Mendocino County 2007-2008 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (36)

September 12, 2008 — Report Transmittal and Request for Responses*

1 pages 2 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: "The Community Development Commission consists of seven members, one appointed member from each Supervisory District and two tenant members. The monthly Commission meetings are held alternately in Ukiah and Fort Bragg during business hours. An annual meeting is held in Willits. Response: We believe what was meant was: "The Community Development Commission Board of Commissioners consists of seven members, one appointed member from each Supervisory District and two tenant members. The monthly Commission meetings are held alternately in Ukiah and Fort Bragg during business hours. An annual meeting is held in Willits." We believe the insertion of "Board of Commissioners" makes this finding more accurate.

F2: "The tenant Commissioners have difficulty attending the meetings. They face travel and time constraints." Response: We believe this finding comes from discussions about some past tenant Commissioners. This has included driving at night for some. None of our current tenant Commissioners have expressed having any problems with our meeting times or locations.

September 10, 2008 — Emergency…what Emergency?

9 pages 12 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: The Ukiah Airport is unprepared to handle any disasters other than aircraft related incidents.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Fire departments adjacent to all public airports should train for handling airplane crash emergencies at the airport annually. (Finding 2, Table: 1-5J, 1-5M, 1-5R)

F2: The Ukiah Airport has limited management staff. Third in line of responsibility is the clean-up crew.

F3: There is no back-up generator available for power failures.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Little River and Ukiah airports should have permanent generators installed to meet the emergency needs of the Coast and the Ukiah Valley. (Findings 4, Table: Column 2 Row G and Column 4 Row G)

F4: The airport is secured by a fence surrounding the property. The vehicle gates are locked and accessible with pass keys; the pedestrian gates are open.

F5: CalStar leases space at the airport for administration and for responding to emergency calls..

F6: The airport management is not aware of any county-wide emergency plans that involve the airport.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: County Emergency Services Coordinator should meet with managers of all airports to coordinate their inclusion in the EOP. (Finding 1, 7, 8, Table: 1-5K, 1-5Y)

F7: There are approximately 10 acres available for use as a staging ground during disasters.

F8: There are 87 aircraft housed at the airport. These include CalStar, FedEx, other commercial entities, and private aircraft that rent space at the airport.

F9: CalFire stations aircraft and other firefighting equipment at the airport during high fire periods.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All airports should have access to the new county-wide microwave system being installed. (Finding 9)

F10: There are 64 closable rented hangars that could be used in case of an emergency.

F11: There is enough space to set up facilities to temporarily handle the entire population of the surrounding area.

F12: Schools, public buildings and other facilities, with on-site toilets, kitchens and, perhaps showers, would be more likely choices than the airport for caring for people during emergency situations.

September 09, 2008 — The following response is hereby submitted via email as requested, to the 2007-08 Grand Jury Report: Revisiting the*

1 pages 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Michael Delbar First District Supervisor

September 09, 2008 — Mendocino County Airports Emergency Preparedness Review

1 pages 6 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F2: - I have no knowledge of the details of the airport emergency plans.

F3: - I have no knowledge of airport staffing levels.

F4: - I have no information on this item.

F6: - I don't know what airport managers are aware of or unaware of.

F8: - I don't know what airport managers or emergency personnel consider.

F9: - I don't know what communication systems are available at the airports. Likewise, General Recommendations # 1, 2, and 4 are not within the scope of the Office of Emergency Services and can not be addressed in my response. Therefore, because of the response format requirements, I am able to respond to Findings #1, 5 and 7 and General Recommendations #3. With consideration to the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), the airports are a resource and individual resources are not included in the EOP. To include all possible resources would make the EOP unmanageable. Please contact me at your earliest opportunity regarding this matter. Thanks, Bill Woodworth Emergency Services Coordinator Mendocino County OES 707.463.5667

September 09, 2008 — Required Responses:

8 pages 25 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 25 findings

F3: Several key findings of the 2006 Grand Jury were confirmed by the 2007 Grand Jury in an independent inquiry into the BOS Travel and Meal Policy and reimbursement claims: • Disagree to the extent that the Fourth District Supervisor did adhere to the reimbursement policy and practice that was in • the Fourth and Fifth District Supervisors failed to adhere to the BOS place as of 1/1/05 and I have no knowledge as to the adherence of Travel Policy governing reimbursement for in-county travel; same by the Fifth District Supervisor • the COB was responsible for processing and authorizing all BOS • Agree reimbursement claims before forwarding them to the Auditor’s • Agree, sentence one. Cannot agree or disagree with sentence Office for payment; two as I do not know if there are subordinates that authorize • the COB is directly subordinate to the BOS and is an at-will employee. This is the only case in the County where a subordinate travel claims in the County. has been vested with the power to authorize reimbursement of • Agree with part one. Disagree in part with section two as the personal expenses submitted by a superior; BOS travel policy in place in 2005-06 references ‘a confirming • the BOS travel claim form (Form No. A/C-06) states clearly that travel document’ as required by the auditor. It does not state signing it certifies “under penalty of perjury that the within claim form No. A/C 06 be used and other forms have been used to and the items therein set out are true and correct.” Both the COB and record mileage and other expenses. the claimant Supervisor are currently required to sign a completed form before it is forwarded to the Auditor’s Office for payment.

F8: The 2007 Grand Jury confirmed the 2006 finding that in the case of Disagree in part. I agree this was the finding however I disagree with the the Fourth District Supervisor, an incorrect interpretation of the finding and how it was arrived at. The Fourth District Supervisor incurred travel policy as a “per diem” resulted in claims for reimbursement more expenses for travel than were submitted or reimbursed. when no miles were actually traveled and no cost was incurred for overnight lodging.

F9: When requested by the 2006 Grand Jury to present travel diaries, Disagree in part. The Fourth District Supervisor stated information was journals, receipts, or other original evidence of meetings and travel, not retained for this entire period nor was it required to be. Additionally, the the Fourth District Supervisor first stated that she had forgotten to Supervisor offered to attempt to provide information regarding specific dates bring them and then said that she did not maintain such records. if requested to do so. Specific date information was not requested. She informed the 2007 Grand Jury that she did not and does not maintain an engagement calendar to record travel and business- related appointments.

F10: Disagree. Lodging receipts were not required under the policy The County Auditor could only estimate the amount of implementation of the BOS travel policy when I assumed office in 2005. overpayments to the Fourth District Supervisor through November Additionally, dates, destinations and business purpose of travel were 2006 because the Fourth District Supervisor did not support her sufficient for the previous Auditor to reimburse the claims. In several travel claims with lodging receipts and documentation of dates, instances the Fourth District Supervisor provided more detailed destinations and County business purpose of her travel documentation of travel than was provided in claims submitted by other expenditures. supervisors during a similar time frame.

F11: In lieu of accurate records, the Fourth District Supervisor Disagree. The Fourth District Supervisor did not submit a formula to estimate proposed, to the 2006 Grand Jury and to the Auditor, a formula to mileage in lieu of accurate records. The Fourth District Supervisor submitted estimate what percentage of her mileage claims had actually been travel claims consistent with the travel policy in 2005-2006 and consistent driven. Applying this formula, 27% of the mileage for which the with those of her immediate predecessor. The Grand Jury suggested a formula Supervisor had been reimbursed was not actually traveled. be used to address their concerns. This was prior to an actual review of past records and the Clerk of the Board’s memo stating the past practice as evidenced by those records.

F12: The formula was based on travel records submitted to the Auditor Disagree. The formula referenced was suggested by a Grand Jury member to in 2007 in response to the 2006 Grand Jury travel investigation. the Fourth District Supervisor to resolve differences of opinion as to the travel The formula was rejected by the Grand Jury as an inaccurate policy interpretation. The Fourth District Supervisor has no knowledge as to a representation of the undocumented travel that was claimed rejection of the formula by the Grand Jury. between January 2005 and November 2006 when the Supervisor was claiming a “per diem” for each day spent in Ukiah. The Auditor was not made aware of the Grand Jury’s rejection of The Fourth District Supervisor does not agree or disagree with this statement the formula or of the reason for this rejection. Lacking any as I have no knowledge of communication between the Auditor and the Grand substantive documentation of the expense claims, she estimated Jury. that the Fourth District Supervisor owed the County at least $3,676.

F13: The Auditor was not made aware of the Grand Jury’s rejection of The Fourth District Supervisor does not agree or disagree with this statement the formula or of the reason for this rejection. Lacking any as I have no knowledge of communication between the Auditor and the Grand substantive documentation of the expense claims, she estimated Jury. that the Fourth District Supervisor owed the County at least $3,676.

F14: The Fourth District Supervisor then submitted newly found Disagree in part. Documents were not ’ newly found’. The auditor asked for expense documentation to the Auditor, including copies of 15 additional travel documentation hereto fore not required. monthly rent checks of $100 each to rent a room in a private home for use when County business required her to stay in Ukiah.

F15: The rental period was from June 2005 through August 2006. The Disagree in part. This was the Auditor’s assessment when attempting to arrive Auditor noted that overnight stays during this time should be at an amount that may have been overpaid to the Fourth District Supervisor. reimbursed at the rate of $3.33/day (the pro-rated daily lodging cost at $100/30) rather than on the basis of round-trip mileage.

F16: On the basis of the additional documentation submitted by the Disagree in part. The amount referenced was outlined in a memo from the Fourth District Supervisor, the Auditor reduced the amount owed auditor dated 6/26/07. It clearly states “may” have been overpaid. It also states from $3676 to $3087. that a historical analysis of past claims was not done. It is not a comprehensive audit of the Fourth District Supervisor’s claims, the immediate past Fourth District Supervisor or any other supervisor’s claims.

F17: The Fourth District Supervisor acknowledged having received the Disagree in part. The statement as quoted does not acknowledge receiving an overpayment. In a memo to the Auditor, dated June 20, 2007, she overpayment. Committing to concluding a matter without review of-or absent stated: pertinent documents and analysis of- past practice, would be wrong. The “…The Mendocino County Grand Jury has asked that I pay to the documents to conclude this matter expeditiously are available. County of Mendocino an amount you determine to be appropriate under your interpretation of the Board of Supervisors Travel and Meal Policy.” “…While I do not feel your initial methodology included all pertinent factors, I am committed to concluding this matter by June 28, 2007, in a manner satisfactory to you and to the Grand Jury.”

F19: When the funds had not been repaid by the June 28, 2007 deadline, Disagree in part. The action did occur as listed but I do not believe an the 2006 Grand Jury instituted legal action under the provisions of overpayment occurred. The Fourth District Supervisor incurred more costs in Penal Code Section (PC) 932 ordering the DA to recover $3,087 in conducting County business during the timeframe listed than were submitted overpayments made by the County to the Fourth District for reimbursement. Supervisor.

F24: Disagree in part. The 2005 travel policy references management personnel The written BOS Travel Policy that was already in place in 2005 reimbursement rates that are delineated in Mendocino County Policy #18. and remained in place through June 2007, and the current policy Also, other travel compensation is addressed by resolution. that took effect in January 2008, cover all reimbursable in-county travel. This includes in-county mileage and overnight stays when there are back-to-back meetings. Meals associated with in-county over-night stays are not covered under any of the BOS Travel Policies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: When the 2008 BOS Travel Policy is reviewed, in January 2009, This recommendation requires further analysis. It is a policy determination by the Supervisors: the BOS and as such cannot be implemented by an individual supervisor. a) eliminate the taxable stipend and establish the option of being assigned an appropriate County vehicle (Findings 48-52); b) require Auditor approval for reimbursement of any expense related to business that is not explicitly defined in county policy as allowable county business (Finding 52); c) approve a meal allowance, at the approved county rate, (only) for dinners on nights when a Supervisor claims a reimbursable in-county hotel stay (Findings 24 and 50).

F25: The Fourth District Supervisor stated that the Travel Policy in Disagree in part. The 2005 BOS travel policy is not clearly worded. As an effect from 2005 through June 2007 was confusing and that she did example, it does not state receipts are required for in-county travel, yet not completely understand it. She further stated that she had retroactively they have been requested of the Fourth District Supervisor. The interpreted the Travel Policy as a “per diem”, i.e., a fixed amount to management policy clearly states receipts are not required under certain which she was entitled whether or not she had either mileage or circumstances and, meals are also provided in-county under certain lodging expenses. circumstances. My interpretation of the travel policy was that of my predecessor as the records reflect.

F26: The Fourth District Supervisor persisted in submitting travel Disagree. I did not discuss the travel policy with the Auditor in late 2005. claims according to her “per diem” interpretation even after discussing the Travel Policy with the former Auditor late in 2005 (her first year in office) and being told that it was incorrect.

F27: The 2007 Grand Jury confirmed that the Fourth District Supervisor Disagree. The Fourth District did not submit claims for 22 round trips in June claimed 22 round-trips in June of 2006 including 17 round-trips in of 2006. Nor were there 17 round trips in 18 consecutive days submitted. This 18 consecutive days. For the same month, she had paid monthly is incorrect as the records reflect. rent of $100 for a room in Ukiah for use as a bedroom “…as needed to do her job.”

F28: The Fourth District Supervisor discussed her “per diem” interpretation with the former Auditor again in December 2006 Disagree. The Fourth District Supervisor did not discuss the travel policy with and received the same answer. the Auditor in December 2006. I asked the Auditor for a meeting to conduct an exit interview during December 2006. This meeting did not occur until January 2007, just prior to his leaving office.

F29: Under Section (A) (2) (d) of the Travel Policy (prior to June, 2007), Disagree. This is not what the policy states. if no miles are traveled and no cost is incurred for lodging, no reimbursement is permitted.

F30: Reimbursement is defined as repayment of funds actually spent. Agree Ethics training provided to the Supervisors by County Counsel Agree includes the admonition that elected officials are required to know and abide by applicable reimbursement policies.

F32: Ethics training provided to the Supervisors by County Counsel Agree includes the admonition that elected officials are required to know and abide by applicable reimbursement policies.

F33: Supervisors of the First, Second, Third and Fifth Districts and the Neither agree or disagree with this finding as I have no knowledge of what the former Fourth District Supervisor each indicated that they individuals listed “indicated” they understood of BOS travel policies in understood the meaning of the Travel Policies in effect for the discussions with the Grand Jury period of 2005-2007. Each of them rejected the interpretation of the mileage allowance as a “per diem.” Each of them rejected the argument that mileage could be claimed when there had been no expense either for driving or for lodging.

F36: Neither agree or disagree with the first part of this finding as I have limited Supervisors for the First, Second and Third Districts did not claim knowledge of other supervisors travel. The Fourth District Supervisor any substantial weekend travel; the Fourth District Supervisor had provided information for weekend travel as well as weekday travel. some weekend travel and was unable to describe for the Grand Jury the county-related business purpose of the travel.

F46: When asked once again, by the 2007 Grand Jury to compensate the County for excessive reimbursement claims, the Fourth District Disagree in part with this statement. The Fourth District Supervisor declined Supervisor declined to make the repayment, as she had previously to repay the County for excessive reimbursement claims as they were not agreed to do. She stated that the policy was “confusing,” the excessive. They were filed consistently in compliance with the travel policy in practice was “common procedure,” and that she had many expenses place when I assumed office, as the records reflect. as a result of her job including “tires, pet care and meals away from home.”

F47: Tires are among the car costs covered by the allowed government Agree with first sentence. Disagree in part with second sentence as in-county mileage rate for reimbursement for miles actually driven. Pet care, meals are reimbursable under Policy # 18 and the BOS travel policy of 2005- in-county meals and other incidentals are not reimbursable under 2006, under certain circumstances. any county travel policy.

F50: The revised policy makes no allowance for reimbursement of more Agree. This is an accurate statement of the current BOS travel policy. Lodging than two overnight stays in a week and limits hotel reimbursement receipts are required and the policy clearly states this unlike the previous BOS to weeks with a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors’ meeting. policy in effect in 2005-06 which did not state receipts were required. Lodging receipts are required. Meals associated with overnight stays are not reimbursed.

Related Recommendations (1)

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Fourth District Supervisor repay to the County of Mendocino The Fourth District Supervisor submitted claims in the same manner as her the amount of $3,087 that was established by the Auditor to immediate predecessor. Extensive review of those documents clarifies the represent travel reimbursement overpayments (Findings 3, 8-17, 19, travel reimbursements in question were filed in a like manner to her 24-30, 32, 33, 36, 46, 47, 50). predecessor. A review of predecessor’s claims spanned four calendar years and over 125 pages of documents representing the entire reimbursement file of predecessor for this time period to the best of my knowledge. My claims have been filed consistent with the immediate predecessor and the policy interpretation in place when I assumed office.

August 12, 2008 — technical assistant

6 pages 25 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 25 findings

F1: The Sheriff’s substation, located in Fort Bragg, shares the building in which the Superior Court is located. The entrance has manned security surveillance including a metal detector and x-ray machine. I agree with this finding.

F2: The present staff consists of one lieutenant, one sergeant, seven deputies, and one deputy trainee. One Sheriff’s technical assistant manages the evidence room, does business and clerical duties, telephones, processes civil matters, concealed weapons permits, and acts as receptionist. 589-A Low Gap Road 707-463-4411 Ukiah, California 95482-3734 Fax 707-468-3404 I agree with this finding; however I want to clarify two points. First, there is no such position as deputy trainee. The employee referred to in this finding was a deputy sheriff who had graduated the basic law enforcement academy and was, at the time, completing his required field training program. Second, the correct title for the “technical assistant” is Sheriff’s Services Technician. This classification was originally established to reflect the unique range of duties performed by our non- sworn substation staff. The classification is also utilized in our Investigative Services Bureau and more recently in our Corrections Division.

F3: One sergeant and two deputy positions are vacant. I agree with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Mendocino County Sheriff fill the vacant positions for one sergeant and two deputies. This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The promotional recruitment for Sheriff’s Sergeant opened on August 12th and will close on August 26th. Testing is tentatively scheduled for mid-September with a final selection on or about the first week of October. One of the vacant Deputy Sheriff positions was filled on August 11th. Recruitment efforts continue to fill the remaining vacancies.

F4: There was no detective at the time of the visit, so deputies shared detective work. Since then, one deputy has been promoted to detective. I agree with this finding.

F5: Deputies work a 10-hour shift. I agree with this finding.

F6: Deputies are encouraged to volunteer time to community activities. Police Activities League (PAL) recently sponsored a children’s fishing tournament at MacKerricher State Park. I agree with this finding.

F7: Staff shortages make it difficult to provide effective law enforcement. I agree with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: Filling vacant officer positions is difficult due to the high cost of housing, remoteness and lack of cultural and shopping opportunities. I disagree in part with this finding. The high cost of housing is a deterrent to some applicants, but the limited employment opportunities for spouses is a much larger issue. And while the coast does not have the concentration of national chain stores found in Ukiah, it does offer many unique shopping opportunities. Culturally the coast offers as many if not more opportunities than other parts of the County. The relative remoteness of the coast can impose hardships on young families, but it also provides a law enforcement experience that is unique within the Sheriff’s Office.

F9: Sheriff’s deputies are on duty on the coast from 7 a.m. to 3 a.m. I agree with this finding.

F10: The Sheriff’s Office in Ukiah handles dispatch for the Fort Bragg substation. I agree with this finding.

F11: There is an information-sharing (muster) teleconferencing call each morning at 7 a.m. among the Fort Bragg and Willits substations and the Mendocino County Sheriff’s headquarters in Ukiah. The electronic muster allows officers in the three locations to see and hear each other in real time via a large screen video monitor. The system is up all the time, in case other communications are needed, such as a command staff meeting. I agree with this finding. The teleconference serves as a morning briefing and roll call.

F12: Most arrests are due directly or indirectly to abuse of alcohol or other drugs. Often crimes such as theft are for money to purchase drugs. I agree with this finding.

F13: Holding cells were observed to be clean and in proper working order. Prisoners must be physically observed at all times when they are in a holding cell. I disagree in part with this finding. There is no requirement to physically observe prisoners at all times when they are in a holding cell. Intermittent observations are permitted so long as prisoners have immediate access to staff by way of an intercom—which is the case at the Fort Bragg Sub-Station.

F14: Persons who are arrested and held in Fort Bragg are usually transported to the County Jail in Ukiah within two hours. Deputies may transport prisoners two or more times a shift. I agree with this finding.

F15: The south coast has one resident sergeant and one resident deputy. There is one vacant deputy position. Persons arrested on the south coast are taken directly to the County Jail in Ukiah. I agree with this finding.

F16: Due to remoteness and lack of other forms of communication on the coast, communication between officers and/or their office has always been difficult. Patrol car radios work intermittently and there is limited cell phone reception. Officer safety is compromised when deputies cannot call for back-up; citizen safety is also a concern when an officer cannot receive a call for service. I generally agree with this finding. There are many remote areas of the county where radio coverage is either nonexistent or intermittent. Cell phone coverage along the coast tends to be much worse than in inland area. Deputies must always consider radio reception and adjust their tactics accordingly.

F17: The aging microwave system, which provided communication only intermittently, is being replaced. I disagree in part with this finding. The current microwave system performed dependably for many years. The intermittent communication described by this finding is not so much a problem with the microwave system as with the number of VHF radio repeaters connected to the microwave. The new microwave system will offer significantly improved capacity, security, dependability and redundancy. Installation of additional VHF radio repeaters (connected to the microwave system) will improve coverage for deputies in the field.

F18: Emergencies requiring mutual aid may include the California Highway Patrol, the U.S. Coast Guard, local fire departments, Fort Bragg Police Department, State Park rangers and State Fish and Game officers. I agree with this finding.

F19: The evidence room was observed. Records of evidence are kept by hand. I generally agree with this finding. Deputies enter property and evidence information into our records management software, but evidence room records are kept by hand.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Mendocino County Sheriff explore the use of Asset Forfeiture Funds to secure a bar-coding system for the evidence room. This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The timing is subject to the availability of asset forfeiture funds.

F20: Evidence must be held until a case is final. I generally agree with this finding, although there are exceptions.

F21: Purging of evidence requires time consuming investigation into the disposition of the case. I agree with this finding.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: Mendocino County District Attorney notify the main evidence depository in Ukiah when a case reaches final disposition. This recommendation is directed to the District Attorney. I agree with her response. Should you or the Grand Jury have questions about any of my responses, please do not hesitate to contact me or my Undersheriff, Gary Hudson. Sincerely, THOMAS D. ALLMAN Sheriff-Coroner Cc: Dennis Scoles, Grand Jury Foreman Jim Wattenburger, Chair – Board of Supervisors Tom Mitchell, County CEO Jeanine Nadel, County Counsel Meredith Lintott, District Attorney

F22: An electronic fingerprinting machine is available for persons applying for certain licenses/permits, those seeking concealed weapons permits, and volunteer positions or jobs, such as those dealing with children. I agree with this finding. The system is referred to as LiveScan.

