com/govenunent/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kem County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kem County Grand Jury website https://www.kemcounty.com /govemment/other- agencies / grand- juty RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITIDN 90 DAYS FROM: • Shafter City Council

May 27, 2025 — Report - The Proliferation of Bike Lanes

5 pages 7 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Removing one automobile and replacing it with a bike equates to a reduction of 0.00000119 percent of the Central Valley’s annual CO production of 43,000,000 tons5. This brings into question the value of spending $200,000 of Federal grant money plus substantial sums of local dollars for such a miniscule reduction.

F2: According to their own website, the design consulting firm is biased toward bicycles and other forms of alternative transportation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: By July 1, 2025, the City should consider revising its Request for Proposal (RFP) material to better identify potential conflicts or biases of proposals. (Finding #2)

F3: The weather extremes and poor air quality in Bakersfield do not support a movement toward bicycles from automobiles.

F4: There are no practical alternatives for relocating traffic from H Street: Chester Avenue is too congested to move traffic to that street; Union Avenue and Oak Street are too far from H Street to be viable options. From Imperial News UK 2 KernCOG (Kern Council of Governments) 3 Simplified Highway Capacity Calculation Method for the Highway Performance Monitoring System, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 4 Proven Safety Countermeasures, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 5 California Air Resources Board (CARB)

F5: The narrowing of automobile lanes to accommodate bicycle lanes often has a positive impact of also tending to compel automobile drivers to reduce speeds.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Automobile and bicycle traffic counts should be conducted prior to installation of new bicycle lanes on existing roadways starting September 1, 2025. (Finding #5)

F6: Roads in new developments can be designed to accommodate bicycle lanes without inhibiting the flow of automobile traffic.

F7: A cost of ~$15,000 per mile for the installation of a bicycle lane is only a reasonable expense if there is a demand for the lanes. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury thanks the Bakersfield Public Works Department for their time and valuable information provided for this report.

May 15, 2025 — Report - Delano Mosquito Abatement District

13 pages 8 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: Asian Tiger and Yellow Fever Mosquitos are known transmitters of Zika. Zika is particularly dangerous to pregnant women and their fetuses. According to the Kern County Environmental Health Services, no known Yellow Fever cases have been identified in Kern County to date. Because of these potentially game-changing disease-carrying mosquitoes, the community would be better served if DMAD increases its focus on tracking, updating and educating the public.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Because of the dangers involved with the Zika virus, DMAD should improve, expand, and maintain media relationships, signs on vehicles and employ billboards to ensure public awareness during mosquito season and promote efforts to minimize outbreaks of mosquito borne illnesses. This should be completed by August 31, 2025. (Finding #1)

F2: Pesticides and other chemicals are stored in a temperature controlled “toolshed” which is kept locked and only accessible to authorized personnel. However, the Grand Jury observed that the building is too small, and buckets were observed outside. An RFP (Request For Proposal) is currently posted on the DMAD website soliciting bids to build a larger more secure facility. This new building would meet DMAD’s current and future needs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: DMAD should expedite the construction of a building to store chemicals to ensure the maintenance of proper temperature control and chemical security. This should be completed by March 31, 2026. (Finding #2)

F3: Technicians use Mosquito Fish traps to harvest wild Mosquito fish which are kept in the 600-gallon holding tank. The main tank can hold up to 1,000 Mosquito Fish and is restocked as needed from ten ponds across the district. There are three ponds, the main pond is for holding fish. The second aids in recirculation and the third houses a circulating pump which also provides filtration. Fish Farm Tanks Photos by Grand Jury

F4: The facility has no backup power; in the event of an outage, the Mosquito Fish, security cameras, and refrigeration would be in jeopardy.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: DMAD research installing a battery or generator to provide electricity at the facility and provide back-up power for security cameras and fishpond circulating pumps. This should be done by August 31, 2025. (Finding #4)

F5: The computer assisted 3D printer is used for making parts for traps, dippers and other specialty devices. Increased use of this technology should help to reduce the District’s operating costs.

F6: The District currently contracts for aerial surveillance of neighborhoods for green pools and potential breeding hotspots. The addition of drones would allow for more frequent aerial surveillance and should reduce the cost of contracting airplane or helicopter coverage.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: DMAD work with a Grant Writer and/or the Board of Supervisors to acquire drones for green-pool surveillance. This should be completed by August 31, 2025. (Finding #6)

F7: Purchases are approved, by consent agenda, at the Board Meetings following the purchase. Purchase orders and receipts were provided. This ensures transparency and fiscal accountability.

F8: The DMAD meets quarterly with the Kern County Public Health Department (KCPHD) and its counterparts from adjacent mosquito abatement districts. Although DMAD has established cooperative lines of communication, there is always a need to improve the dissemination of crucial information and trends to combat the spread of mosquito borne illnesses. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury extends its appreciation to the DMAD’s administrative, supervisory and field staff who graciously provided information and insight into the District’s efforts to keep the public safe from the threat of mosquito borne diseases. The staff are also motivated and receptive to innovative methods of detecting and eradicating mosquitoes. Additionally, DMAD’s Board of Directors was interested in providing the staff with the resources and directions to accomplish the extremely important mission to identify emerging threats and treat mosquito infestation in the communities it serves.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: DMAD should work with the Kern County Public Health Department to establish protocols, within the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) restrictions, for ensuring the expeditious sharing of non-patient specific information that is critical to the detection and to prevent the spread of emerging mosquito borne illnesses. This should be initiated by July 31, 2025. (Finding #8) RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: Delano Mosquito Abatement District

May 15, 2025 — Report - Kern County Human Resources

7 pages 3 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: Increasing the number of job fairs and expos can improve the number of applicants.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Kern County Human Resources continues to schedule additional job fairs and expos throughout the year by December 2025. (Finding #1)

F2: The average time to hire new recruits is down from 55 days to the target for 2026, which is 42 days, showing great improvement.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Kern County Human Resources continue to implement the changes needed to complete the desired State of Talent metrics by August 2026. (Finding #2)

F3: After interviewing numerous employees about the definition of being fully engaged, no one had a clear answer. COMMENTS: The 2024-2025 Grand Jury has witnessed improvements in the quality and attitude of staff in Human Resources since the start of this investigation. The Grand Jury would like to thank the staff at KCHR for their very timely cooperation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Kern County Human Resources develop a definition of fully engaged employees or remove it from the Kern County Talent Strategy 2024-2026 by December 2025. (Finding #3) NOTES: • The Kern County Human Resources Division should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other- agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: Kern County Board of Supervisors

May 08, 2025 — Report - Kern County Sheriffs Office Property Room

9 pages 6 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The McMurtrey Avenue property room will be an invaluable asset to Kern County Law Enforcement and solves the problems inherent with the L Street facility. This state-of-the-art structure has been designed and constructed to meet Kern County’s property and evidence storage needs for now and the foreseeable future.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The KCSO’s Evidence and Property management should expedite the relocation of its operations to the McMurtrey Avenue Facility, resolving its evidence storage limitations, electricity generator, elevator, and HVAC needs. This relocation should be initiated by June 30, 2025, and completed no later than December 30, 2025. (Findings #1 through #7) NOTES: • The Kern County Sheriff’s Office should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other- agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: Kern County Board of Supervisors

F2: The L Street facility is unsanitary, and there is evidence of a pest infestation. This could compromise the evidence especially in the area where marijuana is stored.

F3: The L Street facility storage room is overloaded with property to the point where it is a fire hazard. In the event of a fire in the Property Room, a sergeant, lieutenant or commander would have to access the facility prior to the Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) entering. Forced entry into the building would likely cause destruction of evidence, potentially jeopardizing the delicate chain of custody.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The KCSO develop an interim afterhours fire response policy for the L Street Evidence and Property Facility. This should be completed by June 30, 2025, effective through the move to the McMurtrey Avenue location. (Findings #3 and #4)

F4: The L Street facility has no emergency generator, and in the event of a power outage, evidence stored in refrigerated units could be compromised or destroyed.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: The L Street facility has limited space to continue to manage the property and evidence. The current collection and storage rate is unsustainable.

F6: The L Street facility freight elevator is expensive to maintain and fails to provide a reliable lift transportation for staff and the movement of evidence and property between floors. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury determined through interviews, review of relevant documents and onsite tours that the KCSO Property and Evidence Facility remains essential to the Kern County justice system. The L Street facility can no longer serve its purpose because it has outgrown the design and storage capacity for the efficient management of critical evidence. The Grand Jury determined during interviews with KCSO and General Services staff that delays opening the McMurtrey Avenue facility were the result of changes in the original ownership, construction supply chain shortages, and a change order regarding the installation of a passenger elevator. The KCSO was allocated $7 million in general funding for the McMurtrey Avenue Evidence and Property Facility as well as a lease-to-own agreement for the future purchase of this multiuse building. The KCSO command staff stated evidence and property stored in this area is connected to active or appellant cases and cannot be disposed of without a court order. Staff stated efforts are continuing to be made to cull evidence and property consistent with automated notification processes. KCSO staff stated that all efforts are being made to expedite the relocation to the McMurtrey site and KCSO will be prepared to initiate the transfer as soon as the facility is inspected and cleared for occupancy.

