Napa County Grand Jury
2021-2022
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (14)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The overall governance for juvenile justice is fragmented and ineffective. The administration and staff at JH are dedicated to youthful offenders, those in JH and those on probation. The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council [JJCC] is a body required by state law to receive certain juvenile justice state grant money. The Council is expected to allocate funds across the member entities sitting on the Council. Generally the funds go only to Probation. Neither the JJCC nor the JJC has addressed how Juvenile Hall’s physical facility can be modified, remodeled, and repurposed to serve more probationary youth. Although the JJCC is tasked with providing necessary coordination and collaboration, they have not provided the active oversight and direction necessary to maximize the public investment in Juvenile Hall and probationary youth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Under the leadership of its current chair or of a consultant hired for that purpose, the JJC, a state-mandated body, should generate a development program that expands its current understanding of the potential of its group for leadership for the juvenile justice system. The program should include, but not be limited to, activities such as those noted below. a. Confirm with the State of California that the Commission is properly interpreting and applying state legal requirements b. Study websites presented by more active JJC’s c. Report on activities broader in scope than their own d. Critique videos prepared to explain the functioning of JJC’s e. Conduct Zoom interviews with outstanding leaders of other JJC’s f. Consult with university researchers who focus on leadership for juvenile justice g. Sponsor training sessions organized by external organizations for JJC leaders h. Attend appropriate regional and State conferences
F2:
Inadequate documentation of probationary program experience. There are multiple paths through the three service systems for probationary youth. No case manager or data system tracks these program experiences. As a result of an inadequate data system, there is no way to tell how effective the different paths or programs may be, as recently noted by the State BSCC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
To insure oversight and transparency the Napa County Board of Supervisors should direct the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) to report to the Board of Supervisors on a regular schedule at public meetings of the BOS. The JJCC should add more public members, meet regularly as required by law, provide timely public notice of meetings with agendas, provide minutes, recorded video, and follow the requirements of the Brown Act.
F3:
Un-coordinated approach to service. From a case management perspective, probationary youth are supported by three different related, but currently un- coordinated, service systems: probation, education, and housing/homeless services. As a result, no one knows if probationary youth receive the services they legally deserve.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors should direct the JJCC to inform the public about participation in JJCC meetings, in person and by remote means and about obtaining agendas, minutes and reports necessary for participation. The JJCC should redo its webpage to create greater transparency. The Grand Jury suggests studying the San Francisco JJCC webpage (link below) as a model of transparency. The webpage should accurately reflect its origin in the law and its legal responsibilities and obligations. The webpage should also include the names and official contact information of JJCC members 11 and provide a contact number and email for questions about meetings and how to become a member. See https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/ufc/justice-commission https://sfgov.org/juvprobation/juvenile-justice-coordinating-council.
F4:
Reduced need for detention model. There are too few youth in need of Juvenile Hall’s traditional detention model. A powerful design for NHA would be a better path forward for this facility and for the youth of Napa. 10
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Under the leadership of the Chief Probation Officer, the JJCC, the JJ Commission, and Napa County’s CEO should collaboratively develop a strategy for an external group’s comparison of the functionality of the existing CJNET homegrown system to a modified commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) system in use for juvenile justice in other counties. With the goal of providing meaningful data analysis and analytics, including tracking programmatic experiences and effectiveness along with required state reports, while enabling data transparency, the external comparison should include at least the features named below. a. Cost, including staff time and licensing costs. The functionality of each; especially the data analytics function. Will the system require additional IT personnel interface for data analysis and report generation (as CJNet reportedly does now) or can staff manage the system without the need to rely on an external data analyst? In sum, what functions will be delivered at the user level? b. The relative times for development (acknowledging that any COTS system will likely need to be customized) and implementation of each system. c. The availability and cost of training of each system, relying on an external data analyst. In sum, what functions will be delivered at the user level? d. The relative times for development (acknowledging that any COTS system will likely need to be customized) and implementation of each system. e. The availability and cost of training of each system.