F23: There is now an electronic security system to prevent break-ins. The system also covers the rear of the substation. I agree with this finding.

F24: The security gate to the rear of the substation has been repaired. It required a new motor and a new lock system that operates with a remote control. I agree with this finding.

F25: The barbed wire atop the fencing around the perimeter of the rear of the substation, that was cited in last year’s Grand Jury report, has now been repaired. I agree with this finding.

August 11, 2008 — Response to Report of the 2007-2008 Grand Jury

11 pages 63 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 63 findings

F1: The present staff consists of: • 1 Captain • 2 Lieutenants • 8 Sergeants • 44 Correctional Officers, with 2 additional unfilled positions • 5 Sheriff Booking Technicians • 1 Inmate Services Program Coordinator • 1 Kitchen Manager, and 2 Cooks • 1 Laundry Supervisor • 1 Account Clerk II • 1 Office Assistant II, who manages the inmates funds 589-A Low Gap Road 707-463-4411 Ukiah, California 95482-3734 Fax 707-468-3404 Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding.

F2: Eight staff members are bilingual. Correctional Officers work 12-hour shifts, with a minimum of eight officers per shift. I agree with this finding.

F3: The capacity of the MCJ is 305 inmates. In 2007 the average inmate population was 236, and in October 2007 the population was 294. I agree with this finding.

F4: Building 1 holds the booking area, holding cells, and sally port. The recent renovation of Building 1 included replacement of the sally port, and the addition of three more holding and security cells, which comply with both the ADA (Americans with Disability Act) and Title 24 (state guidelines on construction of jails). Construction included an interview room, a non-contact attorney room, and an open-air sally port. I agree with this finding.

F5: The Mendocino County General Services Agency assigned one full-time maintenance person to the jail, due to continuing maintenance problems. Last year’s Grand Jury reported two full-time maintenance personnel were assigned to the jail. I agree with this finding.

F6: Inmate housing consists of seven units for males and two separate units for females. Temporary beds are placed in the common area when the capacity is exceeded. I agree with this finding.

F7: Security cameras monitor the doors and common areas. I agree with this finding.

F8: The cells are either single, double, triple occupancy, or barracks style. I agree with this finding.

F9: All inmates are allowed exercise privileges, but inmates in “lock-down” are only allowed out of their cells 30 minutes per day. I agree with this finding.

F10: Inmates are segregated based on history and type of crime committed, previous incarceration, gang affiliations and violent tendencies. I agree with this finding.

F11: Coveralls are color coded to easily identify inmate types. Green is for sentenced inmates, orange is for un-sentenced inmates, white is for protective custody inmates, and red is for administrative segregation inmates (ADSEG—violent or high risk). I agree with this finding.

F12: Inmates who exhibit good behavior may work while in jail. Opportunities include the kitchen, laundry, garden and “work crew.” The “work crew” provides labor anywhere in the county, and is supervised by correctional officers. I disagree in part with this finding. Only sentenced inmates are eligible for work crew assignments. The crews are supervised by non-sworn personnel, not correctional officers. Off-site work crews are supervised by an employee of the department or agency that is utilizing the crew.

F13: The kitchen staff prepares 270 to 300 meals three times a day. Breakfast is prepared the night before and served in the morning. A supervisor and two cooks oversee and direct inmate labor. Inmates eat meals in their housing units. I agree with this finding.

F14: The kitchen facilities and food storage areas were observed to be clean and sanitary. I agree with this finding.

F15: A registered dietician oversees and approves the menu, which is prepared by the kitchen manager. The menu is rotated monthly. I agree with this finding.

F16: Special diets are prepared for inmates with special needs. I agree with this finding.

F17: Kitchen personnel and inmate helpers were observed to be clean. They were dressed in white and wore gloves and hair nets. I agree with this finding.

F18: Food vendors bid on contracts to supply food. The contract might not go to the low bidder because of quality concerns. I agree with this finding.

F19: The garden is certified organic, overseen by a professional horticulturalist, and the produce is either used in the kitchen or donated to various community service providers. I agree with this finding.

F20: The laundry facility is adequate for the inmate population. Trip hazards were observed in the laundry room and on the sidewalk outside the entrance. I agree with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Mendocino County General Services Agency repair the laundry room floor and the sidewalk outside the laundry room entrance; This recommendation is directed to the General Services Agency. It has been partially implemented. The raised area has been ground down so that it presents less of a trip hazard.

F21: The air in the booking area was hot and stifling. Staff responded to questions regarding the poor air quality, saying that the heat and air conditioning system is inefficient and temperatures vary widely from room to room. I agree with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: General Services Agency investigate the ventilation system at MCJ in Building 1 and make necessary changes to ensure adequate air flow and quality and to stabilize the unequal temperature from room to room; This recommendation is directed to the General Services Agency. The problem is the result of poor building design, not a lack of maintenance.

F22: Inmates with medical needs are identified at the sally port before they are booked. I agree with this finding.

F23: Mendocino County contracts with California Forensic Medical Group to provide medical care at the jail. The medical center staff at the MCJ comprises: a general practitioner working two days a week, one part-time dentist, one health service administrator registered nurse, who is the program manager, one sick call registered nurse, one full-time administrative assistant, and two licensed vocational nurses. I agree with this finding.

F24: Mental Health Branch uses Mendocino County general funds to provide one part- time psychiatrist and one full-time psychiatric registered nurse to the jail. I agree with this finding.

F25: Mental Health, in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Department, applied and received a Department of Justice federal grant for one full-time person to institute the “Bridge Program.” I agree with this finding.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: Mendocino County Mental Health Branch and Sheriff’s Department re-apply for a Federal Grant from the Department of Justice for one full-time person to continue the “Bridge” program; This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The terms of the grant would impose a higher cost to the county than if the program was run with general funds alone.

R5: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors fund one full-time person for the “Bridge” program, if no grant can be obtained. I agree with this recommendation, but it is directed to the Board of Supervisors.

F26: The “Bridge Program” entails the sharing of personal medical information between the jail and the Mental Health Branch. To participate, an inmate must sign the “Permission to Share Personal Medical Information and Records” form. I agree with this finding.

F27: In 2007, the psychiatrist made 1,385 visits and the mental health nurse made 4,184 visits. Distributing medicine is not counted as a visit. I agree with this finding.

F28: The jail population has a higher frequency of medical and mental problems than the general population; thus requiring extensive medical and mental health services. Data indicate the following communicable diseases: one positive test for tuberculosis, 23 cases of sexually transmitted diseases, 10 cases of lice or scabies, and 63 cases of drug resistant staphylococcus. I agree with this finding.

F29: Abuse of alcohol and other drugs was cited as the primary reason for medical services required by incoming MCJ inmates. I agree with this finding.

F30: Medical staff stated that the closure of Mental Health’s Psychiatric Health Facility in 2000 has caused an increase in the number of persons with mental disorders who are incarcerated. I agree with this finding.

F31: There is a Work Furlough Program in which the inmates leave the jail for their jobs in the morning and return to jail after the workday is over. This provides an opportunity for the inmates to receive work experience and it reduces the number of inmates at the jail site during the day. I agree with this finding.

F32: The Work Release Program administered by the Probation Department reduces jail population by having adult offenders serve their sentence while remaining in the community. I disagree in part. The Work Release Program is administered by the Sheriff’s Office.

F33: The Home Detention Program allows an individual to stay at home wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. The inmate must pay a daily fee to participate. I agree with this finding.

F34: An Incentive Program, through an agreement with the Superior Court Judge and the Sheriff’s Office, encourages an inmate to obtain a General Education Diploma (GED) and/or a Life Skills Program Certificate, which will reduce their sentence by five days for each achievement. I agree with this finding.

F35: A library is available with books donated by Mendocino Book Store, Ukiah’s Friends of the Library and private donors. I agree with this finding.

F36: A law library is provided in Building 1 to ensure all inmates have full access to legal information, as prescribed by law. Access requires good behavior and an appointment is necessary. I agree with this finding.

F37: Computers and tapes are available in the education center. There is no internet access. I agree with this finding.

F38: Programs include Adult School, Narcotics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous and Life Skills. Counseling and religious services are also available. Participation is voluntary. I agree with this finding.

F39: the Mendocino County Office of Education provides adult education classes with an emphasis on obtaining a GED. I agree with this finding.

F40: Correspondence courses are available for un-sentenced inmates and inmates who cannot leave their housing units. I agree with this finding. Evidence Room

F41: The Grand Jury visited the evidence room august 28, 2007. The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office central evidence facility, located in Ukiah, is the depository for most evidence collected from crime scenes. I agree with this finding.

F42: Budgeted staff consists of one and one-half positions. I agree with this finding.

F43: This facility also processes evidence such as fingerprints, shoe prints, tire treads, etc. Some evidence is sent for testing to outside facilities. I agree with this finding.

F44: Evidence room personnel strictly control all evidence. This fulfills the need to maintain the “chain of evidence” necessary for criminal prosecutions. I agree with this finding.

F45: All records of evidence are kept by hand on paper. I disagree in part with this finding. Deputies enter property and evidence information into our records management software. This information is searchable. There is an evidence tracking module but it is not currently used.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Board of Supervisors budget funds for a bar coding system for the Sheriff’s main evidence room; I agree with this recommendation, but it is directed to the Board of Supervisors.

F46: Purging of evidence is a laborious task. Evidence may not be disposed of until there is final disposition of a case, which means the inmate must complete their sentence. Determining when the final disposition has taken place requires intensive investigation by the Evidence Clerk. I disagree in part with this finding. Purging evidence is a laborious task, but the statement about final disposition of a case is incorrect. Final disposition of a case must consider a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to the nature of the offense; whether it is within the statute of limitations for prosecution; has the case been rejected for prosecution, and, if so, will there be additional investigation; is the case under appeal; has the item been forfeited; is it subject to destruction; is the owner prohibited from possessing the item; and has it been released by the court or the District Attorney. Purging is made more laborious by the volume of evidence that must be maintained and the lack of adequate staff to handle the workload.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office notify the Sheriff’s main evidence room when there is final disposition of a case; This recommendation is directed to the District Attorney. I agree with her response.

F47: 48. Evidence room operations, including purging and disposition of evidence, require greater staff time than is presently available. I agree with this finding. 49. The evidence room requires refrigeration for certain evidence. At present, the refrigeration and freezer units are aging and the capacity is insufficient. I agree with this finding. 50. There is no generator to maintain electricity for refrigeration in case of a power outage. I agree with this finding. 51. Staff and others state that the odor from marijuana stored in the evidence room is pungent and the ventilation system is insufficient clear the odor from the facility. Stored marijuana may mold and cause respiratory illness. I disagree with this finding. There should not be any marijuana stored in central evidence. The Sheriff’s Office maintains a separate facility for this purpose. If there is marijuana stored in central evidence, then it is the responsibility of evidence personnel to transfer the material to the proper facility. 52. There are no fireproof containers for files, 911 tapes, fingerprint cards or other flammable evidence. I agree with this finding. 53. Evidence in dismissed cases can be returned to the owner. A court order is required to return certain evidence, such as marijuana, weapons, or any evidence obtained by search warrant. I generally agree with this finding, but again it is an oversimplification of a complex topic. Mendocino County Courthouse Holding Cells 54. On May 13, 2008, the Grand Jury visited the four Courthouse holding cells used to hold prisoners awaiting court hearings. They were found to be clean and in good working order. I agree with this finding. 55. One cell has a privacy screen between the toilet and sink for female inmates. I agree with this finding. 56. Each cell is equipped with a fire sprinkler. I agree with this finding. 57. Prisoners who are transported and held must be kept separate. I agree with this finding. 58. When there is a jury trial, the presiding judge may order that the inmate wear street clothes, rather than jail colored coveralls. A prisoner changes from the colored coveralls to street clothes at the jail. I agree with this finding. 59. There is an attorney-inmate interview room in the holding cell area. I agree with this finding. 60. All prisoners are transported by correctional officers, who are mostly working on overtime. There must be more than one officer if there are five or more general population inmates being transported. I agree with this finding. 61. Prisoners are usually in the holdings cells for about 30 minutes before their court hearing, although they may remain there longer. I agree with this finding. 62. A small area in the ceiling at the end of the hall in the holding cell facility is deteriorating. I agree with this finding. 63. Mirrors are used to monitor the hall area, but direct visual observation of inmates is required at least twice every half hour. The correctional officer cannot leave the holding cell area while inmates are present. I agree with this finding.

F48: Evidence room operations, including purging and disposition of evidence, require greater staff time than is presently available. I agree with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Board of Supervisors budget for one additional position for the evidence room; I agree with this recommendation, but it is directed to the Board of Supervisors.

F49: The evidence room requires refrigeration for certain evidence. At present, the refrigeration and freezer units are aging and the capacity is insufficient. I agree with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: Mendocino County Sheriff investigate the use of asset forfeiture funds for the bar coding system, refrigerator/freezer replacement and a generator for back-up power. This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future subject to the availability of asset forfeiture funds. Installation of a suitable refrigerator/freezer and generator will require permission from the property owner. I will provide the Grand Jury with a progress report on this recommendation within the next six months. Should you or the Grand Jury have questions about any of my responses, please do not hesitate to contact me or my Undersheriff, Gary Hudson. Sincerely, THOMAS D. ALLMAN Sheriff-Coroner Cc: Dennis Scoles, Grand Jury Foreman Jim Wattenburger, Chair – Board of Supervisors Tom Mitchell, County CEO Jeanine Nadel, County Counsel Meredith Lintott, District Attorney

F50: There is no generator to maintain electricity for refrigeration in case of a power outage. I agree with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F51: Staff and others state that the odor from marijuana stored in the evidence room is pungent and the ventilation system is insufficient clear the odor from the facility. Stored marijuana may mold and cause respiratory illness. I disagree with this finding. There should not be any marijuana stored in central evidence. The Sheriff’s Office maintains a separate facility for this purpose. If there is marijuana stored in central evidence, then it is the responsibility of evidence personnel to transfer the material to the proper facility.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: General Services Agency improve air quality and ventilation in the evidence room; This recommendation is directed to General Services Agency.

F52: There are no fireproof containers for files, 911 tapes, fingerprint cards or other flammable evidence. I agree with this finding.

F53: Evidence in dismissed cases can be returned to the owner. A court order is required to return certain evidence, such as marijuana, weapons, or any evidence obtained by search warrant. I generally agree with this finding, but again it is an oversimplification of a complex topic. Mendocino County Courthouse Holding Cells

F54: On May 13, 2008, the Grand Jury visited the four Courthouse holding cells used to hold prisoners awaiting court hearings. They were found to be clean and in good working order. I agree with this finding.

F55: One cell has a privacy screen between the toilet and sink for female inmates. I agree with this finding.

F56: Each cell is equipped with a fire sprinkler. I agree with this finding.

F57: Prisoners who are transported and held must be kept separate. I agree with this finding.

F58: When there is a jury trial, the presiding judge may order that the inmate wear street clothes, rather than jail colored coveralls. A prisoner changes from the colored coveralls to street clothes at the jail. I agree with this finding.

F59: There is an attorney-inmate interview room in the holding cell area. I agree with this finding.

F60: All prisoners are transported by correctional officers, who are mostly working on overtime. There must be more than one officer if there are five or more general population inmates being transported. I agree with this finding.

F61: Prisoners are usually in the holdings cells for about 30 minutes before their court hearing, although they may remain there longer. I agree with this finding.

F62: A small area in the ceiling at the end of the hall in the holding cell facility is deteriorating. I agree with this finding.

F63: Mirrors are used to monitor the hall area, but direct visual observation of inmates is required at least twice every half hour. The correctional officer cannot leave the holding cell area while inmates are present. I agree with this finding.

July 21, 2008 — State of California - the Resources Agency Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont,*

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

July 17, 2008 — ...no drugs, no bullying, no bigotry.

4 pages 18 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 18 findings

F1: Establish an on-going pubic forum to foster school/community discussion and widespread engagement with the recovery process. Sheriff’s Response: This recommendation has already been implemented, at least in part. Both the Sheriff’s Office and the District participate in monthly town hall meetings in Covelo. Attendance at these meetings has been increasing.

F2: Complete an emergency response plan, including implementation of the Teen CERT Program; include campus health and safety personnel and representatives from the Sheriff’s Office, Tribal Police, and Fire Department in the planning process. Sheriff’s Response: This recommendation is directed to the District. The Sheriff’s Office welcomes the opportunity to work with the District and allied agencies toward development of a comprehensive school emergency response plan.

F3: The illegal drug industry dominates the Round Valley economy. Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding.

F4: Install outside video surveillance on the campus. Sheriff’s Response: Again, this recommendation is directed to the District. Sheriff’s Office personnel are available to assist the District or its surveillance vendor in developing a system that will both deter crime and provide evidence for the arrest and prosecution of offenders. Should you or the Grand Jury have questions about any of my responses, please do not hesitate to contact me or my Undersheriff, Gary Hudson, at the address and phone number listed below. Sincerely, THOMAS D. ALLMAN Sheriff-Coroner Cc: Dennis Scoles, Grand Jury Foreman Jim Wattenburger, Chair – Board of Supervisors Tom Mitchell, County CEO Jeanine Nadel, County Counsel Lt. Ronald Welch, MCSO Northern Area

F5: Many students experience domestic violence and unstable home environments. Abuse of alcohol and illegal drugs is widespread. Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding. 589-A Low Gap Road 707-463-4411 Ukiah, California 95482-3734 Fax 707-468-3404

F13: The campus is fenced and gated on the main street. Gates remain open during the day and are locked at night and on weekends. Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding.

F17: A recently installed phone system makes it possible to communicate with teachers in their classrooms in the event of an emergency. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding.

F20: Classrooms cannot be locked from the inside. Jurors were advised of the intention to install appropriate interior locks. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding.

F25: Some students miss school to fill lucrative jobs in the marijuana industry Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding.

F29: The School Attendance Review Board (SARB) has been reinstated and truant students are referred for disciplinary action. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. The Sheriff’s Office participates in the Laytonville SARB, but we have not yet been asked to participate in a Round Valley SARB.

F31: The administration is committed to maintaining the school campus and a 100’ perimeter as a safe zone: “...no drugs, no bullying, no bigotry.” However, some younger and other vulnerable high school students are still subjected to hazing. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding.

F33: Marijuana-related incidents occur at both the Elementary/Middle and High Schools. They are dealt with promptly in accordance with published disciplinary policies. Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding. The schools make prompt reports of marijuana-related incidents to the Sheriff’s Office.

F44: RVUSD is working with MCOE to develop a fully coordinated emergency response plan and to engage youth in emergency preparedness by establishing the Teen CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) program. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. I fully support the development of a coordinated emergency response plan for the schools, but I have not yet been contacted by RVUSD or MCOE.

F45: Lockdown drills have been discussed but have yet to be implemented. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. The Sheriff’s Office has not been asked to participate in any such drills.

F46: The District has received a grant to secure video surveillance cameras for the campus but has not yet acquired and installed them. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding.

F47: State categorical funding currently provides a Campus Security Supervisor, who is on the grounds during school hours and sporting events to monitor student behavior and intervene as necessary. Continued funding for this position is uncertain. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding.

F48: Two resident Sheriff’s Deputies were hired in spring of 2008 to fill long-standing vacancies and serve Round Valley. Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding, but both deputies have since resigned.

F49: In keeping with long-standing tradition, Tribal Police provide back-up when needed. Tribal Police have a good working relationship with the District although an MOU is not yet in place to formalize the relationship. Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding, but it is important to remember that Tribal Police are not recognized as California peace officers and do not have the same authority as Deputy Sheriffs.

July 14, 2008 — Emergency... What Emergency?

4 pages 8 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: The airports are not included in the County EOP. Sheriff’s Response: I disagree with this finding. The County’s Emergency Operations Plan contains several references to the County’s airports. contains a general description of the location and capabilities of the airports. contains a brief discussion of the role the airports would play following a major earthquake. A reference to the airports also appears under the responsibilities of the Air Operations Branch Leader on pages 144 and 145; and the Situational Analysis Unit Leader on pages 150-152. The County’s Emergency Operations Plan is a basic plan. It establishes the emergency management organization; identifies the responsibilities, policies and procedures required to protect heath and safety; and it establishes the operational concepts associated with response and recovery. It is not meant to provide a detailed assessment of the planning, training, risk, emergency response or recovery operations related to airports or any other critical infrastructure.

F2: The existing emergency plans are for airport related incidents only and do not include annual training with airport personnel or fire departments. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. The Sheriff’s Office does not oversee airport emergency plans.

F3: These airports are not staffed on a twenty-four hour basis. Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding.

F4: There are no back-up generators for power failures at any airport. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. The Sheriff’s Office does not inventory airport facilities, utilities or equipment.

F5: CalStar, an emergency response company, has facilities at only one airport. Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding.

F6: The airport managers were unaware of any County EOP involving their airports. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. I have no knowledge of what the airport managers told the Grand Jury or their level of awareness regarding the County’s Emergency Operations Plan. Sheriff’s Response to Grand Jury July 14, 2008 7. Airports are not being considered in the EOP as a location for people to gather and be cared for, or the storage of emergency supplies. Sheriff’s Response: I disagree in part with this finding. The airports are not specifically considered in the EOP as locations “...for people to gather and be cared for, or the storage of supplies,” but neither are they discounted. Depending on the nature and scope of the emergency, an airport may or may not lend itself to the types of uses listed by the Grand Jury. For example, an airport hangar could be used as an evacuation shelter, but hangers lack the sanitary and cooking facilities necessary for care and shelter. Air operations during a disaster response and the presence of hazardous materials such as aviation fuel make airports undesirable as an evacuation site. Airports can be used as staging areas for emergency supplies, but the nature of aviation accidents is such that caches of vital equipment may be at greater risk at an airport versus another location.

F8: Airport managers and emergency personnel consider airports viable portals for the entry of supplies, evacuation, and meeting emergency needs. Sheriff’s Response: I agree with this finding.

F9: Airports have no current connection to microwave communication. Sheriff’s Response: Without further information I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. I agree that the airports have no current connection to the County’s microwave system. General Recommendations: 1. Little River and Ukiah airports should have permanent generators installed to meet the emergency needs of the Coast and the Ukiah Valley. Sheriff’s Response: This recommendation should be directed to the Board of Supervisors and the City of Ukiah. At one time the Sheriff’s Office could offer forfeited assets such as generators to other public entities, but current state and federal asset forfeiture laws prohibit such distributions.

∼ June 30, 2008 — Recommendations numbered: 2 will not be implemented because they are not warranted and/or are not deemed reasonable*

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 18, 2008 — Free!!!, Get Your Ged Here!!! a Report on the: Mendocino County Jail, Holding Cells and Sheriff’s Evidence Room June

9 pages 63 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 63 findings

F2: Eight staff members are bilingual. Correctional Officers work 12-hour shifts, with a minimum of eight officers per shift.