May 05, 2025 — Report - Lakeside Union School District

13 pages 16 findings 11 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings

F1: In order to reduce teacher turnover, the District may benefit by providing teaching coaches for mentorship and training of new teachers to ensure success in the classroom.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: Work with KCSOS to secure funding to hire additional mentor teachers or coaches to provide guidance and support to new teachers by August 31, 2025. (Finding #1)

F2: Although teachers should receive curriculum materials before the beginning of the academic year, some classes received their curriculum (October and November) after the school year had started, or not at all. This created frustration among the teaching staff, as they had to find alternate methods of teaching.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: Create a system of follow-up to ensure curriculum is ordered and delivered to the classrooms before the beginning of the school year by August 1, 2025. (Finding #2)

F3: Implementation of PBIS can be challenging due to high staff turnover rates. New staff members may lack the professional development needed to execute PBIS as a whole.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: Administration should provide additional training and development for teachers and staff to ensure PBIS is implemented fully by September 1, 2025. (Finding #3)

R8: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: Hire additional counselors to provide emotional and academic support to students in need and to support PBIS efforts, by September 30, 2025. (Findings #3 and #7)

F4: Although the District has a custodial staff, there have been reports of classrooms not being cleaned for three to four days at a time. Some teachers have taken the initiative to clean their classrooms using their own supplies. This puts an extra burden on teachers and hinders maintaining sanitation and cleanliness of the classroom.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: By August 1, 2025, ensure classrooms are cleaned and sanitized daily by communicating expectations with current custodial staff and by hiring additional custodial staff if needed. (Finding #4)

F5: Although security is listed as a top priority in the SARC Reports, there are several issues that still need to be addressed: • Lakeside school personnel were unable to reach the office or administration to report an intruder on campus • Gates are not always locked. When the Grand Jury toured Lakeside, the gate to the water well was not locked • Children have been seen roaming on campus with no supervision or hall passes • There was a report of a student bringing a gel gun on campus • It is not intended for all staff members to have 2-way radios. Although there is a PA system, not all teachers feel they are informed of potential security issues • Teachers do not feel safe as there have been threats from students and parents • Although the District has a Comprehensive School Safety Plan, some of the staff are uncertain of security protocols. This is detrimental to safety on campus

Related Recommendations (3)

R5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: Review school safety protocols and procedures to address staff and public concerns regarding the effectiveness of current protocols by September 1, 2025. (Finding #5)

R6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: Enforce the protocol to ensure all gates remain locked. This should be accomplished as soon as possible. (Finding #5)

R7: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: Hire additional security at both schools to ensure the safety needs of students and staff are being met by September 1, 2025. (Findings #5 and #15)

F6: CAASPP (California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress) testing done by the state is conducted in April; however, the District does not receive the results until November or December. To gain insight ahead of those results, the District uses computer-based STAR testing to monitor student progress throughout the year.

F7: Safety cameras installed at Lakeside seem to help in monitoring student behavior; however, the school is still having to address social media bullying with students. Combating this issue is vital to student well-being.

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: Because of late bus arrivals, some 7th and 8th grade students missed first period altogether. A second role call was conducted during second period before marking the student “absent” for the day. A student would then deliver the roster to the attendance office. This takes away class time from students and seems to be misleading.

F9: Although Suburu is a “walking school,” there is considerable traffic congestion during drop-off and pick-up times. This poses a potential safety risk at these times.

F10: In the event of an instructional aide shortage for IEP students, general education aides are sometimes pulled off their regular duties to give support to the IEP students. This may create a burden for the general education teachers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: By September 2025, hire additional aides in Special Education to ensure compliance with student IEP’s and General Education aide requirements. (Finding #10)

F11: Although there is a “no smoking/vaping” policy on campus, with the aid of the vaping detectors in the restrooms, some staff members have been caught either smoking or vaping on campus. This muddles the effectiveness of the policy and the example it sets for the community.

F12: The copiers used by teachers are unpredictable. They jam frequently and have little to no toner. This makes it difficult for teachers to prepare for class.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: Ensure photocopiers are maintained in a timely manner to help teachers prepare for class lessons by August 1, 2025. (Finding #12)

F13: There seems to be a breakdown in communication between the staff and administration. This poses a threat in their ability to address student needs.

F14: Some staff members feel uncomfortable reaching out to the administration for help as they feel their concerns are not addressed.

F15: Although Lakeside School hired a campus supervisor for security this year, staff at both school sites feel there is still a need for additional security.

Related Recommendations (1)

F16: Board meetings are held monthly, but attendance is typically low. This shows a lack of engagement from parents, staff, and the community. COMMENTS: The 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury would like to thank the Board of Trustees, administration, staff, and the public for providing insight into the Lakeside Union School District. It is evident this team cares about student success; however, operating this district is complex and requires a collaborative effort from all stakeholders. The District’s accountability plans are well-written and well thought out; however, the District falls short in the execution of these plans. Two phrases resonated with the Grand Jury during the investigation: “We are growing with what we have,” and “I can’t fix it if I don’t know about it.” Limited finances complicate decisions of where to allocate funds and how to maintain standards. The District is growing exponentially, and there is a need to be able to adapt to constantly changing situations. There seems to be some resistance to change within the District, and the lack of communication also seems to be a significant issue. Fostering open communication will help transition through change.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Grand Jury recommends that the Lakeside Union School District: Consider adding recognition programs for teachers, staff, and students at Board Meetings to help with engagement efforts at these meetings by September 30, 2025. (Finding #16) NOTES: • The Lakeside Union School District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other- agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: Lakeside Union School District Board of Trustees o

April 22, 2025 — Report - Kern County Child Protective Services

16 pages 22 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 22 findings

F1: Kern County Child Protective Services (CPS) has a 24/7 hotline that ensures reports can be submitted promptly.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: Expand outreach strategies, including social media and digital platforms, to increase visibility and accessibility of information about child neglect and abuse prevention, and reporting incidents by September 30, 2025. (Findings #1, #10, and #17)

F2: To avoid harm, children in an unsafe environment are removed by CPS. Refer to Juvenile Dependency Flow Chart (Appendix C).

F3: Training and qualifications ensure that caseworkers have the foundational knowledge necessary for effective case management.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: CPS develop more comprehensive ongoing training modules for staff to address specialized topics like trauma-related care and cultural diversity by September 30, 2025. (Findings #3, #4, and #21)

R10: Provide caseworkers with more extensive training in de-escalation techniques and effective communication strategies to ensure coordinated and respectful intervention practices and develop clear protocols for managing uncooperative individuals by September 30, 2025. (Findings #3, #4, #10, and #17)

F4: Despite required training, on-the-job scenarios can vary widely, and case workers may lack real-time support for complex or high-stress situations. This may cause added on-the-job stress and higher turnover rates.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: CPS develop more comprehensive ongoing training modules for staff to address specialized topics like trauma-related care and cultural diversity by September 30, 2025. (Findings #3, #4, and #21)

F5: Recruitment efforts may be improved by fully leveraging tools like targeted social media campaigns or partnerships with educational institutions.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: CPS work with the Kern County Board of Supervisors (BOS) to conduct a salary survey by May 31, 2025, to determine if salaries and benefits of CPS social workers are competitive. (Findings #5 through #8)

R2: CPS work with BOS and the Kern County Human Resources to hire additional social workers by August 30, 2025. (Findings #5 through #8)

R3: By September 30, 2025, CPS work with local colleges to create a specialized program to include undergraduate students in the scholarship, grant or tuition reimbursement programs. This should be designed with the goal for graduates to work for CPS. (Findings #5 through #8)

R4: By July 31, 2025, CPS work with Kern County Human Resources to conduct job fairs with emphasis on attracting qualified individuals. (Findings #5 through #8)

F6: Inadequate retention of staff disrupts CPS’s continuity of care for families; this may lead to increased costs associated with hiring and training new employees.

F7: Staff shortages create higher caseloads per staff member, which hinders supervisors’ ability to perform thorough reviews, possibly impacting consistency and performance monitoring.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: By July 31, 2025, CPS work with Kern County Human Resources to determine if private sector temporary employment services could be utilized to conduct in- house general office duties, to increase social workers’ time and/or ability to manage priority issues. (Findings #7, #8, #16, and #18)

F8: The lack of competitive salaries has led to high staff turnover. This may have exacerbated the workload of the remaining staff resulting in burnout.

Related Recommendations (1)

F9: Collaboration with local organizations, schools, and healthcare providers appears to enhance early identification of abuse or neglect and improve CPS’s resource allocation for families.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: Conduct an analysis of non-emergency case timelines to address and rectify specific causes of delays by October 31, 2025. (Findings #9 through #11)

F10: Not all community members are aware of the reporting process for child abuse or neglect; nor are they confident in CPS’s ability to intervene effectively. Due to language barriers, some members of the community may not fully understand available resources.