F5:
Probationary youth need unused beds. Juvenile Hall has many unused beds, while many probationary Napa youth are homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Chief Probation Officer should engage the JJCC, the Commission, and NCOE in the design, creation, and implementation of New Horizons Academy as a way to address excess Juvenile Hall capacity and the needs of a broader range of youth. The design should focus on the provision of additional services to probationary youth not requiring detention in a secure facility, but who would benefit from a supervised residential program with easy access to a comprehensive educational program and mental health services. Some of these needy youth may be homeless. The design should also focus on the beneficial features offered by the JH’s audio studio.
F6:
Educational program in need of improvement. JH needs to develop a viable New Horizons Academy to serve a broader range of probationary youth. Crossroads needs a literacy program that permits social interaction about what is read; a computer-based program that focuses on individual interest with isolated youth does not do that. JH also needs to work with the county library to develop an educational program that teaches youth to use a sophisticated library system. In addition, JH needs to develop new occupational activities similar to those undertaken with the audio studio. Overall, adults involved in the education of youth in the probation system need to investigate how the agency, literacy, and real work features of the audio studio can provided to all youth for whom they are responsible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Leaders from the Office of Probation, from NCOE, and from the Napa County Library should meet to study programs in other counites and to develop an informal memo of understanding to outline how youth in JH will have full access to robust library services. The library program in Contra Costa County should be one of those studied. 12
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The NCOE should recognize the Crossroads classroom as a unique planning unit within Camille Creek School and allow the Crossroads teacher the discretion to identify appropriate instructional programs, especially those for language literacy. NCOE should also provide the Crossroads classroom with necessary budgetary resources for the chosen programs, especially those for language literacy.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The existing Airport terminal and fixed base operations need renovation and updating to be more efficient, generate more revenue, attract more aviation, and present a better visual representation of the County.
F2:
The Airport operates as a County enterprise fund; its non-property tax revenues can only be used for the benefit of the Airport according to FAA grant assurances.
F3:
The Airport has a yearly operational deficit that can be addressed or reduced through increased lease revenue and fees and fuel taxes, which are unlikely to occur without terminal and fixed base operation renovation and updating.
F4:
In order to renovate and update the Airport terminal and fixed base operations, the County needs to (a) acquire a second FBO long-term leasehold and/or (b) negotiate a new consolidated lease with the existing FBO.
F5:
It is unknown whether the Airport can sustain two FBOs.
F6:
The County is obligated to adhere to its FAA grant assurances in its dealing with any FBO, including ensuring any leasehold does not violate provisions governing economic non- discrimination, exclusive rights and land banking.
F7:
Outside of the 2007 Airport Master Plan (which assumptions have been proven by time to be significantly inaccurate), there is not a current vision for the Airport that is endorsed by the Board, which addresses issues like the use of facilities, attraction of commercial entities, relationship to broader transportation planning or public engagement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By January 1, 2023 the Board should articulate and publish a clear written vision for the Airport which provides for the modernization of the Airport, accommodates Napa County’s residents, tourism, and business needs, integrates with other transportation planning, and articulates a meaningful role for the Commission, while also remaining true to the character and values of Napa County.
F8:
The Board and Senior County Officials have often disagreed as to how best to renovate and upgrade the terminal and fixed based operations, including when to renegotiate with the Incumbent FBO, whether to acquire a second FBO, and the interpretation of its obligations under FAA grant assurances.
F9:
The County failed to keep Airport PMCDs current; failure to update them for approximately four decades caused delays in releasing the RFP.
F10:
After the County decided to use an RFP process to acquire a second FBO, it did not adequately think through the timeline and elements required (e.g., update PMCDs, complete an environmental assessment, etc.), leading to unrealistic timelines and expectations.
F11:
Failure to coalesce behind a two FBO strategy by all Board members and Senior County officials once the RFP strategy was adopted, led to FBOs (prospective and the Incumbent FBO) aggressively pursuing a sole FBO strategy in their proposals and discussions with the County, elongating and muddling the process.
F12:
While the County provided updates regarding the RFP process to the Commission, its members felt the County was not transparent (i.e., overusing confidentiality for real estate negotiations concerns as an excuse) and did not adequately consult them; as a result many of its members questioned the purpose of the Commission.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
In order to ensure the County is more transparent in the future, the Board and County Executive should complete a review by January 1, 2023, of the process to acquire a second FBO to determine how it could have been more transparent and managed expectations better and present its findings and recommendations during a public Board meeting.