F3: The capacity of the MCJ is 305 inmates. In 2007 the average inmate population was 268. In January 2007 the population was 236, and in October 2007 the population was 294.

F4: Building 1 holds the booking area, holding cells, and sally port.1 The recent renovation of Building 1 included replacement of the sally port, and the addition of three more holding and security cells, which comply with both the ADA (Americans with Disability Act) and Title 24 (State guidelines on construction of jails). Construction included an interview room, a non-contact attorney room, and an open-air sally port.

F6: Inmate housing consists of seven units for males and two separate units for females. Temporary beds are placed in the common area when the capacity is exceeded.

F7: Security cameras monitor the doors and common areas.

F8: The cells are either single, double, triple occupancy, or barracks style.

F9: All inmates are allowed exercise privileges, but inmates in “lock-down,” are only allowed out of their cells 30 minutes per day.

F10: Inmates are segregated based on history and type of crime committed, previous incarceration, gang affiliations and violent tendencies. A sally port is a secure area used to move prisoners between a vehicle and the jail.

F12: Inmates who exhibit good behavior may work while in jail. Opportunities include the kitchen, laundry, garden, and “work crew.” The “work crew” provides labor anywhere in the county, and is supervised by correctional officers.

F14: The kitchen facilities and food storage areas were observed to be clean and sanitary.

F15: A registered dietician oversees and approves the menu, which is prepared by the kitchen manager. The menu is rotated monthly.

F16: Special diets are prepared for inmates with special needs.

F17: Kitchen personnel and inmate helpers were observed to be clean. They were dressed in white and wore gloves and hair nets.

F18: Food vendors bid on contracts to supply food. The contract might not go to the low bidder because of quality concerns.

F19: The garden is certified organic, overseen by a professional horticulturalist, and the produce is either used in the kitchen or donated to various community service providers.

F20: The laundry facility is adequate for the inmate population. Trip hazards were observed in the laundry room and on the sidewalk outside the entrance.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Mendocino County General Services Agency repair the laundry room floor and the sidewalk outside the laundry room entrance; (Finding 20)

Related Recommendations (1)

F22: Inmates with medical needs are identified at the sally port before they are booked.

F24: Mental Health Branch uses Mendocino County general funds to provide one part-time psychiatrist and one full-time psychiatric registered nurse to the jail.

F25: Mental Health, in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Department, applied and received a Department of Justice federal grant for one full-time person to institute the “Bridge Program”.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors fund one full-time person for the “Bridge” program, if no grant can be obtained; (Findings 25, 26)

F27: In 2007, the psychiatrist made 1,385 visits and the mental health nurse made 4,184 visits. Distributing medicine is not counted as a visit.

F29: Abuse of alcohol and other drugs was cited as the primary reason for medical services required by incoming MCJ inmates.

F30: Medical staff stated that the closure of Mental Health’s Psychiatric Health Facility in 2000 has caused an increase in the number of persons with mental disorders who are incarcerated.

F32: The Work Release Program administered by the Probation Department reduces jail population by having adult offenders serve their sentence while remaining in the community.

F33: The Home Detention Program allows an individual to stay at home wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. The inmate must pay a daily fee to participate.

F35: A library is available with books donated by Mendocino Book Store, Ukiah’s Friends of the Library and private donors.

F36: A law library is provided in Building 1 to ensure all inmates have full access to legal information, as prescribed by law. Access requires good behavior and an appointment is necessary.

F37: Computers and tapes are available in the education center. There is no internet access.

F38: Programs include Adult School, Narcotics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous and Life Skills. Counseling and religious services are also available. Participation is voluntary.

F39: The Mendocino County Office of Education provides adult education classes with an emphasis on obtaining a GED.

F40: Correspondence courses are available for un-sentenced inmates and inmates who cannot leave their housing units. Evidence Room

F41: The Grand Jury visited the evidence room August 28, 2007. The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office central evidence facility, located in Ukiah, is the depository for most evidence collected from crime scenes.

F42: Budgeted staff consists of one and one-half positions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Board of Supervisors budget for one additional position for the evidence room; (Findings 42, 46, 48)

F43: This facility also processes evidence such as fingerprints, shoe prints, tire treads, etc. Some evidence is sent for testing to outside facilities.

F44: Evidence room personnel strictly control all evidence. This fulfills the need to maintain the “chain of evidence” necessary for criminal prosecutions.

F45: All records of evidence are kept by hand on paper.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: Board of Supervisors budget funds for a bar coding system for the Sheriff’s main evidence room; (Finding 45)

R9: Mendocino County Sheriff investigate the use of asset forfeiture funds for the bar coding system, refrigerator/freezer replacement and a generator for back- up power. (Findings 45, 48, 49). Comments The Mendocino County Jail is not a great place to be, but the facility offers many programs that may make an inmate less likely to return. Especially notable, is the encouragement by staff that inmates utilize the opportunity to achieve academic and life skills. These programs may reduce recidivism. The correctional officers and their staff are maintaining a safe and functional environment for the staff and inmates. The MCJ operates under the same minimal budget as other County departments.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Mendocino County District Attorney’s office notify the Sheriff’s main evidence room when there is final disposition of a case; (Findings 46-48)

F47: Depending on what it is and how it was obtained, items held at this facility must be kept until the court orders its disposal or it is released by the District Attorney.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Mendocino County District Attorney’s office notify the Sheriff’s main evidence room when there is final disposition of a case; (Findings 46-48)

F48: Evidence room operations, including purging and disposition of evidence, require greater staff time than is presently available.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Mendocino County District Attorney’s office notify the Sheriff’s main evidence room when there is final disposition of a case; (Findings 46-48)

F49: The evidence room requires refrigeration for certain evidence. At present, the refrigeration and freezer units are aging and the capacity is insufficient.

F50: There is no generator to maintain electricity for refrigeration in case of power outage.

F51: Staff and others state that the odor from marijuana stored in the evidence room is pungent and the ventilation system is insufficient to clear the odor from the facility. Stored marijuana may mold and can cause respiratory illness.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: General Services Agency improve air quality and ventilation in the evidence room; (Finding 51)

F52: There are no fireproof containers for files, 911 tapes, fingerprint cards, or other flammable evidence.

F54: On May 13, 2008, the Grand Jury visited the four Courthouse holding cells used to hold prisoners awaiting court hearings. They were found to be clean and in good working order.

F55: One cell has a privacy screen between the toilet and sink for female inmates.

F56: Each cell is equipped with a fire sprinkler.

F57: Prisoners who are transported and held must be kept separate according to the color designation of their coveralls.

F59: There is an attorney-inmate interview room in the holding cell area.

F61: Prisoners are usually in the holdings cells for about 30 minutes before their court hearing, although they may remain there longer.

F62: A small area in the ceiling at the end of the hall in the holding cell facility is deteriorating.

June 18, 2008 — Dear Mr. Scoles:*

3 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 17, 2008 — A Lot More Than Firefighters a Report on Chamberlain Creek and Parlin Fork Conservation Camps June 17, 2008

6 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 17, 2008 — Byzantium by the Bay County Mis-Implementation of the Mendocino Town Plan a report of the

17 pages 50 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 50 findings

F1: Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) are basic planning tools used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone. They contain ground rules for development and protection of coastal resources.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: residential zoning not be allowed as a factor in granting the required Use Permits for VHR and SUR licensing until and unless an MTP amendment to this effect has gone through a full public review and has been effectively certified; (Findings 1-7, 18, 19, 28-31, 36, 41, 46-47)

R7: the BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41)

R23-30: fewer VHR/SUR units than the 53 units authorized by the MTP.” This reduction is specifically forbidden by the certified LCP and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirement to provide public access to coastal resources.3 In addition, Planning Department staff members have: 1 In conjunction with the LUP certification in November 1996, the CCC granted a Categorical Exclusion Order that exempts single-family homes, water wells and septic systems in mapped areas of Mendocino from the need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. MTP excerpts that are relevant to licensing of VHR/SUR units are presented in Exhibit I. The timeline for certification of the Mendocino LCP is presented in Exhibit II. See underlined text in Exhibit I • failed to maintain a chronological waiting list of applicants for VHR/SUR licenses, as required by the certified MTP; • denied a Use Permit (required to obtain a VHR license) to at least one applicant on the basis of the CAC recommendations; • discouraged other prospective applicants from pursuing a license; • continued to distribute copies of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code that bear incorrect certification dates, and • have not yet revised the VHR/SUR Tables prepared in 1992 to correct mapping errors that omitted eight units that were licensed prior to that time. The Tables do not show the corrected baseline number of 53 allowable licenses. On October 2, 2001, the BOS, by order of the Chair, directed the Fifth District Supervisor to “…work with staff and interested members of the CAC, to coordinate the followup action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino CAC.” This appears to have resulted in a de facto VHR/SUR licensing moratorium. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) never formally endorsed a freeze on VHR/SUR licensing, and no LCP amendment application was submitted to seek CCC certification of this change in practice. Limits on visitor-serving facilities were allowed by the CCC to protect the residential character of the Town. It is not possible to estimate the impact of licensed and/or unlicensed VHR/SUR accommodations without a legal and transparent licensing process and mechanisms for enforcement of the licensing requirements. The de facto moratorium on the issuance of VHR/SUR licenses has resulted in a: • loss of income to property owners, • loss of revenue to the Town, • loss of the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the County, and • drastic reduction in licensed visitor-serving accommodations that are suitable for families. In February 2008, a County long-range planning team began a review to update the MTP Tables that document the number and location of licensed VHR/SUR units. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain the required chronological waiting lists. Methods The Grand Jury interviewed Mendocino County Supervisors and Planning and Building Services staff and reviewed relevant documents. Background The California Coastal Commission (CCC) was established by a voter initiative (Prop 20) in 1972 and the Legislature’s adoption of the California Coastal Act of 1976.4 The Coastal Act establishes the statutory standards which the Commission and local governments apply to planning and regulatory decisions. The coastal zone, as mapped by the Legislature, ranges from a few hundred feet up to five miles in width and includes a 3-mile band of ocean the length of the California coast. The Coastal Act is primarily implemented through development of local coastal programs (LCPs) that are required to be completed by each of the 15 counties and more than 60 cities located in whole or in part within the coastal zone. Many of the coastal counties and cities have divided their local coastal zone jurisdictions into geographic segments, resulting in some 126 separate LCPs. As of 2002, about 70% of these LCPs had been certified, many of them in the late 1980s. The Coastal Act requires that the Coastal Commission review each certified LCP every five years. Although some local governments have updated their LCPs over the years by processing hundreds of LCP amendments through the Commission, with few exceptions, the LCPs are significantly out of date. The CCC, itself, has initiated only six periodic reviews and has completed only two.5 Findings The California Coastal Commission 1. Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) are basic planning tools used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone. They contain ground rules for development and protection of coastal resources. 2. An LCP includes a land use plan (LUP) which may be relevant parts of a local general plan (GP) and an implementation plan (IP) (also known as a Land Use Development Code or LUDC). The IP/LUDC consists of relevant zoning codes, maps and other legal instruments required to implement the LUP. (The Mendocino Town Plan is the LUP portion of the Town’s LCP. It was accepted by the CCC in 1992 but was not “effectively certified” until the complete LCP was filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996). 4 www.coastal.ca.gov 5 The CCC has initiated LCP reviews for Trinidad, Long Beach, Sand City, San Luis Obispo County, Monterey County, and the Marina del Rey LCP segment. Only the reviews of Sand City and San Luis Obispo County have been completed. 3. Local or County governments cannot legally apply an LCP or amendments to an LCP prior to certification by the CCC.6 An LCP does not take effect until: • a local government has adopted the LUP and IP/LUDC by formal resolution; • the Coastal Commission has certified the LCP as being in compliance with Coastal Act policies; • the local government has formally accepted the Commission's approval, along with any suggested modifications adopted by the Commission; • the CCC has filed a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. 4. Most development in the Coastal Zone requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP).7 Once an LCP and its IP/LUDC have been “effectively certified,” authority is vested in the local agency for issuing CDPs for development inland from the mean high tide line.8 5. Depending on the type and location of a permitted project, it may or may not be subject to appeal to the CCC. With the exception of major public works and energy projects, most denials by local government are not subject to appeal to the CCC and may only be challenged through the courts. 6. When a locally approved coastal development permit is appealed, the CCC has 49 days to hold a hearing. At a minimum, it must determine whether or not the local approval raises a substantial issue with respect to consistency with the policies of the certified LCP. 7. If no substantial issue is found, the local approval stands; if the CCC determines that there is a substantial issue, there is no limit on how long it can take to hold a full de novo hearing.9 The only recourse in the event of a contested CCC decision is to the courts. Mendocino County governed land use and development in Mendocino prior to the Coastal Act. The original Mendocino Town Plan (MTP/LUP) was a chapter in the 1985 County General Plan. The CCC certified the Town as a separate “Segment” in June 1990. The Coastal Commission has certified four Local Coastal Programs in Mendocino County including the: • Point Arena LCP certified on 12/3/81 with a comprehensive update completed in 2007; • City of Fort Bragg LCP certified on 7/4/83 with subsequent amendments certified in 1985; 6Public Resources Code 30514 may be accessed at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html 7 In mapped areas of the Coastal Zone, including the Town of Mendocino, residential development, water wells and septic systems are designated as “categorically exempt” and do not require a CDP. Although local agencies may opt to exercise coastal development permit authority, subject to appeal to the Commission, following certification of only an LUP, only the City of Los Angeles has exercised this option. In a de novo hearing, prior testimony and the findings of local authorities are not considered. The entire process begins anew. • Mendocino County LCP effectively certified on 12/9/96; • Mendocino Town Segment LCP certified on 11/14/96 and filed with the Secretary for Resources on 12/9/96.10 This report focuses on the Mendocino Town Segment LCP and the County’s conscious and systematic reduction in the number of licensed VHR and SUR units in the Town of Mendocino on the basis of a CAC recommendation that had no power of law. The certified Town Plan specifically states that “…The County shall not require a reduction in the total number of VHR and SURs in existence on June 10, 1992.”11 In January 1992, the County submitted amendment No.1-92 (Major) to amend the Mendocino Town Plan (LUP) and Zoning Code (IP). In October 1992, the CCC determined that the LUP certification process was legally adequate. It was “effectively certified” on December 9, 1996 when the Mendocino Local Coastal Program was filed with the Secretary for Resources. The Town of Mendocino is bordered by the Headlands State Park and includes the Mendocino National Historic District as well as non-historic residential neighborhoods to the north and east. Highway One divides Zones A and B of the Historic District and carries a steady flow of visitors and residents of the greater Mendocino area. All land use and development in the coastal zone is under the auspices of the California Coastal Commission. It is subject to regulation by the Coastal Act which gives visitor-serving lodging a higher priority than residential uses. Findings 8. Because Mendocino is unincorporated, County government is responsible for implementing land use and development regulations as certified by the CCC. 9. The Mendocino Town Plan (LUP) first existed as a chapter in the 1985 Mendocino County General Plan. The CCC certified Mendocino as a separate segment in June 1990. 10. In January 1992, the County submitted CCC application No. 1-92 (Major) to amend the MTP and Mendocino Implementation Code. Together, these documents constitute the Mendocino Segment LCP. 11. On April 7, 1992, the CCC accepted the LCP with suggested modifications. The County requested a 90-day extension which the CCC granted. Certification dates are documented by CCC correspondence dated January 9, 1997 and Notice of Determination. These documents may be viewed with this report at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 11 According to Planning Division records, there were 34 VHRs and 19 SURs in existence when the 1992 Tables were developed. The 1999 Review added 8 units to the baseline Tables and determined that a maximum of 53 VHR/SURs are allowed. 12. On September 14, 1992, the BOS approved Resolution No. 92-169 accepting the MTP/LUP. Because no action was taken on the IP, the CCC action on the IP lapsed and neither the IP nor the completed LCP was certified at that time. 13. In October 1992, the CCC determined that the MTP/LUP Resolution was “legally adequate.” Effective certification was delayed by the incomplete IP. 14. In April 1995, the County submitted an amended Mendocino Town Segment IP that was certified by the CCC on November 14, 1996. 15. Once certified by the CCC, a Local Coastal Program or an amendment to a certified LCP becomes effective only when it has been accepted by the local jurisdiction and filed with the Secretary for Resources.12 16. The Mendocino Town Plan (MTP/LUP) and Zoning Code fulfilled these requirements and became effective as the Mendocino Segment LCP on December 9, 1996. 17. Upon effective certification, permit granting authority for the Town of Mendocino transferred from the CCC to the County. The County is fully responsible for implementing the LCP, as certified. Neither the terms of a certified LCP nor amendments to a certified LCP may legally be implemented prior to “effective certification.” 18. The Coastal Act gives visitor-serving facilities a priority above that of long-term residential use in order to ensure public access to coastal resources. 19. The CCC recognized the potential impact of tourism on the Town of Mendocino and designated it as a “special community” under Coastal Act §30251 which protects highly scenic areas. This allowed the MTP to include specific protections against a loss of “balance” between visitor-serving facilities and long-term residential housing.13 20. The certified MTP clearly specifies, in a series of Tables, the types of visitor-serving facilities, and the numbers of each, that may be licensed to operate in the Town. 21. The certified MTP establishes the baseline numbers of VHR/SURs that were in existence in 1992. It clearly states that this number may not be increased or decreased by the County, apart from correcting mapping errors, without an amendment that has been “effectively certified” by the Coastal Commission.14 22. Policy 4.13-2 of the MTP, as amended in 1992 and “effectively certified” in 1996, requires that the plan “...shall be reviewed three years after certification to determine the effect of development on town 12 California Government Code §30514(a) 13 The Town of Mendocino is not within a designated “highly scenic area.” California Government Code §30253(5) also discusses protection of “special communities.” At the time of effective certification, it was no longer an option to declare the Town a Sensitive Coastal Resource Area because the window of opportunity to do so was closed by the Legislature as of September 1, 1978. See CCC correspondence dated 8/7/78 posted with this report at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 14 See underlined text in Exhibit I. character.” The plan is to be revised, if necessary, to preserve the residential town character described in policy 4.13-1. 23. Forty-six VHR/SUR units were documented in Table 4.13-2 (SURs) and 4.13-3 (VHRs) in 1992. A staff review in 1999 revealed that there were actually 53 legally licensed units in 1992. The omitted units were added to correct these “mapping errors.” The Tables were also corrected to remove 19 units that were no longer in operation, leaving 34 units in operation in 1999. 24. On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors accepted the MTP staff review and concluded that the amount of development did not require action to amend the LCP. At that time, the BOS chose not to appoint a Mendocino CAC to further comment on the staff review. 25. The BOS ordered that applicants on the chronological waiting list for VHR/SUR licenses be allowed to proceed with their applications. 26. The BOS also directed staff to prepare a “clean up” amendment to the Mendocino Town Plan to correct the data errors that had been identified.15 No such amendment was submitted. The reason given to the Grand Jury by Staff was that a clean up amendment was not submitted because the Staff Review had been submitted in support of a General Plan amendment application by an individual applicant and that amendment was denied. The Staff Report, itself, was never submitted as an amendment and was never heard by the CCC. 27. Ultimately, nine (9) new VHR/SUR licenses were issued. This left the total number of VHR/SUR licenses at 43; this is 10 units less than the benchmark of 53 allowable units. 28. Applicants for the nine new VHR licenses were subjected to a $1,000 minor use permit fee and to special use permit conditions that: • limit occupancy of a VHR to one person for each 300 square feet, or ten persons total; • require off street parking for seven cars; • require each VHR license holder annually to submit a copy of the current business license and a signed statement of the dates on which the property was rented as a VHR for overnight occupancy; • establish a minimum of 60 days of overnight rental in any 24-month period as a requirement to maintain the VHR license. • repeat several requirements that are already stated in the MTP including, that VHRs hold a valid County license and pay 10% Transient Occupancy Tax. Failure to meet the stated conditions can lead to an action to revoke or modify the minor use permit. 29. A requirement of seven off street parking places would make virtually any property in Mendocino ineligible for a VHR license, including the nine sites whose licenses were issued subject to these terms. A “clean up amendment” is typically filed to correct various errors and inconsistencies and pull an LUP and IP into a coherent package. The recommended action could also have been achieved with a Minor Amendment to correct the mapping errors. Neither type of amendment is effective until it is effectively certified. 30. Requiring license holders to submit a copy of the County business license and an annual signed statement of the nights rented is burdensome and does little to augment information already collected by the County through quarterly Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) statements that are mailed to license holders and that must be filed by specified deadlines in order to retain the license. 31. No process was developed for license holders to conform to these requirements and no effort has been made by the County to monitor or enforce compliance. 32. On June 14, 2000, staff submitted the completed MTP staff review to the Coastal Commission, including administrative updates to the VHR/SUR Tables. Formal certification of an MTP/LCP staff review is not mandated and was not undertaken. 33. The MTP document currently in circulation is dated June 1992. This is when the CCC considered revisions to the amendment application. The complete LCP was not “effectively certified” until December 9, 1996. The Mendocino Zoning Code document is dated February 1996, the date when it was produced in hard copy; the effective certification date is December 9, 1996. Staff did not know whether or not the documents in circulation are identical to those certified in 1996. 34. The current MTP document has no addendum to acknowledge the 1999 review and the correction of mapping errors. Likewise, the baseline number of 53 VHR/SUR units existing in June 1992 has not been corrected in the document, although it has been acknowledged repeatedly as the correct baseline. 35. Dissatisfied with the 1999 staff review, some coast residents exerted pressure on the BOS and Planning to revisit the staff review. In response, the BOS established a Citizens Advisory Council. On September 22, 1999, seven members were appointed to the CAC and charged with providing policy recommendations in five areas: • Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals • Incentives for residential development to increase affordable housing, • Home occupations and cottage industry, • Parking and circulation, • Formation of a Municipal Advisory Council16 This Grand Jury report addresses only the area of VHR and SUR licensing. The moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is a partial response to the several CAC recommendations. The Board of Supervisors may establish Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) to complete specific tasks. A CAC is dissolved when the task is completed. The BOS may also vote to establish a Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) as a permanent local advisory body. While a MAC is also an “advisory” body, once established, it may not be dissolved by the BOS. 36. On November 3, 2000, the Clerk of the Board’s office received an 11- page report from the CAC dated September 26, 2000. The CAC recommended that: • No more Vacation Home Rental licenses be approved in residential sections; • Current permitted VHRs in residential sections be eliminated by attrition, defined as sale of the property, non use of the property as a VHR for thirty (30) days, or the death of the current permit holder; • The number of VHRs in the commercial or mixed use zones be allowed to rise to a total of ten (10); • A long-term renter or owner live on the property when part of a property is permitted to be used as a Single Family Rental (SUR). 37. In January 2001, at the request of the CAC, the Director of Planning and Building Services commented on the CAC report. In a memo addressed to the Fifth District Supervisor, he recommended that the CAC be given the opportunity to review his comments and either modify their report or request that the BOS consider it as is. He asked the Fifth District Supervisor to distribute his comments on the report to CAC members. 38. The January 2001 staff report on the CAC notes that: • CAC recommendations regarding VHRs “…Are consistent with many of the comments heard by the County Planning Commission…” during public hearings for the staff review. • Staff is preparing an inventory to identify VHRs in residential areas. • Staff recommends that the County take appropriate enforcement action against unpermitted visitor-serving facilities. 39. On October 2, 2001, the Board of Supervisors heard presentations from the CAC and acknowledged receipt of the CAC report. Minutes of that meeting state that “…The General Consensus of the Board (was)… to accept the recommendation as presented relative to the number of vacation rentals and single unit rentals with further discussion on 1(a) – clarity of wording and attrition factor; clarification of how the Board would address ‘appropriate enforcement;’ and clarification as to accommodations for family rentals.” Minutes direct Planning staff to: “1) assist the Board in further refining the CAC recommendations, and 2) coordinate follow-up action in response to the CAC recommendations.” 40. Minutes further show that “…By order of the Chair, Supervisor Colfax will work with staff and interested members of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee to coordinate follow up action in response to the recommendations presented by the Town of Mendocino Citizen’s Advisory Committee.” 41. A 1992 form letter from the Coastal Planning Director to VHR/SUR license applicants accurately describes the licensing regulations and process as set forth in the certified MTP. 42. Since 2002, use of this memo appears to have been discontinued, and staff have discouraged applicants from paying the fee to add their names to the required waiting list by advising them that they are highly unlikely to secure a license. 43. In a December 2005 memorandum, the Planning Director advised the BOS that “…(1) there has been a net increase of 11 new dwellings since the 1999 MTP staff review and (2) there are currently 23-30 fewer vacation home rentals/single unit rentals…” (compared to the 53 units authorized by the MTP). 44. A Planning Department memorandum, dated June 3, 2008, contends that a chronological waiting list is being maintained and that prospective applicants are not discouraged from adding their names to this list. 45. Between January 2001 and November 22, 2002, three names were added to the waiting list. This was the last time the list was revised. No names have been added since. At that time, five SURs and 7 VHRs were listed. None has been licensed. 46. The same 2008 memorandum states that no applicant for a VHR license was denied the required minor use permit on the basis of the property being residentially zoned. It then explains that the application in question was denied because “…staff determined that the project was not consistent with the CAC recommendations or the applicable town plan policies.” The BOS based its denial of the appeal on this staff determination. 47. The pertinent CAC recommendation was to not approve any new VHR licenses in residentially zoned areas of the Town. The property in question was licensed as a VHR prior to purchase by the current owner. No evidence was found to suggest that any change had occurred that would make it non-compliant with the certified MTP. 48. The staff recommendation also states that the ‘window of opportunity’ to apply for a license, had passed. Staff acknowledged that the MTP does not establish that ‘windows of opportunity’ exist. It requires a chronological waiting list so that applicants may be issued a license when one is abandoned through the sale of a licensed VHR/SUR property. 49. The December 6, 2005 memorandum recommended that the BOS schedule a follow-up meeting to provide direction and take action on the recommendations of the CAC. The Grand Jury discovered no evidence that further action was taken. 50. In August, 2006, the Chief Executive’s Office established a long-range planning team. In early 2008, the team began an administrative review to update the Mendocino Town Plan VHR/SUR Tables. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain current chronological waiting lists. Recommendations The Grand Jury recommends that: 1. the Mendocino County Planning Team complete the current effort to review data in the Mendocino Town Plan Tables 4.13-2 and 4.13-3 and to establish the number of available VHR/SUR licenses; (Findings 19-23, 25, 32, 43-45, 48, 50) 2. the Planning Team develop a process to maintain current data in all of the Mendocino Town Plan Tables and implement the required (separate) chronological waiting lists of applicants for VHR and SUR licenses so that licenses are re-assigned as they become available; (Finding 18, 20-23, 25, 30-32, 43-45, 48, 50) 3. any applicants on the current waiting list be contacted and offered first right to apply for these licenses; (Findings 18, 23, 27, 41-43, 50) 4. residential zoning not be allowed as a factor in granting the required Use Permits for VHR and SUR licensing until and unless an MTP amendment to this effect has gone through a full public review and has been effectively certified; (Findings 1-7, 18, 19, 28-31, 36, 41, 46-47) 5. the terms applicable to minor use permits required for issuance of a VHR license be revised to support a reasonable and enforceable process for management of these licenses. Specifically, that: • the requirement of seven off-street parking places be revised to a number that is reasonable and relative to the size of the individual unit; • license holders not be required to submit copies of business licenses that are issued by the County and statements of occupancy that are already reflected in required Transient Occupancy Tax payments; • coordination, and legally appropriate information sharing among County agencies become an established part of the process to keep licensing information current and to support enforcement; • NO conditions be attached to any VHR/SUR use permit without a clearly defined process and delegation of responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance. (Findings 18, 19, 28-31, 35-36, 47-48, 50) 6. the correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34) 7. the BOS formally direct all staff in the Department of Planning and Building Services to use only “effectively certified” Land Use Plans and Land Use and Development Code (together with any certified and filed amendments) to review development and land use permit applications in the coastal zone; (Findings 1-9, 12-22, 24, 33, 41) 8. the County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources. Required Responses Director of Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services (Findings 1-50; Recommendations 3-8) Mendocino County Senior Coastal Planner—Fort Bragg Office of the Department of Planning and Building Services; (Findings 1-23, 42, 44-48; Recommendations 3,4,7) Mendocino County Board of Supervisors; (All Findings; All Recommendations) Fifth District Supervisor; (All Findings; All Recommendations) Mendocino County Chief Executive Officer; (All Findings; All Recommendations) Requested Responses California Coastal Commission Executive Director; (Findings 1-7, 28-29, 36, 45, 46; Recommendations 4, 5, 7-8) California Coastal Commission Regional Director, Eureka Office; (Findings 1-7, 28-29, 36, 45, 46; Recommendations 4, 5, 7-8) Exhibit I Mendocino Town Plan Sections Pertaining to Vacation Home Rentals/Single Unit Rentals “Balance” between residential uses, commercial uses and visitor serving uses shall be maintained by regulating additional commercial uses through development limitations cited in the Mixed Use and Commercial Land Use classifications; and, by limiting the number of visitor serving uses. Visitor Serving Units listed on Table 4.13-1 (Inns and B&Bs) shall remain fixed, and a ratio of thirteen long term dwelling units to one Vacation Home Rental or one Single Unit Rental (Tables 4.13-2 and 4.13-3) shall remain fixed; until the plan is further reviewed and a plan amendment is approved and certified by the California Coastal Commission. Table 4.13-2 is a listing of Single Unit Rentals (attached or detached) operated as a short term rental in conjunction with an existing residential dwelling unit or commercial use. Table 4.13-3 is a listing of Vacation Home Rentals (a dwelling unit that is the only use on the property which may be rented short term for transient occupancy.) Single Unit Rentals and Vacation Home Rentals shall be subject to Chapter 320 (Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax) and Chapter 6.04 (Business License Tax) of the Mendocino County Code. Tables 4.13-2 and 4.13-3 shall remain flexible as to location and the County of Mendocino shall have the authority to adjust the locations on these two tables from time to time without a plan amendment process, but not to add to the tables numbers of units that would exceed the following criteria: To preserve town character and maintain the town as a residential community with limited commercial services, the County shall maintain, at all times, for new Vacation Home Rentals or Single Unit Rentals approved subsequent to certification of this amendment, a ratio of thirteen long term residential dwelling units to either one Single Unit Rental or Vacation Home Rental, but shall not require any reduction in the number of Vacation Home Rentals or Single Unit Rentals in existence on the date of certification by the Coastal Commission of this amendment. Single Unit Rentals (Table 4.13-2) shall be exempted from the above limitations in the Commercial Zone. Business licenses for Single Unit Rentals (Table 4.13-2) and Vacation Home Rentals (Table 4.13- 3) shall not be transferable. Applications for new locations to be listed on Tables 4.13-2 and 4.13-3 shall be subject to a conditional use permit and an additional non-refundable fee of $100 shall be required of such applicants and applications shall be considered in chronological order from date of application, with first priority given to Single Unit Rentals. Exhibit II Certification of the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code17 Mendocino Town Plan (LUP) Implementation Plan (Zoning Code) 1980s Coastal Commission (CCC) consultant Drafts the Mendocino Town Plan (LUP) which is revised by County Planning. 8/17/83 BOS approves LUP 8/3/84 LUP submitted to CCC for 9/84 CCC consultants work on Zoning certification with accompanying BOS Code/Implementation Plan (IP) Resolution 5/8/85 CCC denies LUP 9/26/85 CCC certifies modified MTP/LUP 11/20/85 BOS accepts modifications and MTP/LUP 1989 to BOS initiates MTP/LUP revision; 1991 Local public hearings 1991 hearings held before BOS and Planning Commission 4/7/92 CCC approves amendment to LUP 4/7/92 CCC certifies IP but there is no as No. 1-92 (Major). response from County and the CCC action lapsed 9/14/92 County accepts modifications and to LUP is approved by CCC but is not 4/12/95 County resubmits IP 12/92 yet effectively certified. Mendocino Categorical Exemption & Complete Local Coastal Program are Effectively Certified and Permit Granting Authority Transferred from CCC to County of Mendocino December 9, 1996 17 Land Use and Development in the unincorporated Town of Mendocino is regulated by Mendocino County under the Mendocino Town Plan (Land Use Plan/LUP) and Implementation Plan (Zoning Code/LUDC). When certified by the California Coastal Commission, and filed with the Secretary for Resources, these two documents constitute the Local Coastal Program (LCP) of the Mendocino Town Segment of the Mendocino County Coastal Element. The Grand Jury Report Process The role of the Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury is to oversee and shed light on local and County government. Jurors conduct oversight inquiries and investigate matters of public interest. Any individual can file a complaint with the Grand Jury using forms available online at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury. A Grand Jury inquiry begins when a topic is approved by a minimum of 12 of the 19 seated Jurors. A committee then undertakes extensive research and drafts the report. Findings are verified against documents and interview notes and are reviewed for accuracy with key individuals in the agency of interest. The draft is then reviewed by an internal Edit committee and must receive approval by the Full Panel. It is then sent to County Counsel and to the Presiding Judge for final review before public release. Members of the 2007/2008 Grand Jury Bob Coppock Brad Hunter Kathy Johnson Nancy Kleiber Lois Lockart Chas Moser George Pacheco Lillian Pacini Carolyn Pavlovic Barbara Reed Wendy Roberts James Schweig Dennis Scoles Bill Stambaugh Sherry Stambaugh Finley Williams Partial Year Thomas Clay Al Pierce Brent Rusert Pamela Shilling, Thelma Thompson The cover photo for this report was taken at Point Cabrillo Light Station Historic Park by Donald F. Roberts. This report was produced with the generous assistance of Tony and Maureen Eppstein. Information on Point Cabrillo State Historic Park and the Lighthouse Inn is available at www.pointcabrillo.org