Related Recommendations (2)

F11: Insufficient client access to family support services (e.g., training programs, community resources, etc.) hinders CPS’s ability to address root causes of child welfare issues, which can potentially lead to delays in moving cases forward.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: CPS work with Kern County Department of Human Services to enhance the availability of support services for clients by July 31, 2025. (Findings #11, #17, and #21)

F12: CPS uses the “Structured Decision Making” tool (a questionnaire completed by CPS) to determine if a child is in imminent danger. This can lead to the caseworkers’ determination whether a child should be removed from their home.

F13: Social workers are challenged by varying response times from law enforcement, leading to a safety issue for both the children in crisis and the social worker.

F14: There is inadequate funding for Kern Regional Center through the California Department of Developmental Services to carry out its responsibilities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: By July 31, 2025, CPS work with California Department of Developmental Services, to secure funding for the Kern Regional Center remodel. This will increase building space needed to better care for special needs children. (Findings #14 and #15)

F15: CPS faces limited funding flexibility, with a significant portion of funds earmarked for specific programs, thereby restricting the ability to address emerging needs dynamically.

Related Recommendations (3)

R9: By July 31, 2025, CPS work with Kern County General Services to secure grant funding for solar panels at Jamison Children’s Center to reduce utility costs. (Findings #15 and #22)

R13: DHS work with the BOS to allow for CPS discretionary spending authority starting with the 2025-2026 Fiscal Year by May 31, 2025. (Finding #15) NOTES: • The Kern County Child Protective Services should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM: Kern County Department of Human Services

F16: With the increase in reported cases of child abuse and neglect, the current budget allocation is not allowing CPS to fully carry out its increasing responsibilities.

Related Recommendations (1)

F17: CPS faces issues of lack of trust and perceived biases which can contribute to non-cooperation among some families.

Related Recommendations (3)

R5: CPS work with Kern County Department of Human Services to enhance the availability of support services for clients by July 31, 2025. (Findings #11, #17, and #21)

F18: Due to delays in addressing complaints and insufficiency in the follow-up process, there is frustration among parents and/or caregivers.

Related Recommendations (1)

F19: Response times have shown improvement in high-priority cases but remain inconsistent in non-emergency situations.

F20: Limited transparency due to confidentiality laws about the outcomes of complaints and legal cases can impact public trust.

F21: CPS has expanded training programs for social workers to identify and address substance abuse and domestic violence more effectively. Partnerships with local organizations have been enhanced to provide targeted support.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: CPS work with Kern County Department of Human Services to enhance the availability of support services for clients by July 31, 2025. (Findings #11, #17, and #21)

R6: CPS develop more comprehensive ongoing training modules for staff to address specialized topics like trauma-related care and cultural diversity by September 30, 2025. (Findings #3, #4, and #21)

F22: Costs of running the Jamison Center and providing necessary services, including utilities, may limit their ability to make improvements within the facility. COMMENTS: The 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury would like to thank the management and staff of the Kern County Child Protective Services, and the staff of Jamison and Dream Centers, for their cooperation in the investigation. The Grand Jury is thankful for the immeasurable help in answering questions, providing statistical detail reports, and accommodating tours of the Jamison Center and Dream Center. CPS works hard to serve Kern County. They partner with allies and other members of the community to protect the needs of children and families. The CPS team shows creativity, flexibility, and resilience. They strive to emulate the theme of “Compassion plus Action”.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: By July 31, 2025, CPS work with Kern County General Services to secure grant funding for solar panels at Jamison Children’s Center to reduce utility costs. (Findings #15 and #22)

April 08, 2025 — Report - Lamont Storm Water District

10 pages 5 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Kern County Public Works uses mobile berms to further redirect flood waters from the Lamont area. This process mitigates flooding and provides some flood protection.

F2: LSWD is currently unable to fulfill its obligation to protect the properties in the District, offering no protection from flooding and subsequent property damage.

F3: The District is not serving in an advisory capacity to the BOS or other agencies involved regarding flood concerns affecting the community of Lamont. Therefore, the residents of Lamont have no voice for their flood protection needs.

F4: The initial formation documents established the District as a liaison between a primarily Spanish speaking community and the various agencies that are involved with Caliente Creek. This need has not changed, leaving residents without representation.

F5: LSWD Board does not have a quorum, therefore, it is dysfunctional and cannot conduct business. As a result, it offers inadequate flood protection for the community. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury extends its appreciation to the remaining Board Members of the Lamont Storm Water District. These Members responded candidly to interview questions and provided the District’s financial, operational, and historic records. The Grand Jury also thanks the Kern County Public Works staff, LAFCO, and Lamont Public Utility District for providing detailed information regarding flood mitigation efforts. Although LSWD is currently unable to form a quorum for business purposes at its monthly Board Meetings; two Members firmly believe in the importance of a local entity that is familiar with the area, its families and its unique culture. Both expressed an interest in the viability and survival of the LSWD. These Members also stated they are willing to continue serving on the Board until a resolution is determined.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: LAFCO and the Board of Supervisors should make a decision about the future of the LSWD by July 1, 2025. (Finding #5)

R2: If the decision is to dissolve an inactive Special District, the Board of Supervisors should take over the finances and flood control by July 1, 2025. (Finding #5)

R3: If the decision is to reactivate, the Board of Supervisors should name a sufficient number of District residents to reestablish a Board quorum by July 1, 2025. (Finding #5) NOTES: • The Lamont Storm Water District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other- agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: Kern Local Agency Formation Commission

March 25, 2025 — Report - Kern County Public Works Roads Division

6 pages 4 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: The Grand Jury investigated the process of reporting a problem on road conditions. It was discovered that the public can easily go to Kern County Public Works website, then to the Services tab to report a problem.

F2: The Grand Jury found that 85% of maintenance work is reactive, and 15% proactive. This ratio leads to potholes developing sooner.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: By July 1, 2027, proactive maintenance work should be increased from 15% to 25% and reactive decreased from 85% to 75%. (Finding #2) NOTES: • The Kern County Public Works Roads Division should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public view. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other- agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM: Kern County Public Work Roads Division

F3: The Grand Jury found that an increase in blade sealing would decrease the need to refill the reincarnated potholes.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: By July 1, 2027, Roads Division increase blade sealing by a minimum of 10%. (Finding #3)

F4: Due to staffing shortages within the General Services Human Resources Division the workload has increased for the remaining Human Resources staff. This could be the cause of the lengthy hiring process within the Roads Division. COMMENTS: There has been improvement in the staffing levels and work repairs completed since the inception of this investigation. The Grand Jury would like to thank the staff of Kern County Public Works Roads Division and General Services Human Resources Division for their cooperation and for providing information.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: By June 1, 2025, Kern County Public Works Roads Division and General Services Human Resources Division have regularly scheduled meetings to communicate and better comprehend what is necessary to shorten the hiring process and to better inform applicants of the job requirements. (Findings #4)

March 10, 2025 — Report - James G. Bowles Juvenile Hall

16 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: PYSB has been unable to recruit or retain sufficient staffing levels because of its inability to offer competitive compensation. The recent change in the YSO classification may improve the recruitment and retention process but it is too soon to see results. Recommendation R1 from the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report has been met.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: KCBOS should expedite approval to create a higher entry salary for newly hired YSO’s by June 1, 2025 (Finding #1)

F2: PYSB is in the process of negotiating with the union restructuring the hiring process to offer higher entry level pay, mandatory overtime should be greatly diminished.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: PYSB should reduce mandatory overtime by July 1, 2025. (Finding #2) NOTES: • The Kern County Probation Department should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other- agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: Kern County Board of Supervisors

R3: Using the Probation’s Human Resources Department to create and implement a system by June 1, 2024, for conducting exit interviews when an employee departs the organization. Senior Probation Department staff should review exit interviews quarterly and submit an annual report to the Kern County Human Resources Department. (Finding 2)

F3: The Probation Department currently conducts exit interviews when employees depart. Exit interviews provide needed documentation to support changes in recruitment and employment hiring practices. Recommendation R3 from the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report has been met.

F4: Residual money from the approved budget allowed a security fence upgrade for JGBJH. The fence security upgrades are nearing completion. The new sally port and fenced area by the Re-entry, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) entrance and the Re-programming trailer is awaiting final walkthrough. The fenced area by the Youth Development Center library is also complete and awaiting a final walkthrough. These improvements will prevent detainees from entering restricted areas. Fence Security Upgrades Photo courtesy of JGBJH staff

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Purchase a standby electrical generator for JGBJH to operate the potable water system. This work should be completed by November 1, 2024. (Finding 4)

F5: JGBJH has no onsite electrical generator putting the facility at risk during power outages. This could lead to a lack of potable water and emergency water for fire protection. Kern County BOS approved the generator project. It is awaiting General Services - Construction Services direction. JGBJH has been in contact with Construction Services and has been told there will be a project meeting early 2025.

F6: JGBJH has addressed the peeling paint and broken door windows. The first phase of the project was completed in the Pathways Academy and the 200A units. JGBJH also replaced the doors in the safety rooms and the holding rooms. The second phase is anticipated to begin in 2025. The doors are being built and once those are completed, JGBJH will schedule installation of the doors in the remainder of the units. These improvements will increase the safety and security of these facilities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Repaint the dormitory rooms at JGBJH that have peeling paint by September 1, 2024. (Finding 6)

F7: The 2024-2025 Grand Jury investigation discovered a communication problem existed between Probation Department and General Services on maintenance requests, project proposals, soft cost estimates, and timely follow up for proposed requests. The miscommunication issues have been resolved. PYSB is holding quarterly meetings and has appointed a liaison from Administration to represent General Services with Special Projects. Recommendation R8 from the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report has been met. COMMENTS: JGBJH has made considerable progress toward satisfying the recommendations of the 2023-2024 Grand Jury’s report. The Grand Jury interviewed staff members of PYSB who expressed genuine interest in redirecting young people from destructive behaviors, encouraging positive change, and preparing them to reunite with their families. PYSB was given the role of being 100% responsible for detained juveniles in the facility. The closing of Youth Authority facilities, the aging of detention facilities, and the inability to recruit and retain employees has placed a large financial burden on their budget. The reduction of county general funding coupled with California’s 2024- 2025 $58 billion budget deficit (Legislative Analyst Office, January 15, 2024), creates the potential to have state funding reduced, and has the potential to greatly impact PYSB. PYSB needed to trim its budget with limited resources while still “Trying to Make a Dollar Out of Fifteen Cents.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Establish quarterly communication meetings between General Services and the Probation Department starting June 1, 2024, to ensure that both departments are working cohesively on all projects and maintenance requests. (Finding 7)

February 10, 2025 — Report - City of Arvin

25 pages 14 findings 11 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F1: Many of the Arvin City employees have voiced concerns that other staff members are not doing the amount of work required for their respective positions, causing animosity in the workplace.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Grand Jury recommends that by August 1, 2025, the City, through its Human Resources Department, provide mandatory specialized training for the Mayor, City Council, and all City employees regarding confidentiality, workplace decorum and team building. (Findings #1 and #2)

F2: Cohesiveness within the staff is often missing, demonstrated by employee allegiance – or lack thereof – to various members of the City Council, department heads, or fellow employees. This has resulted in the perception of two “teams” within the City staff working in different directions.

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: The unattractiveness of closed businesses discourages other businesses from locating in the downtown area.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Grand Jury recommends that by July 1, 2025, the City assemble a working group made up of representatives from the City Departments of Community Development, Economic Development, Parks & Recreation, Police, Transportation, and the City Council to work with a similar group of persons or groups, such as business groups, service clubs, and property owners interested in the revitalization of Arvin’s downtown area to develop an actionable plan to attract commerce, residents and others into the area. (Findings #3 and #4)

F4: Repairing the streets in the downtown area of Arvin is a critical piece in the overall economic revitalization of the City, by aiding in the attraction of businesses to that part of town.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: The lack of scrutiny of billings from the Outside Law Group has resulted in payment of invoices that are billed in excess of the contracted amounts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: All over-payments and under-payments discovered with the audit of the Outside Law Group’s billings should be collected/paid by July 30, 2025. (Finding #5)

F6: The contract with the Outside Law Group describes the agreement as an appointment of an “interim City Attorney.” (See Attachment A, ¶2.0 of the contract with the Outside Law Group). The contract, dated May 25, 2021, is still in use, and no apparent effort has been made to either find a new qualified attorney or to update the contract with the Outside Law Group. 6

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: The Grand Jury recommends that all Outside Law Group invoices from the commencement of the contract (May 26, 2021) to date be adjusted to include the retainer, adjust the fees per the contract and reduce the number of hours charged accordingly by June 30, 2025. (Findings #6 and #7)

R7: The Grand Jury recommends that by July 1, 2025, the City Council secure a City Attorney by a valid contract or direct employment. (Finding #6)

F7: Adjusting the contractual fees to be charged/paid with the 5% annual increase required under the contract in ¶3.1 results in the following hourly fee schedule: Basic Services Attorneys $260.46 Paralegals and Law Clerks 115.76 Special Legal Services Partner/Of Counsel 341.50 Associate 260.46 Paralegals and Law Clerks 115.76 Third Party Partner/Of Counsel 405.17 Associate 318.34 Paralegals and Law Clerks 144.70 Other Specialists Partner/Of Counsel 318.34 to $520.93 Associates 248.89 to 318.34

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: The City does not have a written contract in effect with the outside contractor working for the Planning Department. This could lead to excessive billing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that by May 1, 2025, a written contract with a contractor for the City’s Planning Department be completed and signed by all parties. (Finding #8)

F9: The Police Department’s emphasis on Community Policing has brought the crime statistics down considerably in the past two and one-half years, contributing to Arvin becoming a more welcoming community.

F10: The City Council failed in its duty to either appoint a replacement for the Council vacancy, or to call for a Special Election.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that by March 14, 2025, Arvin comply with California Elections Codes §§1000 and 1405 by filing a notice of intent to hold a special election to fill the vacant City Council seat. (Finding #10)

F11: The decision to cease the publishing of City Council Minutes has left the residents of Arvin without an easy way to determine what actions were taken by the City Council except what they may learn from the press or word of mouth.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: By July 1, 2025, the Grand Jury recommends that City Council Meeting Minutes be posted on the City’s website promptly after they are approved by the City Council. (Finding #11) NOTES: • The City of Arvin should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: Arvin City Council

F12: The deviation from the customary agenda format resulted in having the old council vote on matters before the new council had been seated. This preempted the new council’s opportunity to vote on matters that otherwise would have been before them.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that a Special Election be held on November 4, 2025, to bring the City into compliance with the law, California Code, Elections Code - ELEC §1000 to fill the vacant City Council seat. (Finding #12)

R9: By July 1, 2025, the City Council should codify an agenda format to be followed at the first Council meeting following the certification of an election, special election, or appointment. This format should place the swearing in of new members (including the Mayor) first on the agenda followed by Public Comments. (Finding #12)

F13: There is an inherent conflict with the City Manager also filling the roles of Finance Director and Community Development Director.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: By July 1, 2025, an Assistant City Manager should be hired to relieve conflicts created for the City Manager by filling the multiple roles of City Manager, Finance Director, and Community Development Manager. (Finding #13) 8

F14: The City of Arvin should be commended for its forward thinking in the management of its Transit Department and the conversion of its bus fleet to all electric. 7

January 14, 2025 — Report - McFarland Recreation and Park District

13 pages 12 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: Based on the 2002-2003 Grand Jury report, the MRPD exceeded the expected needs of a community of 17,000 residents in activities and events.

F2: MRPD has eight full-time staff and hundreds of volunteers. This mixture of staff and volunteers, along with user fees, allows the district to manage on a shoestring budget ($1.24 million) while providing a wholesome and essential community service.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Develop educational programs and research available grants and scholarships that will allow cost-effective and expanded access to the Recreation Center by June 30, 2025. (Findings #4 and #5) NOTES: • The McFarland Recreation and Park District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other- agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: McFarland Recreation and Park District • Findings #2 through #12 • Recommendations #1 through #6 • REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM: McFarland City Council • Finding #12 • Recommendations #1, #5 and #6 RESPONSES ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE §§933(c) AND 933.05: • PRESIDING JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 • TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Cal. Penal Code §929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. McFarland Recreation and Park District Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations January 9, 2025

F3: Parks are well maintained and manicured. They are heavily utilized in the evenings and weekends for recreational activities and family events. These parks are the centerpieces of MRPD’s outreach efforts to encourage overall fitness and community participation.

F4: The recreation center allows for a plethora of activities and a meaningful gathering place for both youths and adults. This enhances the charm of the community and encourages the active participation of its residents. The center is also available to rent for private functions.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: Develop a plan to increase utilization of the Recreation Center that will benefit McFarland residents by June 30, 2025. (Findings #4 and #5)

F5: The supervised weight room is open from 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm weekdays for public use. There is a daily or annual fee that is kept low to encourage participation. Exercise Room Photo Courtesy of the Grand Jury

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: Develop a plan to increase utilization of the Recreation Center that will benefit McFarland residents by June 30, 2025. (Findings #4 and #5)

F6: The MRPD Board of Directors complies with the Brown Act and Proposition 218 requirements. Agendas and minutes are posted in a timely manner. Financial information is provided by a website link to the California State Controller’s Office. This simplifies communication between the MRPD and the community, affords participation and ensures transparency of MRPD proceedings.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The posting date should be added to the Agenda to eliminate questions about timely posting. This should be initiated by March 31, 2025. (Finding #6)

F7: The Pledge of Allegiance and/or a moment of silence, at the start of a meeting, is at the discretion of the organizers. MRPD has chosen not to implement either. However, this formality does signal the beginning of an official meeting, sets a business tone, and can foster a sense of tradition and community solidarity.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Board Meetings should start with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Starting meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance is a reminder of the Board’s shared commitment to the values and principles of the District and the Country. This should be initiated by May 1, 2025. (Finding #7)

F8: The Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022, McFarland Recreation and Park District Financial Statements indicated no errors or areas of concern. However, MRPD had not reconciled its bank accounts in a timely fashion indicating a lack of internal controls created by staffing shortages. A good faith effort is underway to rectify this discrepancy, which will improve its transparency and the public’s trust.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Bank statements be reconciled within 30 days of issuance. This will help eliminate deficiencies in internal controls and allow the District to identify potential issues before they explode into problems. This should be initiated by May 1, 2025. (Finding #8)

F9: MRPD recently received a $211,712 award from the State of California to help MRPD continue its recovery from the lingering effects of the pandemic. The amount of the award was attributed to excellent maintenance of records pertaining to the cost of COVID-19. This award will also assist MRPD to reach pre-COVID-19 levels of recreational activities offered to the community.