F2: An LCP includes a land use plan (LUP) which may be relevant parts of a local general plan (GP) and an implementation plan (IP) (also known as a Land Use Development Code or LUDC). The IP/LUDC consists of relevant zoning codes, maps and other legal instruments required to implement the LUP. (The Mendocino Town Plan is the LUP portion of the Town’s LCP. It was accepted by the CCC in 1992 but was not “effectively certified” until the complete LCP was filed with the Secretary for Resources on December 9, 1996). 4 www.coastal.ca.gov 5 The CCC has initiated LCP reviews for Trinidad, Long Beach, Sand City, San Luis Obispo County, Monterey County, and the Marina del Rey LCP segment. Only the reviews of Sand City and San Luis Obispo County have been completed.

Related Recommendations (3)

F3: Local or County governments cannot legally apply an LCP or amendments to an LCP prior to certification by the CCC.6 An LCP does not take effect until: • a local government has adopted the LUP and IP/LUDC by formal resolution; • the Coastal Commission has certified the LCP as being in compliance with Coastal Act policies; • the local government has formally accepted the Commission's approval, along with any suggested modifications adopted by the Commission; • the CCC has filed a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency.

Related Recommendations (3)

F4: Most development in the Coastal Zone requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP).7 Once an LCP and its IP/LUDC have been “effectively certified,” authority is vested in the local agency for issuing CDPs for development inland from the mean high tide line.8

Related Recommendations (3)

F5: Depending on the type and location of a permitted project, it may or may not be subject to appeal to the CCC. With the exception of major public works and energy projects, most denials by local government are not subject to appeal to the CCC and may only be challenged through the courts.

Related Recommendations (3)

F6: When a locally approved coastal development permit is appealed, the CCC has 49 days to hold a hearing. At a minimum, it must determine whether or not the local approval raises a substantial issue with respect to consistency with the policies of the certified LCP.

Related Recommendations (3)

F7: If no substantial issue is found, the local approval stands; if the CCC determines that there is a substantial issue, there is no limit on how long it can take to hold a full de novo hearing.9 The only recourse in the event of a contested CCC decision is to the courts. Mendocino County governed land use and development in Mendocino prior to the Coastal Act. The original Mendocino Town Plan (MTP/LUP) was a chapter in the 1985 County General Plan. The CCC certified the Town as a separate “Segment” in June 1990. The Coastal Commission has certified four Local Coastal Programs in Mendocino County including the: • Point Arena LCP certified on 12/3/81 with a comprehensive update completed in 2007; • City of Fort Bragg LCP certified on 7/4/83 with subsequent amendments certified in 1985; 6Public Resources Code 30514 may be accessed at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html 7 In mapped areas of the Coastal Zone, including the Town of Mendocino, residential development, water wells and septic systems are designated as “categorically exempt” and do not require a CDP. Although local agencies may opt to exercise coastal development permit authority, subject to appeal to the Commission, following certification of only an LUP, only the City of Los Angeles has exercised this option. In a de novo hearing, prior testimony and the findings of local authorities are not considered. The entire process begins anew. • Mendocino County LCP effectively certified on 12/9/96; • Mendocino Town Segment LCP certified on 11/14/96 and filed with the Secretary for Resources on 12/9/96.10 This report focuses on the Mendocino Town Segment LCP and the County’s conscious and systematic reduction in the number of licensed VHR and SUR units in the Town of Mendocino on the basis of a CAC recommendation that had no power of law. The certified Town Plan specifically states that “…The County shall not require a reduction in the total number of VHR and SURs in existence on June 10, 1992.”11 In January 1992, the County submitted amendment No.1-92 (Major) to amend the Mendocino Town Plan (LUP) and Zoning Code (IP). In October 1992, the CCC determined that the LUP certification process was legally adequate. It was “effectively certified” on December 9, 1996 when the Mendocino Local Coastal Program was filed with the Secretary for Resources. The Town of Mendocino is bordered by the Headlands State Park and includes the Mendocino National Historic District as well as non-historic residential neighborhoods to the north and east. Highway One divides Zones A and B of the Historic District and carries a steady flow of visitors and residents of the greater Mendocino area. All land use and development in the coastal zone is under the auspices of the California Coastal Commission. It is subject to regulation by the Coastal Act which gives visitor-serving lodging a higher priority than residential uses. Findings

Related Recommendations (3)

F8: Because Mendocino is unincorporated, County government is responsible for implementing land use and development regulations as certified by the CCC.

Related Recommendations (2)

F9: The Mendocino Town Plan (LUP) first existed as a chapter in the 1985 Mendocino County General Plan. The CCC certified Mendocino as a separate segment in June 1990.

Related Recommendations (2)

F10: In January 1992, the County submitted CCC application No. 1-92 (Major) to amend the MTP and Mendocino Implementation Code. Together, these documents constitute the Mendocino Segment LCP.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: the correct date of “effective certification” appear on all Mendocino County Building and Planning documents, most specifically, the Mendocino Town Plan (currently dated 6/10/92) and the related Title 20-Division III Zoning Code (current cover date and most pages are numbered 2/96). The effective certification date of both of these documents is 12/9/96; (Findings 10-16, 33-34)

F11: On April 7, 1992, the CCC accepted the LCP with suggested modifications. The County requested a 90-day extension which the CCC granted. Certification dates are documented by CCC correspondence dated January 9, 1997 and Notice of Determination. These documents may be viewed with this report at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 11 According to Planning Division records, there were 34 VHRs and 19 SURs in existence when the 1992 Tables were developed. The 1999 Review added 8 units to the baseline Tables and determined that a maximum of 53 VHR/SURs are allowed.

Related Recommendations (2)

F12: On September 14, 1992, the BOS approved Resolution No. 92-169 accepting the MTP/LUP. Because no action was taken on the IP, the CCC action on the IP lapsed and neither the IP nor the completed LCP was certified at that time.

Related Recommendations (3)

F13: In October 1992, the CCC determined that the MTP/LUP Resolution was “legally adequate.” Effective certification was delayed by the incomplete IP.

Related Recommendations (3)

F14: In April 1995, the County submitted an amended Mendocino Town Segment IP that was certified by the CCC on November 14, 1996.

Related Recommendations (3)

F15: Once certified by the CCC, a Local Coastal Program or an amendment to a certified LCP becomes effective only when it has been accepted by the local jurisdiction and filed with the Secretary for Resources.12

Related Recommendations (3)

F16: The Mendocino Town Plan (MTP/LUP) and Zoning Code fulfilled these requirements and became effective as the Mendocino Segment LCP on December 9, 1996.

Related Recommendations (4)

R8: the County develop and implement an enforcement plan to reduce the operation of unlicensed visitor-serving facilities of all types, and that this plan include: • maintaining and making public a list of legally licensed VHR/SUR properties including an emergency contact number; • coordinating VHR/SUR information among County agencies and with the Mendocino City Community Services District; • requiring that the license number be included in all VHR/SUR internet advertising and on promotional materials produced after the date of establishment of the enforcement policy; • Providing each VHR/SUR license holder with an unobtrusive peel-off window decal to identify the property as a legally licensed VHR/SUR; • Promptly investigating any written complaint that an unlicensed property is being offered as a VHR/SUR. (Findings 16, 17, 23-31, 39, 50) Comments If legally incorporated into the Mendocino LCP, the CAC recommendation to limit VHRs to ten (10) permitted units in commercially zoned areas will substantially reduce lodging access and increase the per person cost of lodging for families and other small groups whose needs are not met by existing Mendocino Inns and B&Bs. This access is required by the Coastal Act and was addressed in the MTP in response to a CCC recommended modification. The de facto moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is against the law. It has reduced coastal access for families and other traveling companions, and it has had significant negative consequences for individual property owners, the local economy, and the County’s tax revenue. In the course of this investigation, Supervisors and County Planning employees repeatedly cited political pressure to establish the Mendocino CAC and to enact the recommended freeze on VHR/SUR licenses. The Grand Jury has seen ample evidence of this pressure, but rejects it as a justification for failing to implement the effectively certified Mendocino Town LCP. It is not the Grand Jury’s role to determine whether or not the amendment proposed by the CAC is desirable or politically expedient. Nor is it the Grand Jury’s role to speculate on whether the baseline number of VHR/SUR units, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in perceived changes to the “town character.” It is, however, the Jury’s role to observe that changes to the Mendocino Town Plan and Zoning Code may not legally be implemented without effective certification, including: • an application to amend the certified LCP; • Coastal Commission certification of the amendment; • acceptance of the certified amendment by the BOS; and • filing of the certified amendment with the Secretary for Resources.

F17: Upon effective certification, permit granting authority for the Town of Mendocino transferred from the CCC to the County. The County is fully responsible for implementing the LCP, as certified. Neither the terms of a certified LCP nor amendments to a certified LCP may legally be implemented prior to “effective certification.”

Related Recommendations (2)

F18: The Coastal Act gives visitor-serving facilities a priority above that of long-term residential use in order to ensure public access to coastal resources.

Related Recommendations (5)

R2: the Planning Team develop a process to maintain current data in all of the Mendocino Town Plan Tables and implement the required (separate) chronological waiting lists of applicants for VHR and SUR licenses so that licenses are re-assigned as they become available; (Finding 18, 20-23, 25, 30-32, 43-45, 48, 50)

R3: any applicants on the current waiting list be contacted and offered first right to apply for these licenses; (Findings 18, 23, 27, 41-43, 50)

R5: the terms applicable to minor use permits required for issuance of a VHR license be revised to support a reasonable and enforceable process for management of these licenses. Specifically, that: • the requirement of seven off-street parking places be revised to a number that is reasonable and relative to the size of the individual unit; • license holders not be required to submit copies of business licenses that are issued by the County and statements of occupancy that are already reflected in required Transient Occupancy Tax payments; • coordination, and legally appropriate information sharing among County agencies become an established part of the process to keep licensing information current and to support enforcement; • NO conditions be attached to any VHR/SUR use permit without a clearly defined process and delegation of responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance. (Findings 18, 19, 28-31, 35-36, 47-48, 50)

F19: The CCC recognized the potential impact of tourism on the Town of Mendocino and designated it as a “special community” under Coastal Act §30251 which protects highly scenic areas. This allowed the MTP to include specific protections against a loss of “balance” between visitor-serving facilities and long-term residential housing.13

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: the Mendocino County Planning Team complete the current effort to review data in the Mendocino Town Plan Tables 4.13-2 and 4.13-3 and to establish the number of available VHR/SUR licenses; (Findings 19-23, 25, 32, 43-45, 48, 50)

F20: The certified MTP clearly specifies, in a series of Tables, the types of visitor-serving facilities, and the numbers of each, that may be licensed to operate in the Town.

Related Recommendations (4)

F21: The certified MTP establishes the baseline numbers of VHR/SURs that were in existence in 1992. It clearly states that this number may not be increased or decreased by the County, apart from correcting mapping errors, without an amendment that has been “effectively certified” by the Coastal Commission.14

Related Recommendations (4)

F22: Policy 4.13-2 of the MTP, as amended in 1992 and “effectively certified” in 1996, requires that the plan “...shall be reviewed three years after certification to determine the effect of development on town 12 California Government Code §30514(a) 13 The Town of Mendocino is not within a designated “highly scenic area.” California Government Code §30253(5) also discusses protection of “special communities.” At the time of effective certification, it was no longer an option to declare the Town a Sensitive Coastal Resource Area because the window of opportunity to do so was closed by the Legislature as of September 1, 1978. See CCC correspondence dated 8/7/78 posted with this report at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury 14 See underlined text in Exhibit I. character.” The plan is to be revised, if necessary, to preserve the residential town character described in policy 4.13-1.