F10: MRPD Board of Directors has taken the requisite steps for a voter-approved swimming pool and aquatic center and improvements to existing infrastructure. Building a swimming pool had broad community support and would further contribute to the overall physical fitness for both youths and adults. Artist Rendering of the New Aquatic Center – MPRD Website

F11: The MRPD submitted Bond Measure S on the November 5, 2024, ballot. The Bond Measure required 66.67% voter approval. However, the measure failed to reach this threshold with only 60.31% of the vote. Consequently, MRPD does not have the funding to construct a pool/aquatic facility, and the community will have to continue to endure without this vital amenity. Election Results from Electionsapps.KernCounty.com

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: MRPD continues to pursue construction of a pool/aquatic facility applying for grants, community renewal government resources, mutually interested regional partners, and consider resubmitting a Bond Measure to its voters. This should be completed no later than June 30, 2025. (Findings #11 and #12)

F12: Bond Measure S may have had a better chance of passage with the support and collaboration of the MRPD, the City of McFarland, and other regional entities that would have mutually benefitted from the pool and aquatic facility. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury extends its appreciation to the MRPD’s executive management staff and Board of Directors for their cooperation and professionalism. All their public facilities offer the community opportunities to participate in athletic, as well as leisure time activities for family and friends gatherings, or a simple walk in the park. The Grand Jury also acknowledges MRPD is still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. The management and office staff are continuing to update its website, complete backlogged Board Meeting Minutes, and financial and audit reports. The current management staff seems eager to fulfill its obligation to manage MRPD responsibly with transparency. The Grand Jury completed this investigation with a better understanding of the complexities and financial demands of operating on a shoestring budget while providing a beneficial and essential community service.

Related Recommendations (2)

November 27, 2024 — Report - Kelly Blanton Student Ed. Center

14 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Interns are employed to counsel students. However, there is a legal limit to the number of cases an intern can address at one time. The addition of qualified mental health counselors would allow additional students to receive counseling.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: KBSEC work with KCSOS to add qualified counselors to the Center by April 1, 2025. (Finding #1)

R6: By May 1, 2025, KBSEC should consult with their departments to create a universal documentation process that would benefit both staff and students. (Finding #6) NOTES: • The Kelly F. Blanton Education Center and Kern County Superintendent of Schools should post a copy of this report, which will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other- agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM: o Kelly F. Blanton Student Education Center o • Findings #1 through #6 • Recommendations #1 through #6 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury Report 6 REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: o Kern County Superintendent of Schools o • Findings #1 through #4 • Recommendations #1 through #4 RESPONSES ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE §§933(c) AND 933.05 TO: • PRESIDING JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 • TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Cal. Penal Code §929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury Report 7

F2: Adding additional safety officers would improve campus safety measures for both students and staff.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: KBSEC work in conjunction with KCSOS to hire two additional safety officers for the Center by March 1, 2025. (Finding #2)

F3: The addition of barriers in the main lobby would create a more secure entrance that should deter negative interactions among students.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: KBSEC work in conjunction with KCSOS to remodel the Center’s lobby to ensure a secured entrance and install barriers for staff and student safety by March 1, 2025. (Finding #3)

F4: One of the main challenges at KBSEC is keeping the school safe. Installing cameras and enclosing the campus with fencing and controlled gates would deter uninvited individuals from entering the campus. Providing security for students already in crisis should be at the forefront of creating a safe-learning environment in which they can focus on their future.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: KBSEC work in conjunction with KCSOS to secure the campus with fencing, controlled gates, and cameras for safety purposes by May 1, 2025. (Finding #4)

F5: The Center does not offer enrichment activities (except for the Strong Bodies Program) or internal social clubs such as chess, photography, art, etc., thereby reducing the chance for positive social interaction, emotional growth, and a sense of belonging among the students.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: KBSEC incorporate enrichment programs into its curriculum that include physical and social activities to improve student social interaction and emotional growth by May 1, 2025. (Finding #5)

F6: Adding a universal documentation process for support services would allow counselors to monitor interactions with students and make adjustments to meet students’ needs. COMMENTS: The 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury would like to thank the Kern County Superintendent of Schools and the staff at Kelly F. Blanton Student Education Center for providing insight into alternative education in Kern County and services at the Center. It is evident that staff members work together to achieve desirable outcomes for their students. The teamwork at KBSEC shines through as the staff members are constantly adapting to changing situations. The students are their number one priority. 2024-2025 Kern County Grand Jury Report 5

Related Recommendations (1)

November 27, 2024 — Report - North of the River Sanitation District

19 pages 15 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F1: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: Sewage flows approximately 13 miles to the Wastewater Treatment Plant on 7th Standard Road by gravity flow and supplemented by several lift stations (pumps). An unintended consequence of conservation and the use of more water efficient appliances is the slowing of the transfer of raw sewage. Sewer pipeline flushing truck (right) Photos courtesy of the Grand Jury Camera and vehicle used to photograph sewer lines for potential issues (left)

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: NORSD develop a payment plan for connection fees exceeding a defined amount as determined by the Board, no later than April 30, 2025. (Finding #10) NOTES: • The North of The River Sanitary District #1 should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other- agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM: Kern County Public Works Department o  Findings #8 and #9  Recommendations #1 • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: North of The River Sanitary District o  Findings #1-15  Recommendations #1-8 City of Shafter o  Findings #8 and #9  Recommendations #1 and #4 Kern County Board of Supervisors o  Findings #8 and #9  Recommendations #1 and #4 RESPONSES ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE §§933(c) AND 933.05 TO: • PRESIDING JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 • TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Cal. Penal Code §929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.

F2: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: The current wastewater treatment process of using a trickling filter will be converted to an “activated sludge system with denitrifications” (microbial process of converting nitrogen compounds into gaseous forms). Using this biological process will more effectively process sewage and wastewater.

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: The June 30, 2020 and June 30, 2023 Financial Reports are on file substantiating financial solvency.

Related Recommendations (1)

F4: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: Updating rate schedules of District Ordinance No. 2000-01, which would confirm the cost and fee revisions, is still pending. The rate payers would be better informed and served if this Ordinance was current.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: NORSD update Ordinance #2000-01 as specified in Resolution 23-07, by April 30, 2025. (Finding #4)

F5: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: The Grand Jury attended a Board of Director’s meeting. Each Board member had a supplemental binder with technical subject matter to review. The Board meeting was efficient and well organized.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: NORSD’s Board meetings are held in a small conference room that is not conducive to public participation, especially during discussions involving rate increases or infrastructure changes affecting district operations.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: NORSD secure a larger conference room to facilitate public attendance at the monthly Board Meetings by the April 30, 2025 Board Meeting. (Finding #6)

F7: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: Access to the NORSD agendas, minutes, and various documents posted on the website, or if available only in hard copy, were provided promptly. This illustrates a high level of transparency that the public can have confidence in.

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: On February 6, 1990, a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) was executed. The Grand Jury found that the JPA correctly follows the requirements of California Government Code §6502. To date, this document has not been reviewed to align with the growth and changing needs of its members.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: NORSD update the February 6, 1990 Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with North of the River Sanitary District #1, County of Kern, and City of Shafter by April 30, 2025. (Finding #8)

F9: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: The JPA TAC Team meets quarterly by a hybrid means of in-person or remote (ZOOM or TEAMS). An agenda is usually provided prior to the meeting and minutes are not distributed regularly. This creates a potential void in dissemination of information.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: The TAC distribute Meeting Minutes, to all parties of the JPA within one month following the meeting, starting with the next TAC meeting. (Finding #9)

F10: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: There is concern about the increasing costs of the plant expansion and the mandated changes in wastewater management, which has now exceeded $190 million, primarily due to inflation. The increased hook-up fees can potentially create a hardship for new customers; however, these fees are justified based on residential and commercial growth and demands on the wastewater system.

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: The lack of staff with grant writing capabilities hinders NORSD in obtaining potential grant funding to help offset the cost of its expansion and long-term Capital Improvement Plan.

Related Recommendations (3)

R3: NORSD research the feasibility of contracting with a grant writer that has expertise in supplemental development grants to help offset the cost of the planned expansion. This review is to be completed by April 30, 2025. (Finding #11)

R7: NORSD develop a Policies and Procedures Manual to guide staff with understanding agency standards, operations, and governmental mandates by April 30, 2025. (Findings #11 and #12)

F12: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: Because there is a shortage of available engineers, NORSD is struggling to recruit an engineer to assist and train in the implementation process.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: NORSD develop a Policies and Procedures Manual to guide staff with understanding agency standards, operations, and governmental mandates by April 30, 2025. (Findings #11 and #12)

F13: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: NORSD has a transparent due process fee review. This includes an agendized notice, an opportunity to be heard, and to present a request or protest. The Board retains the discretion to deny rate adjustments, but at the very least, the rate payer is afforded an opportunity to be heard as a valued sewer customer.