Related Recommendations (4)

F23: Forty-six VHR/SUR units were documented in Table 4.13-2 (SURs) and 4.13-3 (VHRs) in 1992. A staff review in 1999 revealed that there were actually 53 legally licensed units in 1992. The omitted units were added to correct these “mapping errors.” The Tables were also corrected to remove 19 units that were no longer in operation, leaving 34 units in operation in 1999.

Related Recommendations (4)

F24: On March 8, 1999, the Board of Supervisors accepted the MTP staff review and concluded that the amount of development did not require action to amend the LCP. At that time, the BOS chose not to appoint a Mendocino CAC to further comment on the staff review.

Related Recommendations (2)

F25: The BOS ordered that applicants on the chronological waiting list for VHR/SUR licenses be allowed to proceed with their applications.

Related Recommendations (2)

F26: The BOS also directed staff to prepare a “clean up” amendment to the Mendocino Town Plan to correct the data errors that had been identified.15 No such amendment was submitted. The reason given to the Grand Jury by Staff was that a clean up amendment was not submitted because the Staff Review had been submitted in support of a General Plan amendment application by an individual applicant and that amendment was denied. The Staff Report, itself, was never submitted as an amendment and was never heard by the CCC.

Related Recommendations (2)

F27: Ultimately, nine (9) new VHR/SUR licenses were issued. This left the total number of VHR/SUR licenses at 43; this is 10 units less than the benchmark of 53 allowable units.

Related Recommendations (2)

F28: Applicants for the nine new VHR licenses were subjected to a $1,000 minor use permit fee and to special use permit conditions that: • limit occupancy of a VHR to one person for each 300 square feet, or ten persons total; • require off street parking for seven cars; • require each VHR license holder annually to submit a copy of the current business license and a signed statement of the dates on which the property was rented as a VHR for overnight occupancy; • establish a minimum of 60 days of overnight rental in any 24-month period as a requirement to maintain the VHR license. • repeat several requirements that are already stated in the MTP including, that VHRs hold a valid County license and pay 10% Transient Occupancy Tax. Failure to meet the stated conditions can lead to an action to revoke or modify the minor use permit.

Related Recommendations (4)

F29: A requirement of seven off street parking places would make virtually any property in Mendocino ineligible for a VHR license, including the nine sites whose licenses were issued subject to these terms. A “clean up amendment” is typically filed to correct various errors and inconsistencies and pull an LUP and IP into a coherent package. The recommended action could also have been achieved with a Minor Amendment to correct the mapping errors. Neither type of amendment is effective until it is effectively certified.

Related Recommendations (4)

F30: Requiring license holders to submit a copy of the County business license and an annual signed statement of the nights rented is burdensome and does little to augment information already collected by the County through quarterly Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) statements that are mailed to license holders and that must be filed by specified deadlines in order to retain the license.

Related Recommendations (5)

F31: No process was developed for license holders to conform to these requirements and no effort has been made by the County to monitor or enforce compliance.

Related Recommendations (5)

F32: On June 14, 2000, staff submitted the completed MTP staff review to the Coastal Commission, including administrative updates to the VHR/SUR Tables. Formal certification of an MTP/LCP staff review is not mandated and was not undertaken.

Related Recommendations (2)

F33: The MTP document currently in circulation is dated June 1992. This is when the CCC considered revisions to the amendment application. The complete LCP was not “effectively certified” until December 9,

Related Recommendations (2)

F34: The current MTP document has no addendum to acknowledge the 1999 review and the correction of mapping errors. Likewise, the baseline number of 53 VHR/SUR units existing in June 1992 has not been corrected in the document, although it has been acknowledged repeatedly as the correct baseline.

Related Recommendations (2)

F35: Dissatisfied with the 1999 staff review, some coast residents exerted pressure on the BOS and Planning to revisit the staff review. In response, the BOS established a Citizens Advisory Council. On September 22, 1999, seven members were appointed to the CAC and charged with providing policy recommendations in five areas: • Vacation Home Rentals and Single Unit Rentals • Incentives for residential development to increase affordable housing, • Home occupations and cottage industry, • Parking and circulation, • Formation of a Municipal Advisory Council16 This Grand Jury report addresses only the area of VHR and SUR licensing. The moratorium on VHR/SUR licenses is a partial response to the several CAC recommendations. The Board of Supervisors may establish Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) to complete specific tasks. A CAC is dissolved when the task is completed. The BOS may also vote to establish a Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) as a permanent local advisory body. While a MAC is also an “advisory” body, once established, it may not be dissolved by the BOS.

Related Recommendations (2)

F36: On November 3, 2000, the Clerk of the Board’s office received an 11- page report from the CAC dated September 26, 2000. The CAC recommended that: • No more Vacation Home Rental licenses be approved in residential sections; • Current permitted VHRs in residential sections be eliminated by attrition, defined as sale of the property, non use of the property as a VHR for thirty (30) days, or the death of the current permit holder; • The number of VHRs in the commercial or mixed use zones be allowed to rise to a total of ten (10); • A long-term renter or owner live on the property when part of a property is permitted to be used as a Single Family Rental (SUR).

Related Recommendations (2)

F37: In January 2001, at the request of the CAC, the Director of Planning and Building Services commented on the CAC report. In a memo addressed to the Fifth District Supervisor, he recommended that the CAC be given the opportunity to review his comments and either modify their report or request that the BOS consider it as is. He asked the Fifth District Supervisor to distribute his comments on the report to CAC members.

F38: The January 2001 staff report on the CAC notes that: • CAC recommendations regarding VHRs “…Are consistent with many of the comments heard by the County Planning Commission…” during public hearings for the staff review. • Staff is preparing an inventory to identify VHRs in residential areas. • Staff recommends that the County take appropriate enforcement action against unpermitted visitor-serving facilities.

F39: On October 2, 2001, the Board of Supervisors heard presentations from the CAC and acknowledged receipt of the CAC report. Minutes of that meeting state that “…The General Consensus of the Board (was)… to accept the recommendation as presented relative to the number of vacation rentals and single unit rentals with further discussion on 1(a) – clarity of wording and attrition factor; clarification of how the Board would address ‘appropriate enforcement;’ and clarification as to accommodations for family rentals.” Minutes direct Planning staff to: “1) assist the Board in further refining the CAC

F40: Minutes further show that “…By order of the Chair, Supervisor Colfax will work with staff and interested members of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee to coordinate follow up action in response to the

F41: A 1992 form letter from the Coastal Planning Director to VHR/SUR license applicants accurately describes the licensing regulations and process as set forth in the certified MTP.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: any applicants on the current waiting list be contacted and offered first right to apply for these licenses; (Findings 18, 23, 27, 41-43, 50)

F42: Since 2002, use of this memo appears to have been discontinued, and staff have discouraged applicants from paying the fee to add their names to the required waiting list by advising them that they are highly unlikely to secure a license.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: any applicants on the current waiting list be contacted and offered first right to apply for these licenses; (Findings 18, 23, 27, 41-43, 50)

F43: In a December 2005 memorandum, the Planning Director advised the BOS that “…(1) there has been a net increase of 11 new dwellings since the 1999 MTP staff review and (2) there are currently 23-30 fewer vacation home rentals/single unit rentals…” (compared to the 53 units authorized by the MTP).

Related Recommendations (4)

R3: any applicants on the current waiting list be contacted and offered first right to apply for these licenses; (Findings 18, 23, 27, 41-43, 50)

F44: A Planning Department memorandum, dated June 3, 2008, contends that a chronological waiting list is being maintained and that prospective applicants are not discouraged from adding their names to this list.

Related Recommendations (3)

F45: Between January 2001 and November 22, 2002, three names were added to the waiting list. This was the last time the list was revised. No names have been added since. At that time, five SURs and 7 VHRs were listed. None has been licensed.

Related Recommendations (3)

F46: The same 2008 memorandum states that no applicant for a VHR license was denied the required minor use permit on the basis of the property being residentially zoned. It then explains that the application in question was denied because “…staff determined that the project was not consistent with the CAC recommendations or the applicable town plan policies.” The BOS based its denial of the appeal on this staff determination.

Related Recommendations (2)

F47: The pertinent CAC recommendation was to not approve any new VHR licenses in residentially zoned areas of the Town. The property in question was licensed as a VHR prior to purchase by the current owner. No evidence was found to suggest that any change had occurred that would make it non-compliant with the certified MTP.

Related Recommendations (3)

F48: The staff recommendation also states that the ‘window of opportunity’ to apply for a license, had passed. Staff acknowledged that the MTP does not establish that ‘windows of opportunity’ exist. It requires a chronological waiting list so that applicants may be issued a license when one is abandoned through the sale of a licensed VHR/SUR property.

Related Recommendations (2)

F49: The December 6, 2005 memorandum recommended that the BOS schedule a follow-up meeting to provide direction and take action on the recommendations of the CAC. The Grand Jury discovered no evidence that further action was taken.

F50: In August, 2006, the Chief Executive’s Office established a long-range planning team. In early 2008, the team began an administrative review to update the Mendocino Town Plan VHR/SUR Tables. The BOS has also directed the planning team to establish processes to maintain and monitor this data and to maintain current chronological waiting lists.

June 17, 2008 — Does Probation Work?

15 pages 36 findings 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 36 findings

F1: The Department’s Mission Statement does not mention keeping probationers out of incarceration or turning probationers into law-abiding citizens. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager

F2: The Department has been roiled by internal controversies. Issues have included safety, disputes within the union representing the DPOs, management style that differs from the former CPO, and a lack of formal training. The union passed a vote of no confidence in the chief. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department disagrees (wholly or in part) with this finding because formal training has always been provided. Each new Deputy Probation Officer receives a minimum of 179.5 hours of Probation Officer Core training during their first year of employment and a minimum of 40 hours of Standards and Training for Corrections training each year thereafter.

F3: The October 1, 2007 "Next Steps Plan" proposed the hiring of Mendocino Dispute Resolution Services to mediate between the CPO and the employees. The plan also proposed contracting with the Corrections Standards Authority for training and team building of the executive staff. Only the latter was implemented. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the Probation Department continue to evaluate, upgrade and improve training and team building and find ways to assess performance; (Findings 3-5, 19) Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation has been implemented. The Department organized a training focus group in the winter of 2007-2008. That group is responsible for implementing a training orientation module for new and transferring DPO’s and created a Department Training Manual for Probation Officers. As such, morale has improved and performance can be assessed regularly.

R4: new DPOs be trained and evaluated in the field by other experienced DPOs; (Findings 3, 4, 19) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation has been implemented. Supervisors, with the help of experienced mentors, are now required to review and document that an officer is sufficiently trained to perform fieldwork. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager

F4: After the Authority’s program, the department set up a task force to devise new training and safety protocols. New employees now spend one week shadowing with a mentor, learning procedures in their division. Every new DPO trains one week in Juvenile and one week in Adult Probation. One week of shadowing is also given to those who begin work in new areas of responsibility. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: Turnover has been high; 13 staff, including managers, left in an 18-month period, ending October 1, 2007. Some of the current managers and staff state that morale has improved; some staff disagree. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: The 2007/08 budget set staffing for the Juvenile Division at 14 DPOs plus three supervisors. The Adult Division staffing is set 16 DPOs, two supervisors and one training officer. The Probation Department is overseen by the CPO and has additional support staff. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding. Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation requires further analysis. The Probation Department will continue to make its needs known to the Board of Supervisors, but the final decision is in their hands and subject to overall County needs. Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) This recommendation requires further analysis. The budgetary needs of the Probation Department, along with all facets of law enforcement, continue to be of concern and a priority to the Board of Supervisors. Careful review and evaluation of Federal and State funding are key components to assessing and responding to the Department’s, as well as the County’s, budgetary needs. The County has not been able to add any new County-funded positions this fiscal year.

F7: The Board of Supervisors currently requires all departments to leave 10% of all budgeted positions vacant to save the County money. Probation staffing is currently at full capacity, as two new DPOs have been hired. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department disagrees (wholly or in part) with this finding because since the request to submit a budget with a 10% reduction, the County Executive Office recommended restoring the budget to the same net County Cost as budget year 2007-2008. Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding. As a budget balancing strategy in the 2007/2008 Proposed Budget, departments were requested to submit budgets using vacancies and attrition to meet their assigned net county costs, as a starting point for discussion based on the revenues projected at that time. Probation, as well as all County departments, were requested to describe impacts in their submitted budgets. Through the budget process, the Executive Office recommended funding based on analyzing the submitted budget and impacts and discussed those impacts in budget conferences with the department. The Board of Supervisors adopted a Probation Department budget that restored funding for staffing. In the budget, three positions were left vacant and unfunded, anticipating normal turnover, in order to meet the revised, increased Net County Cost.

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: The County General Fund provides 57.8% of the department's $2,192,389 budget for the 2007/08 fiscal year. The remaining 42.2% comes from State and Federal funds which are earmarked for special purposes, and other income, which includes fines and fees. The department currently receives no grant money. Information in the 2007/08 budget justification shows that there were 1,260 ongoing adult cases and 240 juvenile cases. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F9: One Juvenile Division and four Adult Division DPOs are assigned to the court, investigating cases and making recommendations. These DPOs do not manage any probationers. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

F10: DPOs must remain in court waiting to be called on a case. Recently, they have been assigned wireless laptop computers, which let them prepare reports during such downtime. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: the Department use electronic communication, and wireless laptop computers to speed reporting from the field and to cut down on desk time and on driving to central offices; and that reports to judges and attorneys be sent by e-mail resulting in quicker turnaround; (Findings 10, 11, 21-23, 26,28) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation requires further analysis. Although wireless laptop computers are now available to court officers and placement officers for efficiency when not working at their desks, filing probation reports electronically is not within Probation’s discretion. Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) This recommendation requires further analysis. The increased use of electronic devices, such as laptops, offers advantages in operational productivity and the County and the Probation Department will continue to look for efficiencies in this arena. Communicating and sending materials electronically to the Court would require changes in software, equipment, and protocols that are under the authority of the Court.

F11: The DPOs assigned to work in the field spend most of their time in the office doing probationer and phone interviews, writing reports, keeping statistics, and undergoing state-mandated training. Fieldwork includes inspections at home, school, work sites, and enlisting community resources. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: there be a written policy stating that DPOs safety be a first consideration; (Findings 11,13,14,16-18, 19 ,20 ,27) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future. A focus group will be organized to review the Department policy on DPO safety and make revisions, if deemed appropriate by Sept. 30, 2008.

F12: While overtime work is required, direct payment of overtime is discouraged, and is replaced with compensating time off. DPOs are required to do after- hours work, such as probation sweeps and working public functions, such as the County Fair. The budget showed that in 2006/07 the expenditure for overtime was $16,388. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding. Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.

F13: A primary concern of staff is officer safety. Home visits usually involve two peace officers, but that is not a mandated department policy. Eight DPOs carry guns, and must be undergo training and recertification every 90 days. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: the Department have a written policy regarding when it is appropriate for a field officer to make an on-site visit alone, and when the presence of a second peace officer is required; (Finding 13) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future. A focus group will be organized to review Department policy on field work and make revisions, if deemed appropriate by September 30, 2008.

R6: the Department institute a management system for warranties that will automatically warn when equipment is nearing expiration; (Findings 13,14,16-18) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) Recommendation numbered 6 has been implemented.

F14: Under a recently adopted policy, the County pays for DPOs’ safety equipment and weapons. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding. Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager

F15: DPOs do not have tasers, but do have pepper spray, which requires training. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

F16: In 2007, it was discovered that some bulletproof vests had expired warranties. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (2)

F17: DPOs were ordered to stop wearing the out-of-warranty vests; some DPOs worked in the field without protection. The vests have since been replaced. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (2)

F18: The Department has set up a new system to track warranties. Information is kept in personnel files which are reviewed annually. There is no system in place to alert the Department before expiration takes place. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department disagrees (wholly or in part) with this finding because the Probation Department already maintains a tracking system to monitor expiration dates on equipment issued to staff such as ballistic vests and pepper spray. The Administrative Services Manager reviews and updates the ballistic vest distribution spreadsheet no less than monthly. In addition, individual employee equipment lists are maintained in personnel files and are monitored no less than annually by the Supervising Staff Assistant. Department staff are advised upon issue that items such as pepper spray and ballistic vests do have expiration dates and they should alert their immediate supervisor if they are aware of an upcoming expiration date on a piece of equipment, which has been issued to them.

Related Recommendations (2)

F19: Before the “Next Steps” plan, the new DPOs and those assigned to new positions often waited months for formal training. Clerical staff instructed new DPOs on how to fill out forms. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

F20: Most cases are assigned geographically, but some can be assigned by type of crime, such as drug, sex, domestic violence and gang activity. Some DPOs specialize in these types of cases, which may require more investigation and closer supervision of the probationer. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation requires further analysis. It is unclear how the Grand Jury wishes the Department to publish information regarding range and type of caseloads. The ranges and types of caseload are available upon request however both are subject to change at any given point in time and based on Department needs.

F21: The Fort Bragg office has 1.5 DPOs for adults and one DPO for juveniles. They handle all types of cases for the entire coastal area. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (3)

F22: The Willits office has 1.5 DPOs for adults and one DPO for juveniles. They handle all types of cases in the north/inland area. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (3)

F23: There is one gang specialist working in the Ukiah area. A Juvenile and an Adult Division DPO out of Willits also work part of their time on gang cases covering both the north and coastal areas. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (3)

F24: The Department's 2007/08 budget shows an average caseload of 123 per adult DPO, and an average caseload of 24 per juvenile DPO, but DPOs may have as few as zero or as many as 200 cases, depending on the type of case or assignment. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (2)

F25: On April 29, 2008, the average caseload was 114 for adults and 22 for juveniles. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F26: Court DPOs manage no field cases. There are two Proposition 36 DPOs who share 234 non-violent drug cases. There is one full-time DPO assigned to domestic violence cases in Ukiah. Another DPO who serves in Willits and Fort Bragg works on domestic violence cases part of the time. There are about 234 domestic violence cases. Another DPO has more than 200 low- risk probationer cases. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F27: DPOs with many cases have little time to do field work. Probation violations are more likely to go unnoticed when the DPO is unable to do field work. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F28: Some DPOs may spend the bulk of their time on a small number of probationers who require constant supervision. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F29: On April 29, 2008, the total Adult Probation case load was 963. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F30: A pretrial jail release program, for those who don’t make bail, is an exception to the rule that adult DPOs become involved in cases only after conviction. There are about 30 cases in this program managed by two DPOs. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F31: Mental health cases require special attention and treatment. The Therapeutic Options Program Grant, for juvenile mental health cases, has expired. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department disagrees (wholly or in part) with this finding because the Therapeutic Options Program Grant, for juvenile mental health cases has not expired. It provides a .5 FTE mental health clinician for minors in the Juvenile Hall.

F32: Juvenile records do not follow juvenile probationers when they become adults. Judges often do not know if a new young adult defendant has a long experience with probation and what crimes were committed. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

F33: There is a defined procedure to address complaints made by probationers. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

F34: Adult probation statistics show that of the 1,235 adult probationers in September 2007, 122 or 9.8% had multiple offenses in Mendocino County. Crimes committed when the probationer has been off probation for three years, are counted as a first offense for statistical purposes. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (4)

R8: the Department define the various types of recidivism to track the effectiveness of programs; (Findings 34-36) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation have not yet been implemented, but will be in the future. A focus group will be organized to research agency standard definitions for recidivism and document their results by September 30, 2008.

R9: the Department establish a recidivism baseline, with information from prior years, to compare present and future performance. Apply for a grant, or use Criminal Justice college students as interns for this project; (Findings 34-36) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future. Once the Department researches and documents agency standard definitions for recidivism, it will work with IS to create a method via JALAN to capture the data. Discussion with IS is underway. Probation will remain open to grant opportunities. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager

R10: the Department track and publish current recidivism statistics on a regular basis; (Findings 34-36) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future. As IS and Probation create a program to capture recidivism data, the results will be tracked and published as appropriate.

R12: the County begin planning a replacement for the antiquated JALAN software with a more flexible program, which would include better statistical extraction. (Findings 34-36) Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) This recommendation requires further analysis. The Probation Department has noted the limitations of JALAN. Moving to a new system must be reviewed, discussed and approved by the Board of Supervisors and is subject to overall County needs. Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) This recommendation will be implemented over the next few years as financial resources become available. The County has identified the criminal justice system as one of the next areas of focus for technological upgrade. The planning process for a new or enhanced system will involve multiple County departments, as well as the Court system, and the County Executive Office. It will need to interface with a variety of other systems in order to be effective for interagency communication, case management and tracking, as well as statistical extraction. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager Response: (Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager General Services Agency (GSA) Director) The GSA Director agrees with this recommendation and plans to begin the process of creating a Criminal Justice IT System Replacement Committee in December 2008 when the County’s Microwave Project has entered into the completion phase. Comments Mendocino County Probation Officers are peace officers. They carry a badge, have handcuffs, may be armed and may make arrests. Mendocino County has a small population which puts limits on DPO specialization. DPOs must cover others’ jobs during vacations, illness, training, etc. Cross training between the Adult and Juvenile Divisions is useful and should be rewarded. The Mission Statement mentions keeping the community safe, but the Department really is attempting to do the following three tasks: (cid:121) keep both the officers and the community safe, (cid:121) keep people out of incarceration—jail, juvenile hall, prison, or the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice, (formerly the California Youth Authority); (cid:121) turn probationers into law abiding citizens. Is the Probation Department achieving its goals? The Grand Jury was unable to answer this question due to a lack of reliable and complete statistics on crime trends and various types of recidivism, including: (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who later commits and is convicted of another crime. (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who violates parole or probation. (cid:121) A person who violates parole or probation more than once. (cid:121) A person who is convicted of a crime committed while on probation or parole (cid:121) A person who returns to incarceration. Rookie sheriff’s officers, just out of the academy, may work in tandem with another officer for six months before going out on their own. This procedure is for training and evaluation. One week of shadowing a mentor is an improvement, but does not seem to be an adequate amount of time. Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager The episode with the out-of-warranty bulletproof vests is a major system failure. A system should have been in place to warn of the coming expiration. A stop gap system is now in place, but it falls far short of a failsafe solution. A DPO’s job is often a thankless one. A DPO II earns between $20.81 and $24.94 an hour.1 He or she is sometimes a social worker with a gun; sometimes a jailer with no jail. Usually, no one is happy to see a DPO coming. The Grand Jury recognizes that the information in this report only scratches the surface of the conditions and responsibilities of the Department. Managers and some staff report improvement in morale, while others are still concerned about trust and communication. The newer staff is reported to be “gung ho.” Despite budgetary difficulties and problems within the Department, the DPOs manage to do their job. The Grand Jury commends the CPO for making a very concerted effort to improve the communications, morale, and working conditions within the Department.

F35: Staff members disagreed about the definition of recidivism, and had only rough estimates of figures, ranging from 9% to 100%. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (4)

F36: The County uses a system called JALAN for tracking offenders. This system is accessed by police departments, the sheriff, jail, courts, the district attorney and the Probation Department. Used since 1990, JALAN creates a file for each person at the time of arrest and follows the person through further dealings on the case through law enforcement and the courts, updating as it goes. The system is not designed to track statistics across many files. JALAN does not maintain the rap sheet of prior offenses. That information comes from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System. Because multiple Mendocino County police agencies and county departments use the JALAN, any upgrade would require all agencies to change over simultaneously. Response: (Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer) The Mendocino County Probation Department agrees with this finding. Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response: (Mendocino County Information Technology Operations Manager General Services Agency (GSA) Director) The GSA Director agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (4)

June 17, 2008 — Does Probation Work?

9 pages 37 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 37 findings

F1: The Department’s Mission Statement does not mention keeping probationers out of incarceration or turning probationers into law-abiding citizens.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the Probation Department continue to evaluate, upgrade and improve training and team building and find ways to assess performance; (Findings 3-5, 19)

R4: new DPOs be trained and evaluated in the field by other experienced DPOs; (Findings 3, 4, 19)

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the Probation Department continue to evaluate, upgrade and improve training and team building and find ways to assess performance; (Findings 3-5, 19)

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the Probation Department continue to evaluate, upgrade and improve training and team building and find ways to assess performance; (Findings 3-5, 19)

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)

F9: One Juvenile Division and four Adult Division DPOs are assigned to the court, investigating cases and making recommendations. These DPOs do not manage any probationers.

F10: DPOs must remain in court waiting to be called on a case. Recently, they have been assigned wireless laptop computers, which let them prepare reports during such downtime.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: there be a written policy stating that DPOs safety be a first consideration; (Findings 11,13,14,16-18, 19 ,20 ,27)

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: the Department have a written policy regarding when it is appropriate for a field officer to make an on-site visit alone, and when the presence of a second peace officer is required; (Finding 13)

R6: the Department institute a management system for warranties that will automatically warn when equipment is nearing expiration; (Findings 13,14,16-18)

F14: Under a recently adopted policy, the County pays for DPOs’ safety equipment and weapons.

F15: DPOs do not have tasers, but do have pepper spray, which requires training.

F16: In 2007, it was discovered that some bulletproof vests had expired warranties.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: there be a written policy stating that DPOs safety be a first consideration; (Findings 11,13,14,16-18, 19 ,20 ,27)

R6: the Department institute a management system for warranties that will automatically warn when equipment is nearing expiration; (Findings 13,14,16-18)

F17: DPOs were ordered to stop wearing the out-of-warranty vests; some DPOs worked in the field without protection. The vests have since been replaced.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: there be a written policy stating that DPOs safety be a first consideration; (Findings 11,13,14,16-18, 19 ,20 ,27)

R6: the Department institute a management system for warranties that will automatically warn when equipment is nearing expiration; (Findings 13,14,16-18)

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: there be a written policy stating that DPOs safety be a first consideration; (Findings 11,13,14,16-18, 19 ,20 ,27)

R6: the Department institute a management system for warranties that will automatically warn when equipment is nearing expiration; (Findings 13,14,16-18)

F19: Before the “Next Steps” plan, the new DPOs and those assigned to new positions often waited months for formal training. Clerical staff instructed new DPOs on how to fill out forms.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

F21: The Fort Bragg office has 1.5 DPOs for adults and one DPO for juveniles. They handle all types of cases for the entire coastal area.

Related Recommendations (3)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

R11: the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)

F22: The Willits office has 1.5 DPOs for adults and one DPO for juveniles. They handle all types of cases in the north/inland area.

Related Recommendations (3)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

R11: the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)

F23: There is one gang specialist working in the Ukiah area. A Juvenile and an Adult Division DPO out of Willits also work part of their time on gang cases covering both the north and coastal areas.

Related Recommendations (3)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

R11: the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

R11: the Board of Supervisors fully fund the Department’s yearly budget and add two additional DPO positions; (Findings 6-8,11,21-24,26,27)

F25: On April 29, 2008, the average caseload was 114 for adults and 22 for juveniles.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

F27: DPOs with many cases have little time to do field work. Probation violations are more likely to go unnoticed when the DPO is unable to do field work.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

F28: Some DPOs may spend the bulk of their time on a small number of probationers who require constant supervision.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

F29: On April 29, 2008, the total Adult Probation case load was 963.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: the Department publish information regarding the range and types of caseloads; (Findings 20-30,34)

F31: Mental health cases require special attention and treatment. The Therapeutic Options Program Grant, for juvenile mental health cases, has expired.

F33: There is a defined procedure to address complaints made by probationers.

Related Recommendations (4)

R8: the Department define the various types of recidivism to track the effectiveness of programs; (Findings 34-36)

R10: the Department track and publish current recidivism statistics on a regular basis; (Findings 34-36)

R12: the County begin planning a replacement for the antiquated JALAN software with a more flexible program, which would include better statistical extraction. (Findings 34- 36) Comments Mendocino County Probation Officers are peace officers. They carry a badge, have handcuffs, may be armed and may make arrests. Mendocino County has a small population which puts limits on DPO specialization. DPOs must cover others’ jobs during vacations, illness, training, etc. Cross training between the Adult and Juvenile Divisions is useful and should be rewarded. The Mission Statement mentions keeping the community safe, but the Department really is attempting to do the following three tasks: (cid:121) keep both the officers and the community safe, (cid:121) keep people out of incarceration—jail, juvenile hall, prison, or the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice, (formerly the California Youth Authority); (cid:121) turn probationers into law abiding citizens. Is the Probation Department achieving its goals? The Grand Jury was unable to answer this question due to a lack of reliable and complete statistics on crime trends and various types of recidivism, including: (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who later commits and is convicted of another crime. (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who violates parole or probation. (cid:121) A person who violates parole or probation more than once. (cid:121) A person who is convicted of a crime committed while on probation or parole (cid:121) A person who returns to incarceration. Rookie sheriff’s officers, just out of the academy, may work in tandem with another officer for six months before going out on their own. This procedure is for training and evaluation. One week of shadowing a mentor is an improvement, but does not seem to be an adequate amount of time. The episode with the out-of-warranty bulletproof vests is a major system failure. A system should have been in place to warn of the coming expiration. A stop gap system is now in place, but it falls far short of a failsafe solution. A DPO’s job is often a thankless one. A DPO II earns between $20.81 and $24.94 an hour.1 He or she is sometimes a social worker with a gun; sometimes a jailer with no jail. Usually, no one is happy to see a DPO coming. The Grand Jury recognizes that the information in this report only scratches the surface of the conditions and responsibilities of the Department. Managers and some staff report improvement in morale, while others are still concerned about trust and communication. The newer staff is reported to be “gung ho.” Despite budgetary difficulties and problems within the Department, the DPOs manage to do their job. The Grand Jury commends the CPO for making a very concerted effort to improve the communications, morale, and working conditions within the Department.

F35: Staff members disagreed about the definition of recidivism, and had only rough estimates of figures, ranging from 9% to 100%.

Related Recommendations (4)

R8: the Department define the various types of recidivism to track the effectiveness of programs; (Findings 34-36)

R10: the Department track and publish current recidivism statistics on a regular basis; (Findings 34-36)

R12: the County begin planning a replacement for the antiquated JALAN software with a more flexible program, which would include better statistical extraction. (Findings 34- 36) Comments Mendocino County Probation Officers are peace officers. They carry a badge, have handcuffs, may be armed and may make arrests. Mendocino County has a small population which puts limits on DPO specialization. DPOs must cover others’ jobs during vacations, illness, training, etc. Cross training between the Adult and Juvenile Divisions is useful and should be rewarded. The Mission Statement mentions keeping the community safe, but the Department really is attempting to do the following three tasks: (cid:121) keep both the officers and the community safe, (cid:121) keep people out of incarceration—jail, juvenile hall, prison, or the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice, (formerly the California Youth Authority); (cid:121) turn probationers into law abiding citizens. Is the Probation Department achieving its goals? The Grand Jury was unable to answer this question due to a lack of reliable and complete statistics on crime trends and various types of recidivism, including: (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who later commits and is convicted of another crime. (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who violates parole or probation. (cid:121) A person who violates parole or probation more than once. (cid:121) A person who is convicted of a crime committed while on probation or parole (cid:121) A person who returns to incarceration. Rookie sheriff’s officers, just out of the academy, may work in tandem with another officer for six months before going out on their own. This procedure is for training and evaluation. One week of shadowing a mentor is an improvement, but does not seem to be an adequate amount of time. The episode with the out-of-warranty bulletproof vests is a major system failure. A system should have been in place to warn of the coming expiration. A stop gap system is now in place, but it falls far short of a failsafe solution. A DPO’s job is often a thankless one. A DPO II earns between $20.81 and $24.94 an hour.1 He or she is sometimes a social worker with a gun; sometimes a jailer with no jail. Usually, no one is happy to see a DPO coming. The Grand Jury recognizes that the information in this report only scratches the surface of the conditions and responsibilities of the Department. Managers and some staff report improvement in morale, while others are still concerned about trust and communication. The newer staff is reported to be “gung ho.” Despite budgetary difficulties and problems within the Department, the DPOs manage to do their job. The Grand Jury commends the CPO for making a very concerted effort to improve the communications, morale, and working conditions within the Department.

Related Recommendations (4)

R8: the Department define the various types of recidivism to track the effectiveness of programs; (Findings 34-36)

R10: the Department track and publish current recidivism statistics on a regular basis; (Findings 34-36)

R12: the County begin planning a replacement for the antiquated JALAN software with a more flexible program, which would include better statistical extraction. (Findings 34- 36) Comments Mendocino County Probation Officers are peace officers. They carry a badge, have handcuffs, may be armed and may make arrests. Mendocino County has a small population which puts limits on DPO specialization. DPOs must cover others’ jobs during vacations, illness, training, etc. Cross training between the Adult and Juvenile Divisions is useful and should be rewarded. The Mission Statement mentions keeping the community safe, but the Department really is attempting to do the following three tasks: (cid:121) keep both the officers and the community safe, (cid:121) keep people out of incarceration—jail, juvenile hall, prison, or the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice, (formerly the California Youth Authority); (cid:121) turn probationers into law abiding citizens. Is the Probation Department achieving its goals? The Grand Jury was unable to answer this question due to a lack of reliable and complete statistics on crime trends and various types of recidivism, including: (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who later commits and is convicted of another crime. (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who violates parole or probation. (cid:121) A person who violates parole or probation more than once. (cid:121) A person who is convicted of a crime committed while on probation or parole (cid:121) A person who returns to incarceration. Rookie sheriff’s officers, just out of the academy, may work in tandem with another officer for six months before going out on their own. This procedure is for training and evaluation. One week of shadowing a mentor is an improvement, but does not seem to be an adequate amount of time. The episode with the out-of-warranty bulletproof vests is a major system failure. A system should have been in place to warn of the coming expiration. A stop gap system is now in place, but it falls far short of a failsafe solution. A DPO’s job is often a thankless one. A DPO II earns between $20.81 and $24.94 an hour.1 He or she is sometimes a social worker with a gun; sometimes a jailer with no jail. Usually, no one is happy to see a DPO coming. The Grand Jury recognizes that the information in this report only scratches the surface of the conditions and responsibilities of the Department. Managers and some staff report improvement in morale, while others are still concerned about trust and communication. The newer staff is reported to be “gung ho.” Despite budgetary difficulties and problems within the Department, the DPOs manage to do their job. The Grand Jury commends the CPO for making a very concerted effort to improve the communications, morale, and working conditions within the Department.

F200: A DPO has some discretion about when to declare that a probation violation has occurred. Missing an appointment can qualify as a violation, but probably not the first time. Making a gang-related hand signal or wearing gang colors often is treated as a violation. Detection of a violation is less likely if the probationer lives in a remote area. Findings 1. The Department’s Mission Statement does not mention keeping probationers out of incarceration or turning probationers into law-abiding citizens.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R36: Comments Mendocino County Probation Officers are peace officers. They carry a badge, have handcuffs, may be armed and may make arrests. Mendocino County has a small population which puts limits on DPO specialization. DPOs must cover others’ jobs during vacations, illness, training, etc. Cross training between the Adult and Juvenile Divisions is useful and should be rewarded. The Mission Statement mentions keeping the community safe, but the Department really is attempting to do the following three tasks: (cid:121) keep both the officers and the community safe, (cid:121) keep people out of incarceration—jail, juvenile hall, prison, or the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice, (formerly the California Youth Authority); (cid:121) turn probationers into law abiding citizens. Is the Probation Department achieving its goals? The Grand Jury was unable to answer this question due to a lack of reliable and complete statistics on crime trends and various types of recidivism, including: (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who later commits and is convicted of another crime. (cid:121) A person convicted of a crime who violates parole or probation. (cid:121) A person who violates parole or probation more than once. (cid:121) A person who is convicted of a crime committed while on probation or parole (cid:121) A person who returns to incarceration. Rookie sheriff’s officers, just out of the academy, may work in tandem with another officer for six months before going out on their own. This procedure is for training and evaluation. One week of shadowing a mentor is an improvement, but does not seem to be an adequate amount of time. The episode with the out-of-warranty bulletproof vests is a major system failure. A system should have been in place to warn of the coming expiration. A stop gap system is now in place, but it falls far short of a failsafe solution. A DPO’s job is often a thankless one. A DPO II earns between $20.81 and $24.94 an hour.1 He or she is sometimes a social worker with a gun; sometimes a jailer with no jail. Usually, no one is happy to see a DPO coming. The Grand Jury recognizes that the information in this report only scratches the surface of the conditions and responsibilities of the Department. Managers and some staff report improvement in morale, while others are still concerned about trust and communication. The newer staff is reported to be “gung ho.” Despite budgetary difficulties and problems within the Department, the DPOs manage to do their job. The Grand Jury commends the CPO for making a very concerted effort to improve the communications, morale, and working conditions within the Department.

June 17, 2008 — I’ll Be Able to Hear You Pretty Soon a report on the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Coast Sector Substation and Holding

6 pages 25 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 25 findings

F3: One sergeant and two deputy positions are vacant.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Mendocino County Sheriff fill the vacant positions for one sergeant and two deputies; (Finding 3)

F4: There was no detective at the time of the visit, so deputies shared detective work. Since then, one deputy has been promoted to detective.

F5: Deputies work a 10-hour shift.

F6: Deputies are encouraged to volunteer time to community activities. Police Activities League (PAL) recently sponsored a children’s fishing tournament at MacKerricher State Park.

F7: Staff shortages make it difficult to provide effective law enforcement.

F8: Filling vacant officer positions is difficult due to the high cost of housing, remoteness, and lack of cultural and shopping opportunities.

F9: Sheriff’s deputies are on duty on the coast from 7 a.m. to 3 a.m.

F10: The Sheriff’s Office in Ukiah handles dispatch for the Fort Bragg substation.

F12: Most arrests are due directly or indirectly to abuse of alcohol or other drugs. Often crimes such as theft are for money to purchase drugs.

F13: Holding cells were observed to be clean and in working order. Prisoners must be physically observed at all times when they are in a holding cell.

F14: Persons who are arrested and held in Fort Bragg are usually transported to the County Jail in Ukiah within two hours. Deputies may transport prisoners two or more times a shift.

F15: The south coast has one resident sergeant and one resident deputy. There is one vacant deputy position. Persons arrested on the south coast are taken directly to the County Jail in Ukiah.

F17: The aging microwave system, which provided communication only intermittently, is being replaced.

F18: Emergencies requiring mutual aid may include the California Highway Patrol, the U. S. Coast Guard, local fire departments, Fort Bragg Police Department, State Park rangers and State Fish and Game officers. .

F19: The evidence room was observed. Records of evidence are kept by hand.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Mendocino County Sheriff explore the use of Asset Forfeiture Funds to secure a bar-coding system for the evidence room; (Finding 19)

F20: Evidence must be held until a case is final.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Mendocino County District Attorney notify the main evidence depository in Ukiah when a case reaches final disposition. (Finding 20, 21); Comments Purging of evidence is a tedious job requiring much investigation. With the availability of computers, the Mendocino County District Attorney’s office could furnish the date of final disposition of a case to the Sheriff’s main evidence depository in Ukiah. This change would reduce the time required for investigation by the evidence clerks. The Fort Bragg Sheriff’s substation provides a necessary and valuable service to coastal residents. There are great expectations that the new countywide microwave system will provide reliable communications, especially for coastal law enforcement and other coastal emergency providers.

F21: Purging of evidence requires time consuming investigation into the disposition of the case.

F23: There is now an electronic security system to prevent break-ins. The system also covers the rear of the substation.

F24: The security gate to the rear of the substation has been repaired. It required a new motor and a new lock system that operates with a remote control.

F25: The barbed wire atop the fencing around the perimeter of the rear of the substation, that was cited in last year’s Grand Jury report, has now been repaired.

June 17, 2008 — Kafka Goes Coastal Amending the Fort Bragg Local Coastal Progam a report of the

12 pages 34 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 34 findings

F1: LCPs are basic planning tools used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone. They contain ground rules for development and protection of coastal resources.

F2: An LCP includes a land use plan (LUP), which may be relevant parts of a local general plan (GP) and an implementation plan (IP, also known as a Land Use Development Code or LUDC). The IP consists of relevant zoning codes, maps and other legal instruments required to implement the LUP.

F3: Local or County governments cannot legally apply an LCP or amendments to an LCP prior to certification by the CCC.4 An LCP is not deemed certified until all four of the following steps have been completed: • a local or County government has formally adopted the LUP and IP/LUDC; • the Coastal Commission has certified the LCP as being in compliance with Coastal Act policies; • the local government agency has formally accepted the Commission's approval, along with any suggested modifications adopted by the Commission; and • the CCC has filed a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. 4Public Resources Code §30514 may be accessed at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: pursue certification of the pending amended Local Coastal Program with all due diligence to ensure that it is: • certified at the July 11, 2008 CCC meeting, and • the CCC files a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency. (Findings 3-4, 15, 31, 33-34)

R3: join with the County of Mendocino and with the consortium of coastal cities to demand that the California Coastal Commission: • establish clear guidelines and streamline the process for review and amendment of LCPs • provide timelines that specify required CCC response times both for the LCP amendment process and for applicants whose projects are subjected to the CCC appeals process. (Findings 3-8, 12-13, 28-29, 33-34) Comments The City of Fort Bragg was not well served by Coastal Commission staff. Prevailing CCC regulations and processes are complex and poorly articulated. This, however, does not excuse the deliberate and persistent application of the uncertified LCP to local development permit applications by the Community Development Department. Jurors found substantial evidence that the Community Development Director failed to keep the City Council accurately informed about the status of the LCP amendment application and that most, if not all, Council Members were unaware that the uncertified LCP was being applied until this was brought to their attention by members of the public in April 2006. After a long and onerous process, the amended LCP now appears to be on its way to effective certification in July 2008, five years after the initial application was submitted. Even now, at least one substantive issue remains unresolved that will require further amendment. The loss of the Hazelwood Townhouses appears irrevocable. The Coastal Commission was established ostensibly to protect the coastal environment, not to preclude human habitation and necessary development. Although periodic review of Local Coastal Programs is required by law, it is effectively precluded by Byzantine rules and a process of implementation that is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Addressing malfunctioning State government entities is beyond the purview of County Grand Juries. We cede this task to our elected officials and to county and local governing bodies throughout the State.

F4: Most development in the Coastal Zone requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP).5 Once an LCP and its IP/LUDC have been effectively certified, authority for issuing Coastal Development Permits is vested in the local agency “…for developments landward of the mean high tide line.”6

Related Recommendations (2)

F5: Depending on the type and location of a permitted project, it may or may not be subject to appeal to the Coastal Commission. With the exception of major public works and energy projects, denials by local government are not subject to appeal to the Coastal Commission and may only be challenged through the courts.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: When a locally approved CDP is appealed, the Coastal Commission has 49 days to hold a hearing. At a minimum, it must determine whether or not the local approval raises a substantial issue with respect to consistency with the policies of the certified LCP.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: If no substantial issue is found, the local approval stands; if the Commission determines that there is a substantial issue, there is no limit on how long it can take to hold a full de novo hearing.7

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: The only recourse in the event of a contested CCC decision is to the courts. The City of Fort Bragg LCP Amendment Application

Related Recommendations (1)

F9: The original City of Fort Bragg LCP was completed and certified in 1983/85.

F10: The Fort Bragg City Council adopted a new General Plan in December 2002, including an updated Coastal Element.

F11: In May 2003, the City of Fort Bragg Community Development Director submitted to the Coastal Commission an application for comprehensive amendments to the City’s LCP. This submission did not include amendments to the Implementation Plan.8

F12: The CCC responded eight months later (1/29/04), acknowledging receipt of LCP amendment application # FTB-MAJ-1-03. The CCC requested extensive revisions in format and content, and additional information, including a required Resolution from the Fort Bragg City Council, a completed matrix showing changes to the original LCP, and corrected maps.

Related Recommendations (1)

F13: On July 30, 2004, the FB City Council adopted the new Land Use and Development Code to implement the 2002 General Plan; sections 5 In mapped areas, Categorical Exclusion Orders exempt single-family homes, water wells, septic systems and/or other specified types of development from CCC appeal. Fort Bragg has no mapped Exclusion areas. Although local agencies may opt to exercise coastal development permit authority, subject to appeal to the CCC following certification of only an LUP, only the City of Los Angeles has exercised this option. In a de novo hearing, prior testimony and the findings of local authorities are not considered. The entire process begins anew. During the period covered by this report, Fort Bragg employed three Community Development Directors. The first Community Development Director served as CDD from 1999 through 2005 and became City Manager in January

Related Recommendations (1)

F14: On April 11, 2005, the FB City Council approved Resolution number 2857-2005, as requested by the CCC in January 2004, to transmit the LCP to the CCC for certification. This resolution states that the LCP amendments take effect “automatically upon Coastal Commission approval.” The Grand Jury found no evidence that the Resolution was sent.

F15: On April 13, 2006, during Public Expression, it was called to the City Council’s attention that any amended LCP may not take effect in the City until it has been certified by the CCC and that “…any attempt by the City to impose the new Local Coastal Plan on a project prior to its certification would be contrary to law.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: publicly apologize to and refund all fees collected from any and all applicants who were affected by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to their projects. (Findings 15, 17-18, 20-26)

F16: On May 15, 2006, the City submitted a revised LCP amendment application to CCC including the December 2002 Coastal Element, amendments from November 2004, and the July 2004 LUDC.

F17: On May 22, the City Manager informed the City Council that: • the City used uncertified code to review applications in the coastal zone; • in the future, Staff will apply only the certified LCP; • she had reviewed 31 recent applications and “…did not find any instances where an applicant appears to have been harmed by the advice given.”