Related Recommendations (1)

F14: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: The NORSD website is welcoming and user friendly. The Grand Jury had no difficulty navigating the various links. This greatly simplifies communication between the district and users and provides important information on the NORSD governance, future plans and contact information.

Related Recommendations (1)

F15: The Kern County Grand Jury finds that: The budget does not support a dedicated Public Relations staff. Therefore, NORSD public relations is limited to their webpage and signage on their service vehicles. Public Service Announcement On the Side of a Service Truck Photos courtesy of the Grand Jury COMMENTS: The Grand Jury extends its appreciation to the NORSD staff and Board of Directors for their enthusiasm, cooperation, and professionalism throughout this investigation. Additionally, the Grand Jury acknowledges the assistance of the Kern County Public Works Department, Bakersfield Waste Management and the Shafter City Manager’s Office for providing valuable information and insight regarding the JPA and wastewater management. The Grand Jury particularly appreciates NORSD’s guided site visit to lift stations, and the current wastewater treatment plant located on 7th Standard Road. The Grand Jury completed this investigation with a newfound knowledge and appreciation of the sewer treatment process. A process that ends, for most of us, with the flushing of a toilet.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: NORSD expand its informational services to the public about sanitary districts and the important role these services play in our health care. By April 30, 2025 a plan to implement the following should be in place: (Finding #15) a. Contact Park and Recreation Districts to display informational banners b. Sponsor youth programs c. Distribute press releases explaining planned updates and expansion of the wastewater treatment plant d. Post expansion updates on the NORSD website e. Develop an outreach program for students, to emphasize the importance of wastewater management.

October 24, 2024 — Report - Kern County Fire Department

9 pages 3 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: Feral cats are a good vermin control solution for many facilities, including the proposed fire station at Hart Flat.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Kern County Fire Department should continue the process to implement all recommendations outlined in the 2021-2022 report. (Findings #1 and #3) NOTES: • The Kern County Fire Department should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other- agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: Kern County Board of Supervisors • REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM: Kern County Fire Department RESPONSES ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO CAL. PENAL CODE §§933 (c) AND 933.05 WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: • PRESIDING JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 • TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Cal. Penal Code §929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. APPENDIX: APPENDIX A: (Recommendations and Responses from the 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report) Kern County Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Final Report Kern County Fire Department – 21st Century Demands; 50’s & 60’s Infrastructure Response to Findings: The Board of Supervisors notes that the Grand Jury’s findings are substantially correct. Response to Recommendation:

F2: The 55 over-hires are used for future retirements and/or separations. This process allows the department to avoid a lag in hiring, and saves money by conducting fewer academies and minimizing overtime.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends The Board of Supervisors should secure necessary funds to coincide with the comprehensive strategic plan. We concur with the Grand Jury regarding the importance of appropriately funding for the desired level of service to meet community needs. In recent years, the County has increased the amount of property tax share that is dedicated solely to the department’s Fire Fund. The County has also continued to contribute discretionary General Fund dollars in order to prevent any reductions in service for the department. However, the Fire department faced revenue reductions that challenged the department to balance the budget and continue even basic services to residents. In this endeavor, priorities are given to mandated programs and services without jeopardizing safety of employees. Though [sic] the annual budget process, the Board continues to strategically work to address the needs of the community by allocating available funding across many departments that each provide critical service.

F3: The Kern County Fire Department has been very responsive to recommendations stated in the 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report. COMMENTS: The 2024-2025 Grand Jury would like to thank the Kern County Fire Department staff for their hard work and dedication.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Kern County Fire Department should install smoke detectors and Fire Ready Range Hoods in all kitchens within 12-24 months. We concur with the Grand Jury on the importance of installing smoke detectors and other fire prevention and safety devices. The department remains committed to protecting the health and safety of the citizens and visitors of our county, as well as our Firefighters. The department will ensure all fire stations are equipped with smoke detectors in accordance with the National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) recommendations. Fire stations serve as residence for the Firefighters during non-emergency times and are outfitted with all the same accommodations of residential housing. Fire Ready Range Hoods are generally reserved for use in commercial kitchen settings, are cost prohibitive for fire station applications and are not a current fire code requirement.

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: The Grand Jury recommends the Kern County Fire Department replace Station 11’s Air Operation generator with new auto start back-up generator. We concur with the Grand Jury regarding the importance of reliable backup power systems. The department has secured multiple backup power grants in recent years. On February 15, 2022, the Board of Supervisors approved a $1.32 million dollar [sic] generator grant from FEMA through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to purchase and install propane generators at fire headquarters and 32 fire stations. Many of these generators are being installed at stations that don’t have backup power or with existing diesel generators secured through federal excess property. The department will continue to pursue funding opportunities that will better ensure all critical fire department infrastructure, including Stations 11’s Air Operations, has reliable backup power.

R5: The Grand Jury recommends the Kern County Fire Department should request the installation of more dip tanks with reliable water for Air Operations; at a minimum one in the Rosamond area. We appreciate the Grand Jury’s recommendation for installation of additional dip tanks. The department regularly evaluates water infrastructure relative to risk throughout the County. Where necessary to mitigate the fire risk to life and protect structures, the department will work with necessary entities to establish and maintain the appropriate water supply for emergencies.

R6: The Grand Jury recommends within the next 3-5 years, Helicopter 407 should be replaced, followed by Helicopter 408. We concur with the Grand Jury’s recommendation and will review the options for replacing the aged helicopters in future fiscal years. A replacement helicopter is estimated to cost $14 million. Capital replacement of this magnitude requires careful planning and prioritization among the other needs of the department.

R7: The Grand Jury recommends Station 11 should contact Animal Control to request one or more feral cats to help control the vermin problem. We appreciate the Grand Jury’s recommendation regarding vermin at Station 11. The department currently uses pest control services for various facilities and will evaluate and implement the most effective and appropriate pest control methods to address the vermin issue described at station 11.

R8: The Grand Jury recommends the Kern County Fire Department should expand their efforts, in the next fiscal year, to reduce Firefighters’ exposure to diesel exhaust and diesel particulate matter and protect Firefighters with the goal of preventing future disease by all means necessary. We concur with the Grand Jury’s recommendation and the department will enhance efforts to mitigate Firefighters’ exposure to diesel exhaust and diesel particulate matter. The department is committed to retrofitting existing extractors during the current and future budget years and will continue to look for ways to mitigate exposure.

R9: The Grand Jury recommends the Kern County Fire Department should apply for funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill immediately for Air Operations and Fire Stations in need of repair or replacement. We appreciate the Grand Jury’s recommendation and the department will review the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and evaluate how funding might be made available at the county level.

April 04, 2024 — Southwest Healthcare District a Hidden Resource within the Community Photo by Grand Jury

20 pages 8 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: District Board meetings were held at several different locations and on different days of the month in the past, making it difficult for the public to plan and attend meetings. The lack of transparency ended up with a lack of public input.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: Develop an Annual Budget with income, expenses, and expected grants for the year. Explore budget options to provide for an office, a secure storage space, access to legal counsel, and a part-time clerical employee to respond to public inquires and perform day- to-day activities by December 31, 2024. (Findings 1 and 7)

R7: Locate and rent/lease a facility to be used as the District’s Office with a phone, email, secure file storage capabilities, and a place to hold monthly public meetings at the same location. The public should be informed of the office location by December 31, 2024. (Findings 1 and 2) NOTES: • The Southwest Healthcare District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website at: https://www.kerncounty.com/government/other-agencies/grand-jury RESPONSE DEADLINE: • REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM: Southwest Healthcare District o  Findings 1 to 8  Recommendations 1 to 7 RESPONSES ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE §§933(c) AND 933.05 WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: PRESIDING JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code §929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. GLOSSARY: 1. ADA Compliance: refers to the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design, which states electronic, information technology (like websites) must be accessible to people with disabilities, and meeting rooms must be accessible to all people of the public. 2. California Health and Safety Code §32139: requires each district to maintain a website listing information that MUST be shared: • The district’s annual budget • A list of current board members • Information regarding public meetings required pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act • A Municipal Service Review (MSR) or special study conducted by a LAFCo • Recipients of grant funding or assistance provided by the district, if any • Audits of the district’s accounts and records prepared pursuant to existing law • Annual financial reports to the Controller (State of California), submitted pursuant to existing law • Any other information the board deems relevant • The district’s policy for providing grants or assistance 3. FPPC: Fair Political Practices Commission oversees many public officials that are required to take an ethics-training course to educate them on the ethical standards required of any individual who works in state or local government. Cities, counties and special districts in California are required by law (AB 1234, Chapter 700, Stats. of 2005) to provide ethics training to their local officials. The FPPC is responsible for administering and enforcing the Political Reform Act. It enacts regulations that implement the law, issues advice letters, and adopts advisory opinions that apply the Act as well as the regulations to particular circumstances. 4. LAFCo: Local Agency Formation Commissions are local agencies mandated by the California State Legislature to encourage the orderly formation of local governmental agencies, preserve agricultural land resources, and discourage urban sprawl. 5. The Ralph M. Brown Act: is a California law that guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. Located at California Government Code §54950 et seq., it is an act of the California State Legislature, authored by Assemblymember Ralph M. Brown and passed in 1953. APPENDICES:

F2: Because of inconsistent posting of meeting times and locations, members of the public may be misinformed, especially if living outside the community of Frazier Park.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Post agendas and important District related notices in all (three) US Post Offices within the District boundaries, other visible public locations, and publish a copy in the local newspaper’s calendar of events. This process should be in place by September 1, 2024. (Finding 2)

F3: Proposed grants for funding were not always placed on the meeting’s agenda for required public comment before acting on a request. Some grants were improperly approved without an application, letter of intent, or the knowledge of purposed expenses and/or expected outcomes.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Develop and publish a grant application form and the process for awarding annual grants. This application should explain the purpose of the grant, budget of expenses, and expected outcomes when the project is completed. The approved application form should be available to the public by September 1, 2024. (Findings 3 and 4)

F4: Minutes of Board meetings do not reflect any accountability of grant expenses or the proposed benefit to the community that would be provided by the grants. Minutes are very brief and do not name the Board Members present, resulting in the lack of public transparency.