Related Recommendations (1)

F18: The Grand Jury reviewed the 31 applications and related documents. Jurors found that at least one applicant was harmed by having a mix of certified and uncertified code applied to his application to develop 40 units of affordable housing in the coastal zone. The numerous demands placed on this application constituted an effective denial of the project. The Hazelwood Townhouse Project

Related Recommendations (1)

F19: In a letter dated May 5, 2004, the Community Development Director acknowledged the March 25th receipt of applications for a Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Site and Architectural Review to authorize construction of 40 units of affordable housing. The letter also acknowledged receipt of a $1,500 deposit to the project’s development account.

F20: The May 5, 2004 letter informed the applicant that the project plans had been reviewed on April 9, 2004 and additional information was required to complete the application and schedule it for a Planning Commission hearing. This information included: • a traffic and parking study and a turn-around on Hazelwood Street • location and size of playgrounds and specifications for play equipment • a drainage analysis • an archaeological records search • refinement of the landscaping plan to ensure security and minimize vandalism • refinement of lighting plan • screening of garbage enclosures, fire check valves, PG&E junction boxes, etc.

Related Recommendations (1)

F21: In a subsequent letter dated November 4, 2004, the Community Development Director invited a status report on the project and advised the applicant that “…the City Council adopted a new set of zoning regulations for Fort Bragg that took effect on July 30, 2004. The newly adopted Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) includes standards that will affect your project plans. Since your application was not complete at the time the new LUDC took effect, it is subject to the new development standards.” Areas specified as potentially requiring re-design included: • parking and loading • building frontages, setbacks, “common” and “private” open space • outdoor lighting • bicycle and motorcycle parking • landscaping standards

Related Recommendations (1)

F22: At the time of the November letter, the Community Development Director had not yet submitted the July 30, 2004 LUDC to the Coastal Commission for certification. It was not legally applicable to any development permit application in the coastal zone. Nonetheless, a mix of certified and uncertified code was applied to this project and to other applications. This practice continued at least through May of 2006.

Related Recommendations (1)

F23: In a letter to the Fort Bragg City Council dated May 22, 2006, the Applicant’s Attorney observes: “…At this point, (my client) has spent more than $50,000 on reports and consultants, only to have his project effectively denied without a hearing. In my opinion, the Community Development Department should be trying to find ways to recommend approval of (affordable housing) projects such as this, not subject them to a slow ‘death by a thousand cuts’ until the applicant can no longer afford to build.”

Related Recommendations (1)

F24: Minutes of the June 19, 2006 Community Development Committee reflect a recommendation from the Development Director that because the Hazelwood Townhouse project was subjected to a mix of codes, all or part of the $1,500 development deposit should be restored to the project account. The committee agreed to refund the full amount to the account.

Related Recommendations (1)

F25: Minutes of the August 28, 2006 City Council refer to another scheduled meeting with the applicant and state that “…it is the consensus of the City Council that staff is to continue to use the Certified LCP.” Nonetheless, several provisions of the uncertified LCP are cited as also being applicable to the project.

Related Recommendations (1)

F26: From November 2007 through February 2008, the Grand Jury researched the course of the LCP amendment application and that of the failed Hazelwood Townhouse development application. Despite termination of this application, fees collected from the applicant remain in an inactive development account. The LCP Saga Continues

Related Recommendations (1)

F27: In September 2006, the current Community Development Director assumed her position and began regular dialogue with the CCC.

F28: In a letter dated November 15, 2006, the CCC confirms that the LCP amendment application is complete and can be processed. For the ensuing year, CCC staff and the Community Development Director communicate regularly regarding a multitude of corrections and “friendly amendments” to the application.

Related Recommendations (1)

F29: Shortly before the December 14, 2007 meeting of the CCC, at which Fort Bragg's LCP Amendment No. FTB-MAJ-1-06 was scheduled for discussion, Fort Bragg received a lengthy CCC staff report in which staff noted that despite considerable improvements to the application, further recommended changes were "numerous." The CCC staff report with addenda totaled approximately 1,000 pages. Some of the changes suggested in the report were "friendly modifications" requested by the City; a majority were proposed by the CCC. The CCC postponed all discussion from its December meeting to January 11, 2008. This was just prior to the January 29, 2008 deadline for the CCC to act on Fort Bragg's application.

Related Recommendations (1)

F30: On January 9, 2008, the City of Fort Bragg presented to the CCC a list of eleven substantive issues that remained unresolved.

F31: On January 11, 2008, the CCC voted to certify the City of Fort Bragg’s LCP Amendment with modifications. The CCC Executive Director was authorized to continue to work with the City to resolve outstanding issues and to modify the LCP without the need for further CCC review so long as the modifications were consistent with the Coastal Act.

F32: As of February 27, 2008, only four issues remained unresolved and the Council gave the Community Development Director authority to negotiate on these four points. Public workshops were then held in March and April.

F33: On May 12, 2008, the Fort Bragg City Council unanimously approved a resolution to adopt the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (Coastal General Plan) and the Coastal Land Use and Development Ordinance. Together these documents constitute the Amended Local Coastal Program. The City anticipates that this document will be certified as part of the CCC Consent Calendar on July 11, 2008. Sometime after final certification of the LCP, the City may submit a “clean up” amendment covering issues from the amendment process that were not resolved to the City’s satisfaction as well as any issues that may arise as the City implements the newly certified LCP.

Related Recommendations (2)

F34: After the Coastal Commission has certified the LCP as being in compliance with Coastal Act policies, and before the amended LCP may be applied to review of development permits in the City, the CCC must file a Notice of Certification with the State Resources Agency.

Related Recommendations (2)

June 17, 2008 — Mental Health and Millionaires a Report on Proposition 63 and Mendocino County Mental Health June 17, 2008

8 pages 40 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 40 findings

F1: In 2005/06 the County Chief Executive Officer began the integration of the 3 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders. Public Health Department, Social Services Department and Mental Health Department into a single unit, the Health and Human Services Agency. Each of the former departments now is a branch of the Agency.

F2: One reason for combining departments into the agency was that clients of one department often were receiving services from another. A second reason was that it allows sharing of funds and personnel across branches. A third reason is that clients do not have to go to multiple places for services.

F3: The Mental Health Branch has a staff of about 125 and a budget of about $19 million.

F4: Most of the Branch budget is for core services—24-hour emergency care, hospitalization, institutional care, and board and care.

F5: About half the budget goes to contractors for hospitalization and treatment programs. The rest is for staff, crisis workers, case management, therapeutic services to youth and their families, vocational rehabilitation, housing assistance, wrap-around services to families with children experiencing emotional disturbances, school-based day treatment for targeted students, early intervention for children ages zero-to-five, monitoring of medication, integrated homeless services, and administration.

F6: All hospitalizations handled through the Mental Health Branch are at out-of- county facilities, and the cost is included in the branch budget, but may be supplemented beyond Medi-Cal. The only local holding facility, the Psychiatric Health Facility, closed in 2000.

F7: The branch serves the Mendocino County Jail and Juvenile Hall.

F8: The branch serves about 2,700 individual clients.

F9: One growing problem is that many individuals with mental health problems self-medicate. That complicates things for all those, including doctors, law enforcement, family, and mental health workers, who in dealing with a crisis, need to know whether drugs or alcohol are the main problem or are masking mental health symptoms.

F10: The Board of Supervisors (BOS) appoints members to the Mental Health Board of citizens to advise the County. The Board comprises three members from each County Supervisorial District: one member represents clients, one clients’ families and one the general public. At present, there are numerous vacant positions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the Board of Supervisors and the Mental Health Board make a concerted effort to recruit members to fill vacant positions on the Mental Health Board; (Finding 10)

F11: Prop. 63, known as the MHSA, was created in 2004, and is a 1% tax on personal income over $1 million to be used for mental health services, but it contains many conditions and limitations; one being that these funds cannot be used to supplant existing State or County funds, and current County and State mental health funding cannot be reduced based on the availability of Prop. 63 money. The State shall neither reduce mental health funding nor require an increase in the County’s share of funding without reimbursement.

F12: Prop. 63 funds are distributed to counties based mostly on the size of their population.

F13: Prop. 63 has its own budget. It also has its own MHSA Advisory Committee (appointed by the BOS), which includes representatives from each Supervisorial District, stakeholders such as law enforcement, education, ethnic and cultural groups, and consumer (patients), clients’ families and the public.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: the MHSA advisory committee make a concerted effort to recruit applicants for vacant positions; (Findings 13 and 14)

R3: the Mental Health Branch provide more visibility on MHSA programs and proposed programs; (Findings 13-17 and 19)

F14: The MHSA Committee has various work groups, and meets quarterly with the Mental Health Board. Meetings were previously each month, but lack of attendance was a problem. Work groups create proposals and negotiate with affected parties who may provide input. All meetings are public and require public notice.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the Mental Health Branch provide more visibility on MHSA programs and proposed programs; (Findings 13-17 and 19)

F15: The State set up three year programs, emphasizing innovation, but because innovation does not guarantee success a program might be discontinued. The first year was to be for planning, training, capital improvements which include technology needs, and some administration; however, the program was not instituted quickly enough. The three year program may be extended.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the Mental Health Branch provide more visibility on MHSA programs and proposed programs; (Findings 13-17 and 19)

F16: Staff stated there is a lack of communication and guidance on policies and planning from management.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the Mental Health Branch provide more visibility on MHSA programs and proposed programs; (Findings 13-17 and 19)

F17: Documents show the Mental Health Branch is unresponsive to requests for meetings with providers, who are concerned about their funding. Staff states that upper management is unresponsive to their requests for input and guidelines on programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the Mental Health Branch provide more visibility on MHSA programs and proposed programs; (Findings 13-17 and 19)

F18: The branch issues Requests for Proposals (RFP) for new programs. Prospective contractors respond. In Mendocino County, last year, the existing programs did not require a review for continued funding through Fiscal Year 2007/08. There were no RFPs put out last year for new programs, and as of May 15, 2008 no RFPs had been put out for the coming fiscal year.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: Mental Health Branch issue RFPs for Prop. 63 funds in a timely manner; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

R5: Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

R6: the Mental Health Branch, the Mental Health Board and the Mental Health Services Act committee, begin work on the Fiscal Year 2009/10 programs. (Findings 18-20) Comments Some forms of treatment cost more than others in the short term. However, if they are effective in the long term, they will save money over the long haul. Only experimenting with treatment protocols will demonstrate this. But, a change in protocols may threaten some jobs or types of work. The branch’s regular budget largely depends on “billable minutes” to Medi-Cal and others. If clinical staff can bill for 70% of their time, the reimbursement will support the entire branch budget. If Prop. 63 treatment modes work, there is a threat to the branch’s funding. The public wants to help the mentally ill. But it doesn’t want to see them. Any Recovery Model assumes the mentally ill will be among us. That’s part of the treatment. Funds available for treating those with mental disorders have always been insufficient, and the mental health workers are underpaid relative to the technical skills required of them. People enter this field in spite of these obstacles because the deposit they make into their emotional bank is great.

F19: There is a plan to issue a new RFP for the adult community program soon. The branch expects to fund the existing programs temporarily until the process is complete.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: Mental Health Branch issue RFPs for Prop. 63 funds in a timely manner; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

R5: Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

F20: Proposed plans must be first approved by the State, then by the MHSA committee. Then, the Mental Health Board and the Mental Health Director compile and approve the components in a public hearing. Lastly, the Board of Supervisors holds a public hearing, and votes on the total plan.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: Mental Health Branch issue RFPs for Prop. 63 funds in a timely manner; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

R5: Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

F21: Prop. 63 money must stay in the county, so it cannot be used for placements to out-of-county facilities.

F22: One goal of the MHSA is the “recovery vision” for mental health consumers. Prevention and early intervention are other goals.

F23: There are various models for treatment. For example: • The Medical Model—using drugs to allow patients to manage their condition, • The Recovery Model—providing services to allow patients to gain self sufficiency with a choice of whether to use drugs, or peer support, assuming that some mental illness, like some physical diseases, may be managed without being fully cured, • The Peer-to-Peer Model—letting current or former patients participate in the treatment protocol, based on an assumption such a person knows things a non-patient couldn’t know, and that such a person can gain more rapport with a patient. • Other models include alternative medicine, food based or mega-vitamin based.

F24: MHSA requires that funded plans be consumer driven and include the Recovery Model, which it refers to as the “Recovery Vision.”

F25: In the Medical Model the doctor is in charge of the treatment, the patient has little input, but may refuse or discontinue use of a medication.

F26: The Recovery Model emphasizes patient control and participation in decisions.

F27: The Peer-to-Peer Model is a subset of the Recovery model; and the peer counselor is or has been a client.

F28: The MHSA requires major public and stakeholder participation in designing and setting up programs and awarding contracts.

F29: There are two classes at Mendocino-Lake Community College which would train and qualify peers to be therapeutic counselors.

F30: There are passionate advocates of the different models. Some advocates support a combination of models.

F31: There are also various definitions of the terms. Recovery for some advocates would mean less hospitalization and less need for services. For others, it means full recovery and reintegration into society. Some believe that recovery is impossible. Some say if severely schizophrenic patients recover, they weren’t really schizophrenic at all.

F32: For last year the County will receive approximately $400,000 from the Prop. 63 emergency reserve to replace vetoed money for the homeless, since many of the clients are the same.

F33: Prop. 63 funding is by age group. Because it still is being rolled out, not all groups have funded programs yet. Some funding is for children. Other money goes to the transition age group, 16-24 years old, especially youth who move out of foster care at 18. There are adult, elder care and other categories.

F34: The largest contract is for an adult program, named “A Healing Cooperative.”4 There has been contention between the Health and Human Services Agency and the contractor’s executives about the program. Part of the problem is a poorly worded contract, although the plan was approved by the State. Another problem is the difficulty in measuring results. This Cooperative operates facilities in Ukiah, Willits and Fort Bragg, and provides walk-in centers, group treatment and training. It is strongly peer oriented.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: Mental Health Branch issue RFPs for Prop. 63 funds in a timely manner; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

R5: Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

F35: Although not required, the Cooperative has created a report to measure progress for individuals, called a “Rubric for Mental Health Recovery.”5 Staff members rate clients upon entry to the program and track changes.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: Mental Health Branch issue RFPs for Prop. 63 funds in a timely manner; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

R5: Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

F36: A Healing Cooperative will probably lose some funding, partly because the State requires that 51% of funds go to a “Full Service Partner,” that is, a client who is assessed with an Axis I disorder. It is unclear how many users of A Healing Cooperative’s services qualify as “Full Service Partners.” Also, the County must put 50% of the MHSA communities services budget into prudent 4 http://www.ahealingcooperative.org/templates/System/default.asp?id=41568 5 http://www.ahealingcooperative.org/clientimages/41568/rubricforrecovery.pdf reserve.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: Mental Health Branch issue RFPs for Prop. 63 funds in a timely manner; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

R5: Mental Health Branch extend current contracts one more year, through Fiscal Year 2008/09; (Findings 18-20 and 34-36)

F37: Most programs funded under Prop. 63 are grant contracts, with a fixed term, perhaps three years. It’s not certain what will happen when grants end. One reason for grants is that many programs are experiments, and the state wants to be able to stop those that don’t work.

F38: Programs are evidence based. That is, there must be some way to measure what is working, and whether it is worth the cost in money or personnel. The County and community have authority and obligation to maintain what is working or redesign to address unmet needs.

F39: Prop. 63 requires that the County maintain the 2004 level of mental health care funding for the regular services (plus a factor for inflation). However, there is no accommodation for the increase in population or for increase in the number of clients generated by outreach.

F40: To date, the County has received all the money it is entitled to under Proposition 63. Any unspent money rolls over to the next year.

June 11, 2008 — Home Away from Home a report on Mendocino County Juvenile Hall June 11, 2008

5 pages 32 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 32 findings

F1: The Juvenile Hall staff consists of: one Superintendent, five Supervising Correctional Officers, 21 Correctional Counselors, four kitchen staff, one Mental Health Clinician, and one Licensed Vocational Nurse. There are three unfilled full-time Correctional Counselor positions. Three staff members are bilingual. A contract physician is available six days a week.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the three full-time vacant positions be filled; (Finding 1)

R2: the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors fully fund the staffing portion of the MCJH budget; (Finding 1)

F2: The staff work eight-hour shifts, five days per week, with rotating days off. This schedule provides two days off during the week, so employees can attend continuing education classes or perform community service, if they wish.

F3: The County pays overtime because adequate staffing is a state mandate. Employees can choose whether to receive their overtime compensation as paid time off or as direct wages.

F4: The video observation and security systems for doors and common areas throughout the facility are monitored at all times.

F5: Mendocino County General Services Agency provides maintenance.

F6: MCJH has a generator for back-up power in the in-take/release building.

F7: Last year’s Grand Jury reported an average occupancy of 27 to 35.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the Board of Supervisors address the limited capacity of Juvenile Hall. (Finding 7 and 8) Comments If the present escalation of juvenile incarceration continues, as the trends show, the maximum capacity of the facility will soon be exceeded. The Grand Jury is pleased with the condition and maintenance of the facility. The facility is well managed, efficient, clean and sanitary. Youth benefit from the structured schedule and the expectation of cooperation. The staff was found to be caring, and the youth were well groomed.

F8: The maximum capacity of the facility is 43 youth; the average is 37 to 38. At the time of the Grand Jury site visit, the facility was at full capacity.

F9: All youth fill out a health questionnaire and receive a tuberculosis test upon entry.

F10: The newer building contains the in-take and release unit. The in-take/booking area includes a shower, two interview rooms, two holding cells, and a medical exam room.

F11: The facility is divided into 3 units: • Unit A is for females • Unit B is for males • Unit C is for older, more sophisticated, violent, and/or youths charged with serious crimes.

F12: Unit C is fully self-contained; it is a high security unit and has its own classroom, showers, exercise area, and dining area with food brought in from the kitchen.

F13: At night, individual cells are visually checked every 15 minutes by staff. Each cell has an emergency call button.

F14: School attendance is mandatory and is year-round.

F15: Mendocino County Office of Education provides instructional programs.

F16: There are three full-time school teachers and one aide. Classes are held five days a week from 8:30 a.m. to 2:25 p.m.

F17: Youth receive instruction at their assessed grade level.

F18: The classrooms have books and computers. Internet access is tightly controlled. There is also an art room with an instructor two days a week.

F19: The MCJH provides rehabilitation of youth through counseling, life skills classes, parenting classes, and Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Religious services are available for those who wish to attend.

F20: Youth shower and have clean underwear each day. Laundry is done by the staff.

F21: Good behavior is rewarded with activities that include gardening, yard work and “in-house” field trips (within the facility). During free time in the evening, books, magazines, CDs and television viewing are available in the day room. There are also telephone privileges.

F22: There is a “Step” program, whereby all youth can advance from an entrance step level of 0 and earn additional privileges by moving to the next “Step”. It takes two weeks of good behavior to advance from one step to the next. Each youth makes a written plan on how to achieve the next step, such as: …I will have a better attitude, don’t lose my temper, keep my room neat and clean.

F23: The dining room and kitchen were observed to be clean, and had a pleasant atmosphere. The food was nicely presented and included fresh fruit and vegetables, along with the main course.

F24: Boys and girls from Units A and B eat together in the dining room but are seated in separate areas.

F25: The menu is prepared by a registered dietician and rotates every six weeks. Snacks are served twice a day. Second helpings at meal time are permitted. Special diets, such as diabetic, religious or vegetarian, conform to State nutritional standards. Milk is provided three times daily.

F26: The average stay is 25 days, although 15 days is more common. The maximum sentence at MCJH is one year; however youth may stay longer while awaiting court adjudication, or for health reasons.

F27: Visitation by parents or family is limited to two hours per week.

F28: Parents are billed on a sliding scale up to $18 per day for the cost of maintaining a youth in MCJH. The maximum is $800 per stay. Collecting the money from the parents is a difficult task.

F29: Transportation from the MCJH to the court or to medical facilities is provided by the Correctional Counselors.

F30: All juveniles are assigned legal counsel.

F31: A juvenile charged as an adult is eligible for bail.

F32: About 80% of the youth are repeat offenders. Youth with behavioral problems require the bulk of the Correctional Counselors’ time.

June 09, 2008 — Hoops…now! Fort Bragg Unified School District Alternative Schools June 9, 2008

15 pages 100 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 100 findings

F1: Alternative Schools are designed to provide structured, highly individualized educational placements for at-risk students, as is required by law until the age of 18.

F2: Alternative School students demonstrate a wide range of academic development. Their behavior places them at serious risk of school and/or societal failure.

F3: A student may be assigned to Community Day School or Continuation School if he or she: • is expelled from middle or high school • is probation-referred • is referred by School Attendance Review Board (SARB) or by a district-level referral process • is self-referred (voluntary enrollment).

F4: The Fort Bragg Alternative Schools Office, Lighthouse (two classrooms), Noyo (two classrooms), the Fitness Room, and Shelter Cove (one classroom) are housed in well maintained modular units located in eastern Fort Bragg. All units are handicapped accessible. Evacuation plans and the Williams Act Complaint Policy are posted and fire extinguishers were observed in the classrooms.

F5: Classrooms are equipped with hard-wired telephones. Cell phones are assigned to teachers for classes using the Lighthouse/Noyo fitness room.

F6: Lighthouse and Noyo are on a closed campus roughly two blocks away from the Shelter Cove classroom which is next to the District offices. At the time of the site visits, grounds were free of trash or graffiti, however, landscape maintenance at Lighthouse/Noyo was not at the level observed at other FBUSD sites. The perimeter strip between the parking lot and the street was not weeded and mowing of the field between the alternative schools and the main high school stopped several yards from the alternative school buildings.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north county and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F7: All classrooms appeared well organized, student oriented, and had current state adopted core curriculum books and materials.

F8: Technology was evident in every instructional classroom, with an ample number of computers and printers. Students have monitored access to the Internet to help them develop computer literacy.

F9: All of the students receive free meals provided on site.

F10: A stringently enforced code prohibits gang attire and colors, drug-related messages and other clothing or accessories likely to interfere with a positive campus atmosphere.

F11: Juvenile Court policy is to place probationary youth in the “least restrictive intervention program,” with the most restrictive being full-time residence in Juvenile Hall. This policy results in youth with serious behavioral issues being returned to their local school districts, which are required by law to serve them.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85)

F12: Court designated schools serve probationary and incarcerated youth in Mendocino County. Some serve only incarcerated or probationary youth, others, like Lighthouse Community Day School also serve some students who are not referred by the courts but who require the more structured learning environment.

Related Recommendations (3)

R6: FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92)

F13: One Deputy Probation Officer, Juvenile Division, is assigned to provide court supervision for all probationary youth on the entire Mendocino County coast.

Related Recommendations (2)

F14: The Deputy Probation Officer interacts with probationary students on a regular basis. The Officer is the liaison between the Juvenile Court and the students.

Related Recommendations (2)

F15: One gang specialist works out of Willits to cover both the north county and coastal areas.

Related Recommendations (2)

F16: School attendance is a condition of probation. Truancy can result in a youth being placed in Juvenile Hall.

F17: When a student re-enters the class after being in Juvenile Hall, it can create a significant disruption in the atmosphere of the classroom.

F18: In the event of a serious problem the Fort Bragg Police or Mendocino Sheriff’s Department is contacted; response time was described as “adequate.”

Related Recommendations (2)

F19: A grant-funded School Resource Officer (SRO) serves as a community liaison between the schools and the Fort Bragg Police Department. His role is to promote positive community relations.

Related Recommendations (2)

F20: A single site administrator is responsible for all three Fort Bragg Alternative Schools and the Adult School.

F21: High turn over in administrative personnel over the last several years has made a lack of consistent, effective leadership an issue with the staff.

F22: Being bilingual has helped the current principal to establish rapport with parents. This principal was formerly at the middle school and has established relationships with many of the alternative school students.

F23: The staff members who were interviewed are all experienced and are teaching in their areas of certification. They actively engage their students in pursuing educational goals that are aligned with State standards. Alternative Schools in Fort Bragg Unified School District—to FULL PANEL 6_4_08 24. “…Teaching students with behavioral and social issues requires a specific group of skills that are not routinely taught in regular teacher education programs. The amount of time and training available are inadequate for the demands of the job. Assistance is needed to train and support teachers dealing with mentally and emotionally demanding students (sic).”4

F25: Five Professional Development Days are scheduled annually.5

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: MCOE and FBUSD redefine MCOE’s role in the updated Triennial Plan to ensure that FBUSD and other remote districts have access to support 7 The Triennial Plan is mandated by Education Code 48926 to ensure that student needs are addressed. Alternative Schools in Fort Bragg Unified School District—to FULL PANEL 6_4_08 services, such as counseling, clean and sober classes, young parents programs and professional development for alternative school staff. (Findings 24-25, 31, 41, 77, 81, 87, 94, 95, 99-101)

R2: MCOE provide leadership for a professional learning community comprising all of those working in alternative education in Mendocino County, and hold at least one professional development gathering each semester and at least quarterly teleconferencing sessions. (Findings 24-25, 70, 74, 77, 86-87, 91, 93-94, 99-101)

F26: FBUSD middle and high school teachers teach five periods per day and have one conference/prep period. At Lighthouse and Shelter Cove, the instructional day is six full periods (360 minutes) plus breaks and lunch time. Hence, teachers at the alternative schools have no conference/prep period comparable to their peers at the middle and comprehensive high schools.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: FBUSD provide the alternative school teachers with a prep period during each instructional day that is comparable to the prep periods provided for teachers at the middle school and comprehensive high school. (Findings 26 and 57)

F27: All district instructional aides must hold an associate of arts degree and/or pass a proficiency test.

F28: An administrative policy clearly states that an instructional aide may not be left alone in the classroom with students.

F29: It is extremely difficult to recruit qualified bilingual aides in the Fort Bragg area. The current alternative school aides are not bilingual.

F30: No nurse or nurse’s aide is assigned to this campus. When an accident occurs, the office determines whether or not a 911 call should be made and contacts the family. In some cases, the secretary/administrative designee will transport the student home to a parent.

F31: The entire staff assumes the role of a counselor when students are in need of a caring concerned adult.

F32: Students are under strict supervision. A “5-level system” is in place at all the sites through which students earn freedom and privileges. They advance from “Tin” to “Gold” by improving attendance, academics and behavioral performance. Each level has incentives for the students such as snacks, treats and possible field trips.

F33: The District SARB meets monthly to review truancy cases. The focus is on elementary and middle school students and their parents. As a result, average daily attendance has improved significantly at these sites.

F34: Cultural, language and economic barriers make it difficult to engage parents in school site councils, committees and activities.

F35: Discipline backup is provided to classroom teachers by the alternative schools’ principal and the office secretary, a credentialed teacher who is also the administrative designee when the principal is off campus.

Related Recommendations (2)

F36: A majority of the principal’s time is spent on discipline.

Related Recommendations (2)

F37: Isolated incidents of gang violence have occurred on campus.

F38: Juveniles with proven gang affiliations are required to register at the Fort Bragg Police Department.

F39: FBUSD has played a lead role in fostering community awareness concerning gang affiliations and violence. The District works closely with Fort Bragg 4 Excerpted from the FBUSD Single Plan for Student Achievement 2007-2008, approved by FBUSD Board on December 11, 2007. 5 “Professional Development Days” are contracted as paid days to be used for teacher professional development. Police Department, the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department and a wide range of community based organizations to curtail the incursion of gangs.

F41: FBUSD recently established a weekly class, with CalSAFE funding, to serve pregnant minors and young parents. The emphasis is on helping them access a variety of community based resources.

F42: Staff stated that they are not afraid of a serious crisis on campus, but they acknowledge that the potential exists for one to occur. Findings about Shelter Cove Community Day School

F43: Shelter Cove Community Day School (grades 6-8) serves middle school students who have behavioral and attendance problems that interfere with academic performance. The maximum capacity is 12 students in a single self-contained classroom.

F44: Shelter Cove students have been suspended or expelled, identified as habitual truants, are on juvenile probation, or are otherwise referred.

F45: One credentialed teacher and a full-time instructional aide provide individualized, self-paced instruction to 11 students.

F46: Shelter Cove’s goal is for students to complete middle school and transfer to the comprehensive high school program or to the self-contained transitional classroom for ninth graders at Fort Bragg High School. At the age of 16, they have the option of attending Noyo Continuation School to earn a diploma or high school equivalent.

F47: The classroom focus is on positive behavior and individualized instruction that is aligned with California State standards.

F48: Gender balance is currently equal, which encourages positive behavior.

F49: Four of the students are on probation. A Deputy Probation Officer, Juvenile Division, regularly visits these students.

F50: Big Brother and Big Sisters administers a grant that pays for unique afternoon classes four days a week in cooking, art, gardening and health. Students walk to the Noyo Food Forest for gardening activities, and to St. Michael’s Church for cooking and art classes. Mendocino Sports Club has made its facilities available, at no cost, for weekly workouts.

F51: These community supported afternoon classes enrich student learning and provide incentives to complete required academic work in the morning.

F52: The school site provides no recreational facilities for these active youth who desperately need outdoor activities. A half basketball court for Shelter Cove is included in the FBUSD 2007-08 facilities plan but has not yet been built.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: FBUSD construct the promised, previously funded sports courts (Hoops…NOW!) on the alternative school campuses and develop an appropriate fitness facility for Shelter Cove students. (Findings 52-53, 58 and 82)

F53: Redwood Elementary School, which is located about a block away, is unwilling to share its playground with these older students. Likewise, the Shelter Cove teacher prefers to separate the middle school students from the youth who attend Lighthouse. Alternative Schools in Fort Bragg Unified School District—to FULL PANEL 6_4_08

Related Recommendations (1)

F54: Fire drills are coordinated with the Redwood Elementary School.

F55: The School Resource Officer visits the classroom once a week.

Related Recommendations (2)

F56: The District contracts with the Youth Project to provide a crisis intervention paraprofessional who meets individually with Shelter Cove students on a weekly basis to provide social/emotional support. This Youth Worker is supervised by a Licensed Clinical Social Worker. Findings about Lighthouse Community Day School

Related Recommendations (2)

F57: Lighthouse Community Day School (grades 9-12) provides educational services to students who have been expelled or suspended from their comprehensive high school, are on probation, are wards of the court or are under the protection of the court because of neglect or abuse. Required instructional time is 360 minutes per day plus breaks and lunch; there are no minimum days to allow for teacher development.

F58: The maximum capacity is 24 students in two classrooms with a fitness room that is shared with Noyo Continuation High School. A basketball/sports court for Lighthouse and Noyo is included in the FBUSD 2007-08 facilities plan but has not yet been built.

F59: Current enrollment is 13 but only about half of the students are present on a typical day. Absences occur for a variety of reasons, including placement in Juvenile Hall.

F60: All students in the current class are on probation. Truancy is a violation of probation and can cause a student to be placed in Juvenile Hall. When students go back and forth between Juvenile Hall and their local school this disrupts their own learning and the classroom environment.

F61: Lighthouse is staffed by two credentialed teachers and a classified aide who is present during the instructional day. Students are sometimes combined in a single class. At other times, they are divided by grade level into two groups.

F62: The FBUSD Resource Specialist provides additional instructional support to one student who is on an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP).

F63: A supervised Youth Worker from the Youth Project sees the students as a group one day a week for approximately 30-40 minutes.

F64: Behavioral improvement and regular attendance are top priorities. Core subjects are taught in the morning and electives in the afternoon with an emphasis on fostering student engagement with the curriculum.

F65: Some students attend Regional Occupations Programs (ROP) at Fort Bragg High School.

F66: Lighthouse students must have written permission from their principal and from the Fort Bragg High School principal to attend sports events or other high school activities.

F67: The budget for Lighthouse was described as sufficient to meet the students’ instructional needs.

F68: The School Resource Officer is rarely on this campus.

F69: Most students are bilingual but many parents are not. The ability to speak Spanish is useful in communicating both with students and with their parents.

F70: Most staff who were interviewed stated that the students in Lighthouse this year have been more challenging than in previous years. Twelve of thirteen current students identify either with the Norteños or Súrtenos; gang affiliation (and ‘wannabes’) is an increasing problem on-campus and in the Fort Bragg Community. Findings about Noyo Continuation High School

F71: Noyo Continuation High School (Noyo) serves students 16-18 years of age who fall behind on high school credits, need a more structured learning environment, or who have jobs or other responsibilities that interfere with traditional high school schedules. Students attend four and one-half hours per day. Noyo has two classrooms, with a maximum enrollment of thirty students and shares a fitness room with Lighthouse School.

F72: The 27 students currently enrolled at Noyo are working on accruing the necessary credits and passing scores on the California High School Exit Exam in order to graduate.

F73: Noyo students tend to stay because of the individual attention, small class size, flexible scheduling and the “feeling of a family unit.”

F74: Two fully credentialed teachers share the teaching responsibilities. One teaches U.S. History, English, Government, Science and Fine Arts; the other teaches Economics, Math, PE, World History and Technology. Instruction is highly individualized and self-paced.

F75: All seniors are required to develop a Career Portfolio as their senior project. It must include a resume, letters of recommendation, job experiences, and sample job applications in areas of interest. Students share their portfolios in a PowerPoint presentation to the class as part of their final exam.

F76: In 2006-07, eight of the students were employed and received credit for work experience that was monitored by a work experience coordinator. At the time of the Grand Jury’s site visit in 2008, one Noyo student was earning work experience credit. What is Missing at the Alternative Schools?

F77: Students and teachers in north county and coastal Continuation and Community Day Schools receive significantly fewer resources from County agencies than those who live in the Ukiah Valley. Teachers lack the stable leadership and peer support available to their inland colleagues.

Related Recommendations (2)

F78: In response to Grand Jury questioning, some alternative school personnel reported a lack of support from the Fort Bragg District Office; others described the support as satisfactory.

Related Recommendations (2)

F79: A single Juvenile Probation Officer is responsible for the entire coast.

Related Recommendations (2)

R8: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north county and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F81: The professional mental health, alcohol and drug counseling services offered in Ukiah, are largely inaccessible to students on the coast.

Related Recommendations (2)

F82: A school bond that was passed approximately four years ago allocated funds for a basketball/sport court on the Lighthouse School grounds and a half basketball court at the Shelter Cove site. At the time of the Grand Jury site visit, the District had not yet developed these sorely needed facilities.

F83: A high student turnover rate, irregular attendance, family resistance, and district resources all contribute to difficulty in arranging for educational and/or psychological evaluation of alternative school students.

F84: Despite serving probationary youth, FBUSD Alternative Schools have no special security measures. They rely on calling 911.

Related Recommendations (2)

F85: Perimeter cameras are installed at Fort Bragg High School, but have not yet been installed at any of the Alternative Schools. Lighthouse and Noyo hold two emergency drills each year and Shelter Cove Middle School holds monthly emergency drills as required by law, with an emphasis on fire and earthquake drills. Lockdown drills have not been a priority. Classrooms are not equipped with inside safety locks. Some windows lack coverings that would shield students from view in the case of an emergency. Findings about Mendocino County Office of Education (MCOE)

Related Recommendations (2)

F86: MCOE operates a range of programs to serve students in need of alternative education. These include: • Court Schools • Community Schools • County Community Day Schools • Independent Study • A CalSAFE Program at Ukiah High School for pregnant and parenting teens and their children

Related Recommendations (1)

F87: MCOE programs serve approximately 250 alternative school students at any one time and more than 500 over the course of a year at 13 sites, primarily in the Ukiah Valley. MCOE provides no alternative education programs on the coast and minimal services in Willits.

Related Recommendations (1)

F88: An MCOE Resource Specialist works full-time in the MCOE alternative education classrooms with Special Education students who are on IEPs.

F89: All teachers are fully credentialed and working in their area of certification. They also have either CLAD or the SDIAE certification to work with English Language Learners.6

F90: All MCOE paraprofessionals who serve as classroom instructional aides hold associate of arts degrees or have passed proficiency tests. Several are bilingual. Information on Cross-Cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) certification or Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) certification is readily available on several websites.

F91: The staff meets weekly with counselors, probation officers, therapists and others to discuss students, discipline and academic progress.

F92: Due to the high adult-student ratio at the sites, there are few gang related problems or other violent incidents.

F93: State of the art video conferencing and high speed networking is available at MCOE for networking with teachers throughout the County.

Related Recommendations (1)

Related Recommendations (3)

F95: Juveniles who reside out of the Ukiah Valley area are eligible to attend many of the MCOE programs, but due to transportation and time factors they are essentially inaccessible.

Related Recommendations (2)

F96: Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency operates AODP. Services for juveniles are funded by grants. No County funds are specifically earmarked for AODP youth programs.

Related Recommendations (2)

F99: The MCOE Superintendent expressed a desire for all superintendents in the County to engage with MCOE in developing and expanding resources for district-operated alternative school programs.

Related Recommendations (2)

F100: FBUSD and other local school districts are co-signers with MCOE to the June 30, 2006 Triennial Plan to provide coordinated services to expelled youth.7 The Plan recognizes the gaps that exist in service availability to small rural school districts and proposes strategies to address the gaps at the district, regional and county level. The current Triennial Plan is up for review and revision by June 30, 2009.

Related Recommendations (2)

F101: The district of residence is required by law to develop a rehabilitation and educational plan for any student whose behavior has resulted in expulsion or who is simply in need of an educational alternative. MCOE may assist in implementation of this plan.

Related Recommendations (2)

June 09, 2008 — Hoops…now! Fort Bragg Unified School District Alternative Schools June 9, 2008

14 pages 99 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 99 findings

F1: Alternative Schools are designed to provide structured, highly individualized educational placements for at-risk students, as is required by law until the age of 18.

F2: Alternative School students demonstrate a wide range of academic development. Their behavior places them at serious risk of school and/or societal failure.

F5: Classrooms are equipped with hard-wired telephones. Cell phones are assigned to teachers for classes using the Lighthouse/Noyo fitness room.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north County and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented. As stated in findings Nos. 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, a new pilot program using EPSDT State funds ,and the new Wafer grant will assist in providing funds for more services County-wide and in north County and on the coast. Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F7: All classrooms appeared well organized, student oriented, and had current state adopted core curriculum books and materials.

F8: Technology was evident in every instructional classroom, with an ample number of computers and printers. Students have monitored access to the Internet to help them develop computer literacy.

F9: All of the students receive free meals provided on site.

F10: A stringently enforced code prohibits gang attire and colors, drug-related messages and other clothing or accessories likely to interfere with a positive campus atmosphere.

Related Recommendations (2)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north County and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented. As stated in findings Nos. 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, a new pilot program using EPSDT State funds ,and the new Wafer grant will assist in providing funds for more services County-wide and in north County and on the coast. Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

Related Recommendations (3)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north County and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented. As stated in findings Nos. 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, a new pilot program using EPSDT State funds ,and the new Wafer grant will assist in providing funds for more services County-wide and in north County and on the coast. Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F13: One Deputy Probation Officer, Juvenile Division, is assigned to provide court supervision for all probationary youth on the entire Mendocino County coast.

Related Recommendations (2)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north County and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented. As stated in findings Nos. 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, a new pilot program using EPSDT State funds ,and the new Wafer grant will assist in providing funds for more services County-wide and in north County and on the coast. Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F14: The Deputy Probation Officer interacts with probationary students on a regular basis. The Officer is the liaison between the Juvenile Court and the students.

Related Recommendations (2)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north County and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented. As stated in findings Nos. 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, a new pilot program using EPSDT State funds ,and the new Wafer grant will assist in providing funds for more services County-wide and in north County and on the coast. Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F15: One gang specialist works out of Willits to cover both the north county and coastal areas.

Related Recommendations (2)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north County and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented. As stated in findings Nos. 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, a new pilot program using EPSDT State funds ,and the new Wafer grant will assist in providing funds for more services County-wide and in north County and on the coast. Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F16: School attendance is a condition of probation. Truancy can result in a youth being placed in Juvenile Hall.

F17: When a student re-enters the class after being in Juvenile Hall, it can create a significant disruption in the atmosphere of the classroom.

F18: In the event of a serious problem the Fort Bragg Police or Mendocino Sheriff’s Department is contacted; response time was described as “adequate.”

Related Recommendations (2)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north County and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented. As stated in findings Nos. 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, a new pilot program using EPSDT State funds ,and the new Wafer grant will assist in providing funds for more services County-wide and in north County and on the coast. Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F19: A grant-funded School Resource Officer (SRO) serves as a community liaison between the schools and the Fort Bragg Police Department. His role is to promote positive community relations.

Related Recommendations (2)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north County and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented. As stated in findings Nos. 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, a new pilot program using EPSDT State funds ,and the new Wafer grant will assist in providing funds for more services County-wide and in north County and on the coast. Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F20: A single site administrator is responsible for all three Fort Bragg Alternative Schools and the Adult School.

F21: High turn over in administrative personnel over the last several years has made a lack of consistent, effective leadership an issue with the staff.

F23: The staff members who were interviewed are all experienced and are teaching in their areas of certification. They actively engage their students in pursuing educational goals that are aligned with State standards. 24. “…Teaching students with behavioral and social issues requires a specific group of skills that are not routinely taught in regular teacher education programs. The amount of time and training available are inadequate for the demands of the job. Assistance is needed to train and support teachers dealing with mentally and emotionally demanding students (sic).”4

F25: Five Professional Development Days are scheduled annually.5

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: MCOE and FBUSD redefine MCOE’s role in the updated Triennial Plan to ensure that FBUSD and other remote districts have access to support services, such as counseling, clean and sober classes, young parents programs and professional development for alternative school staff. (Findings 24-25, 31, 41, 77, 81, 87, 94, 95, 99-101)

Related Recommendations (1)

F27: All district instructional aides must hold an associate of arts degree and/or pass a proficiency test.

F28: An administrative policy clearly states that an instructional aide may not be left alone in the classroom with students.

F29: It is extremely difficult to recruit qualified bilingual aides in the Fort Bragg area. The current alternative school aides are not bilingual.

F31: The entire staff assumes the role of a counselor when students are in need of a caring concerned adult.

F34: Cultural, language and economic barriers make it difficult to engage parents in school site councils, committees and activities.

Related Recommendations (2)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north County and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented. As stated in findings Nos. 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, a new pilot program using EPSDT State funds ,and the new Wafer grant will assist in providing funds for more services County-wide and in north County and on the coast. Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F36: A majority of the principal’s time is spent on discipline.

Related Recommendations (2)

R82: 5. FBUSD install perimeter security cameras, classroom interior safety locks and window coverings in all alternative school classrooms. Hold lockdown drills on a regular basis. (Findings 11-12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 70, 84-85) 6. FBUSD administrators, Sheriff Deputies, Probation, SRO and other Fort Bragg Police Officers, Youth Workers and others who visit the alternative campuses make a concerted effort to increase the adult presence on campus and, especially, their visibility and informal interactions with students. (Findings 12-15, 18-19, 35-36, 49, 55-56, 63, 68, 70, 77-79, 92) 7. FBUSD Groundskeepers regularly maintain the alternative school campuses landscaping to ensure a welcoming appearance comparable with other FBUSD sites. (Finding 6) 8. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors review AODP and mental health funding and consider designating funds specifically for services to youth in north County and on the coast. (Findings 80-81, 94-98) Response: (Mendocino County Board of Supervisors) The recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented. As stated in findings Nos. 80, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98, a new pilot program using EPSDT State funds ,and the new Wafer grant will assist in providing funds for more services County-wide and in north County and on the coast. Comments Working with At Risk adolescents is intrinsically challenging. In alternative schools, teachers must cover a wide range of subjects at varied learning levels while also responding to their students’ serious behavioral issues. This results in an intense working environment and vulnerability to burnout. Gang activity in Fort Bragg has escalated behavioral issues and substance abuse among FBUSD students. FBUSD is to be commended for its early prevention and intervention programs and its community collaboration to control and offset gang influences. Security measures at the alternative school sites would complement these prevention and intervention efforts. Mitigating the risk of burnout is a high priority. The prevailing sense of isolation can be addressed, in part, through professional development and by enhancing the adult presence on the alternative school campuses. Timely completion of the promised sports courts would be one positive step. Another would be for MCOE to establish the recommended learning community for alternative school educators throughout the County, using a combination of face-to-face contact and teleconferencing. District leadership and community involvement, as in the exemplary partnership between Shelter Cove and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are invaluable to alternative school staff and their students. Jurors were impressed with the skill and dedication of the staff at both MCOE and Fort Bragg alternative schools, and with the observed camaraderie between students and staff. Bilingual, culturally sensitive staff members are particularly important in this setting. Staff morale at Fort Bragg was noticeably improved over last year, underscoring the impact of positive leadership.

F37: Isolated incidents of gang violence have occurred on campus.

F38: Juveniles with proven gang affiliations are required to register at the Fort Bragg Police Department.

F39: FBUSD has played a lead role in fostering community awareness concerning gang affiliations and violence. The District works closely with Fort Bragg Police Department, the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department and a wide range of community based organizations to curtail the incursion of gangs.

F40: The primary anti-gang focus for the district is on early prevention and interventions at the elementary and middle schools rather than at the comprehensive high school and alternative schools. To counteract gang 4 Excerpted from the FBUSD Single Plan for Student Achievement 2007-2008, approved by FBUSD Board on December 11, 2007. 5 “Professional Development Days” are contracted as paid days to be used for teacher professional development. exposure, the fifth grade curriculum includes the GRIP Program (Gang Resistance is Paramount).