F5: Board Members’ stipends varied from member to member, and from year to year, without explanation, as per the State Controller’s Reports. It is unknown if some of the dollar amounts include hours of labor paid to Board Members. The Monthly Board stipends were changed without being placed on the agenda or through the resolution process and without public input or explanation.

F6: Without a written policy, resolution, or ordinance approved by the Board in a public meeting, paying a board member to work an hourly rate may violate Government Code and FPPC guidelines.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: Develop and publish, with community input, District Bylaws and operation procedures that reflect the current operation of the District. Bylaws should be posted on their website by October 1, 2024. (Findings 6 and 8)

R4: Seek an official legal opinion on the process of hiring a Board Member to perform work for the District, and update the Rules and Regulations’ requirements for hiring Board Members. If needed, seek the return of funds paid for hours of work performed by Board Members. Bylaws and/or Rules and Regulations should reflect the process to hire Board Members to do work by November 1, 2024. (Finding 6)

F7: District files including historical minutes, LAFCo documents, and Board Members’ Form 700 documentation are currently stored in totes at the home of a Board Member. These District files are not open for public review, therefore lacking transparency.

F8: The District’s website is under development. The webpage links to Bylaws are outdated and not complete. The Mission Statement is blank, and the FAQs appear to be generic. Many other links to sections are vague, confusing the public. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury researched the internet, the local newspaper, and other websites for over a month before locating limited information and contact information for the Southwest Healthcare District. The California State Controller's Office, Kern LAFCo, and the Kern County Elections Office had very limited, outdated information pertaining to the operation and leadership of the District. The Grand Jury thanks the people that were interviewed for this investigation and provided information for this report.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Continue to update and maintain their website to meet all the requirements of California Health and Safety Code §32139, to include Board Members’ contact information. This will be an on-going activity requiring monthly updates. (Finding 8)

Administration, Audit and County Services Committee Richard Benson Kathy Jackson EnriqueVicuna

53 pages 10 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: In entering into the IDP contract of 1996, the County achieved the goal of reducing the cost of providing representation in conflict of interest cases.

F2: The IDP continues to be a cost effective method in providing indigent defense services.

F3: The County has not fully explored other methods of providing indigent defense services such as establishing an alternative defense division/department or issuing an RFP to solicit other cost effective alternatives in order to possibly save even more.

Related Recommendations (4)

R3: The County issue a Request For Proposal to determine if there are other more cost effective alternatives to the current Indigent Defense Program contract by Fiscal Year end 2022. (Finding 3) NOTES: • The Kern County Board of Supervisors should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: kerncounty.com/grandjury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: kerncounty.com/grandjury REQUIRED RESPONSES WITHIN 60 DAYS TO:  PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301  TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 33

R4: If the BOT Advisory Board is decommissioned, the Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrative Officer to develop a process whereby members of the public may volunteer to serve on an ad hoc committee charged with reviewing tourism grant applications. (Finding 3)

R08-09: 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 Expenditures General Fund Contribution Chart created by Grand Jury 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 51 G. The PDO currently has 101 authorized positions. Staffing is as follows:  Misdemeanor and Felony Trial Attorneys 1 Public Defender o 1 Assistant Public Defender o 1 Chief Deputy Public Defender (unfilled) o 61 Deputy Public Defenders o  Investigations 11 Investigators o 1 Public Defender Investigative Aide o  25 Support Staff H. The PDO has offices in Bakersfield, Delano, Lamont, Mojave, Shafter and Ridgecrest. Additionally, the Juvenile Court Division is located in Bakersfield. I. Every attorney, including those in the highest levels of management, directly serves clients. No attorney has strictly administrative duties. J. Each new attorney starts handling cases on day one of employment; it takes approximately 3.5 years to train an attorney to handle murder cases. K. There is a high level of turnover among Deputy Public Defenders. The average length of employment is three to four years. Most new attorneys come from outside of Kern County and ultimately return to their home communities. L. In addition to legal representation, the PDO provides clients with appropriate clothing and advice on grooming etiquette for trial court. Below is a photo of the PDO clothing room. Photo provided by Grand Jury 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 52 FINDINGS: F1. The culture of the PDO is client centered. F2. The PDO has absorbed the additional workload brought about by legislative changes without compromising their core services. F3. The service provided to the public may be enhanced if more Deputy Public Defenders were recruited locally and have a vested interest in the community. F4. The Public Defender’s Office would benefit if attorney retention was improved and attorneys remained for at least ten years. F5. When compared to other public entities, the organizational structure of the PDO is not top-heavy. The PDO has limited upper level administrative positions. Every attorney is actively engaged in trials, pleadings and appeals. F6. When adjusted for inflation, there have been no revisions to the PDO budget to account for an increased work load. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury would like to thank Kern County Public Defender and County officials who participated in interviews and provided vital information for this report. RECOMMENDATIONS: R1. The Public Defender’s Office should enhance outreach programs to encourage local students pursuing careers in law to choose a career with the Kern County Public Defender’s Office. (Finding 3) R2. The Public Defender’s Office should designate and compensate Deputy Public Defenders to be responsible for recruiting, mentoring, and retaining attorneys. (Finding 4) R3. The Public Defender’s Office should propose that the Board of Supervisors establish and fund an incentive program to retain Deputy Public Defenders (i.e. bonuses, student loan rebates in exchange for ten years of service). (Finding 4) 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 53 NOTES: • The Board of Supervisors and the Public Defender’s Office should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: kerncounty.com/grandjury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: kerncounty.com/grandjury REQUIRED RESPONSES WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:  PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301  TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 54

R95-96: 05-06 19-20 *2020 dollars adjusted for population Chart prepared by Grand Jury I. The County IDP budget unit has three expense categories: a) Operations, which includes the Administrator and two support staff; b) Attorney Compensation and; c) Expenses outside-the-contract. The latest independent accountant’s review is for FY 2016-2017 and reflects: a. Operations $ 453,004 b. Attorney Compensation $5,002,480* c. County expenses outside-the-contract: $1,709,592, for expert witnesses, investigators, travel and other miscellaneous costs * Attorney Compensation includes the cost of juvenile and prison case representation which are reimbursed to the County by the state. J. The operations budget for FY 2019-2020 has been increased to $523,553. (See Appendix A) Attorney Compensation and Expenses outside-the-contract will not be available until the end of the Fiscal Year. K. Noting that the agreement had not been updated for 20 years, on December 13, 2016, the CAO recommended that the BOS issue an RFP for a new contract for the IDP. The KCBA responded by requesting the BOS not issue the RFP and allow them to bid a new contract. L. Rather than issuing a new contract, the original contract was amended, effective July 1, 2017, with an expiration date of June 30, 2020. Per the terms of the contract, having not formally terminated or extended the agreement, the County has allowed the agreement to convert to an automatic year to year renewal with a nine month notice of termination requirement. M. The CAO and KCBA are currently renegotiating specific aspects of the current contract. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 31 N. Since the inception of the IDP, an independent accountant’s audit has never been performed but a financial review has been conducted by an outside, independent accounting firm on a regular basis. The latest outside accountant’s review was completed for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, and no anomalies were noted. O. There has been no analysis to determine if the number of conflict of interest cases is warranted given the size of the County and the prosecution standards of Kern County law enforcement. FINDINGS: F1. In entering into the IDP contract of 1996, the County achieved the goal of reducing the cost of providing representation in conflict of interest cases. F2. The IDP continues to be a cost effective method in providing indigent defense services. F3. The County has not fully explored other methods of providing indigent defense services such as establishing an alternative defense division/department or issuing an RFP to solicit other cost effective alternatives in order to possibly save even more. F4. The periodic financial review of the IDP is valuable. However, an independent financial audit, with an unqualified opinion, would provide a more complete validation of the spending of taxpayer funds. F5. A comparison of the number and type of conflict of interest cases referred to the IDP by the Public Defender, with comparable counties, could validate the level of spending allocated to the program. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury would like to thank all who participated in interviews and who provided vital information for this report. In the course of researching the Indigent Defense Program, the Grand Jury had the opportunity to attend a session of the Kern County Superior Court, “Prison Court” in Delano. The Grand Jury observed an IDP attorney representing a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inmate arraignment, via video appearance from the prison. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 32 RECOMMENDATIONS: R1. The County contract for a complete, independent, outside audit of the Indigent Defense Program every five to seven years. (Finding 4) R2. The County Administrative Office conduct a thorough comparison of the number and type of conflict of interest cases, referred to the Indigent Defense Program by the Public Defender with comparable counties by Fiscal Year end 2021. (Finding 5) R3. The County issue a Request For Proposal to determine if there are other more cost effective alternatives to the current Indigent Defense Program contract by Fiscal Year end 2022. (Finding 3) NOTES: • The Kern County Board of Supervisors should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: kerncounty.com/grandjury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: kerncounty.com/grandjury REQUIRED RESPONSES WITHIN 60 DAYS TO:  PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301  TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 33

F4: The periodic financial review of the IDP is valuable. However, an independent financial audit, with an unqualified opinion, would provide a more complete validation of the spending of taxpayer funds.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: The County contract for a complete, independent, outside audit of the Indigent Defense Program every five to seven years. (Finding 4)

F5: A comparison of the number and type of conflict of interest cases referred to the IDP by the Public Defender, with comparable counties, could validate the level of spending allocated to the program. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury would like to thank all who participated in interviews and who provided vital information for this report. In the course of researching the Indigent Defense Program, the Grand Jury had the opportunity to attend a session of the Kern County Superior Court, “Prison Court” in Delano. The Grand Jury observed an IDP attorney representing a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inmate arraignment, via video appearance from the prison. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 32

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: The County Administrative Office conduct a thorough comparison of the number and type of conflict of interest cases, referred to the Indigent Defense Program by the Public Defender with comparable counties by Fiscal Year end 2021. (Finding 5)

R5: If the BOT Advisory Board is not decommissioned, the Board of Supervisors should provide training for Advisory Board members on Brown Act requirements and government codes. (Finding 5)

F6: The citizen concern that the BOS changes made to the BOT in 2015 would negatively impact tourism is unfounded. There is no direct correlation between the changes and tourism activity in the County.

F7: The Office of County Wide Communications continues to promote tourism and filmmaking with an increased emphasis on electronic media rather than relying on methods used in the past such as the visitor center, flyers and other paper publications.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Board of Supervisors should submit a proposal to the voters of Kern County to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax Rate. (Finding 7)

F8: If the Transient Occupancy Tax rate is increased, Kern County would have additional resources that could be applied to promoting tourism and filmmaking.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrative Office to update the current websites associated with the Board of Trade and take reasonable steps to remove kerncountyboardoftrade.com from the internet. (Findings 8 and 9) NOTES: • The Kern County Board of Supervisors should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: kerncounty.com/grandjury. • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: kerncounty.com/grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 43 44 45 46 47 KERN COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES Reorganization—Five Years Later SUMMARY: In 1956, the Kern County Civil Service System was created in order to establish an equitable and uniform procedure for dealing with personnel matters and to place county employment upon a merit basis. The system encompassed the Personnel Department as an independent department under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission. In 2015, the Board of Supervisors ordered the establishment of the Human Resources Division of the County Administrative Office (CAO), consolidating the Personnel Department and the Employee Relations and Health Benefits Divisions. The Human Resources Division is involved in the hiring and benefits administration of approximately 8,000 employees for the County of Kern (County). The Civil Service Commission still exists today to maintain the integrity of the civil service system, but it has no control over the management of the Human Resources Division. PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Kern County Grand Jury has reviewed the County Personnel Department on several occasions, the last being in 2007. In light of the major reorganization conducted in 2015, the Administration, Audit and County Services Committee (Committee) of the 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) inquired into the Human Resources Division of the CAO, pursuant to California Penal Code section 925. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine if the reorganization produced the intended results. METHODOLOGY: The Committee conducted interviews with Human Resources officials, department heads, both appointed and elected, and Civil Service Commission members. The Committee also reviewed recorded Board of Supervisor (BOS) meetings, researched BOS agendas, minutes, and various County documents. DISCUSSION OF FACTS: In 1956, the Civil Service System Initiative Ordinance was adopted by the voters establishing the organizational structure for Kern County Personnel functions including the establishment of the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission was to consist of five members appointed by the BOS and tasked with assuring the hiring of County employees was based on merit and not on political patronage. Furthermore, the 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report Civil Service Commission was created to establish civil service rules that would govern Kern County personnel functions. The 1956 Ordinance stipulated that no amendment repealing this Ordinance or nullifying the basic principles of the civil service system shall be effective unless approved by the voters: KERN COUNTY INITIATIVE ORDINANCE SECTION XII Amendment and Repeal “No amendment repealing this ordinance or nullifying the basic principles of the civil service system contemplated by this ordinance in Sections 31100 to 31113 of the California Government Code shall be effective unless such a proposition of its repeal or amendment shall first have been submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the County at a general or special election and shall have received the affirmative vote of a majority of the electors voting on the proposition.” In 1996, the BOS presented Measure L to the voters which proposed several changes to the civil service system including changes to the reporting structure whereby the Personnel Director would report to the Administrative Officer rather than to the Civil Service Commission. Measure L was not approved by the voters. In 2012, the BOS presented Measures D, E, and F which proposed respectively, amending the Civil Service “Rule of Three,” changing probationary periods in certain job groups, and extending the employee appeal process from five business days to ten. The measures were approved by the voters. However, in June 2015, the BOS voted to consolidate the Personnel Department and the CAO’s Employee Relations Division and Health Benefits Division by forming the Human Resources Division of the CAO. This was done without submitting a ballot initiative to the voters and was met with little protest or objection. This major revision to a process, that had been in place for nearly 60 years, was brought about in less than 30 days. Although the concept of making a revision may have been discussed by the BOS for many years, there was no previous BOS referral or formal action taken. The timeline of adoption was as follows: • May 19, 2015, the proposal to realign the Personnel Department, the Employee Relations Division, and the Health Benefits Division into a newly formed Human Resources Division of the CAO, was presented by the Administrative Officer and approved, in concept, by the BOS • June 9, 2015, the CAO introduced and the BOS approved ordinance to realign the Personnel Department, the Employees Relations, and Health Benefits Divisions into one Human Resources Division of the CAO • June 16, 2015, ordinance enacted 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report The Human Resources structure, established in 2015, conforms to the majority of the counties in California. In fact, prior to 2015, Kern was one of only three counties who utilized the Civil Service Commission as the controlling body for all personnel functions. Today, the Human Resources Division has 33 filled staffing positions and a budget of $4,774,579. The Civil Service Commission portion of the budget is $183,000. The Grand Jury noted the following: A. Mission Statement: “The Human Resources Division is committed to building a healthy, positive, and productive workforce in order to effectively and efficiently assist and provide services to the residents and businesses of the County of Kern.” B. The Personnel Department structure, prior to 2015, was perceived by most County Departments, the BOS, and others to be cumbersome, antiquated and in need of reform. C. The stated goals of the 2015 reorganization were to improve: • Public access in job search efforts • Professional development and career opportunities of the County workforce through training • Employee access to benefit information • Department’s ability to add classifications, set compensation, and recruit and test for position openings D. In 2015, certain members of the Civil Service Commission had concerns about the reorganization that included: • The CAO could usurp the role of the Civil Service Commission • The CAO could make de facto rule changes to County hiring processes • Lessening the Civil Service Commission’s independence in enforcing Civil Service rules E. During the 2015 BOS reorganization meeting, there was public comment that stakeholders were not brought into the transition process. F. Based on interviews with County officials, the new structure is as responsive or, in some instances, more responsive to the hiring needs of the departments. G. The Director of Human Resources is responsible for administering the Civil Service Rules but no longer reports to the Civil Service Commission, thereby, curtailing the Commission’s ability to enforce the rules. H. In order to bring the Civil Service Commission into compliance with Civil Service Rule 204.21 (See Appendix A), a procedural change was made in the role of the Commission regarding the approval process for job specifications. Formerly, all 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report specifications were officially approved by the Commission. Now formal Commission approval is only solicited in instances where objections are raised by employee organizations or affected County departments. I. Civil Service Rule 1800 governs complaints based on discrimination and harassment. (See Appendix B) At times, the Human Resources Division has had difficulty meeting the timelines mandated in the rule. Over the past two years, in six of 29 reported complaints, the Human Resources Division has not met timeline requirements. There are no penalties for this lack of adherence.

F9: Portions of the websites under the Board of Trade and Office of County Wide Communications (visitkern.com, filmkern.com) are not maintained and updated consistently.

F10: While not actually a Kern County maintained website, kerncountyboardoftrade.com projects an unprofessional image of the County and could confuse potential visitors. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury would like to thank all who participated in interviews and provided vital information.