F13:
The County should have managed expectations better and been more transparent by having a communications plan which included more formal stakeholder check-ins, data sharing, 22 repeated reminders of strategic goals, robust process status updates, and proactive public out- reach.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
In order to ensure the County is more transparent in the future, the Board and County Executive should complete a review by January 1, 2023, of the process to acquire a second FBO to determine how it could have been more transparent and managed expectations better and present its findings and recommendations during a public Board meeting.
F14:
Allegations from multiple interviewees with first-hand knowledge that closed Board sessions were misused/overused are credible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By October 1, 2022, the Board should undertake a review of its use of, and the procedures associated with, closed sessions, to ensure that they are in accord with statutory requirements and further the interests of open government; its findings and recommendations should be presented in a public Board meeting.
F15:
Allegations from multiple interviewees with first-hand knowledge that confidential information was leaked by non-County staff from closed Board sessions to entities and individuals who were not authorized to receive that information, including FBO entities involved in negotiations with the County, are credible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By October 1, 2022, the Board should undertake a review of its procedures to ensure that information that should remain confidential during closed sessions is not inappropriately communicated to non-authorized entities and individuals; its findings and recommendations should be presented in a public Board meeting.
F16:
Overuse of closed sessions, leaks and a failure of the Board and senior County officials to act in a unified manner, complicated and undercut the RFP process, undermined staff, complicated negotiations, and elongated the process.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
By October 1, 2022, the Board should undertake a review of its use of, and the procedures associated with, closed sessions, to ensure that they are in accord with statutory requirements and further the interests of open government; its findings and recommendations should be presented in a public Board meeting.
R4:
By October 1, 2022, the Board should undertake a review of its procedures to ensure that information that should remain confidential during closed sessions is not inappropriately communicated to non-authorized entities and individuals; its findings and recommendations should be presented in a public Board meeting.
R5:
For fiscal year 2023, the Napa County Auditor-Controller should consider internal reviews/audits of (a) the Airport FBO RFP process, (b) the controls and processes governing the use of closed Board sessions, and (c) the controls and processes used to safeguard the confidentiality of information associated with County RFP processes and contractual negotiations. 23
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The current number of Probation Officers assigned to the Department appears to be sufficient with respect to maintaining the system. However, there are additional training and rehabilitation activities that are not being provided due to probation officers’ high volume of Court appearances, submission of Court reports, meetings with victims and families, and ongoing supervision of probationers. The hiring of additional Probation Officers would help spread the work out more evenly and help to reduce recidivism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Adult Probation Department should hire additional staff to handle the 1,300 to 1,400 yearly supervision cases. Increased caseloads limit the ability to provide more individualized treatment services and case supervision.
F2:
The Probation Department is currently working to develop a coordinated case management system, which will assist Probation Officers in managing their caseloads and provide information about the types of services received by probationers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Chief Probation Officer and Director of IT Services should continue to improve the Napa County Criminal Justice Network (CJNet) by increasing the capacity for analyzing data changes and trends over time in order to improve treatment delivery and case supervision. A data “warehouse” system would facilitate Information Technology (IT) coordination between the Police Department and other law enforcement agencies.
F3:
There are no formal quality assurance and performance evaluation programs to measure the impact that therapeutic treatment activities are having on reducing recidivism. There should be in-house research examining whether cognitive-behavioral groups led by Probation Officers have a positive impact on reducing recidivism. F.4 The Adult Probation Department utilizes Evidence-Based practices such as cognitive behavior therapy but does not collect its own data (outcome measures) as to the efficacy of these groups in reducing recidivism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Adult Probation Department should develop a formal quality assurance and performance evaluation component to ensure that treatment programs are having a positive impact on recidivism and that Probation Officers are meeting performance standards.
F4:
The Adult Probation Department utilizes Evidence-Based practices such as cognitive behavior therapy but does not collect its own data (outcome measures) as to the efficacy of these groups in reducing recidivism. F5. Water leaks in the Probation Department have been reported over a period of ten years. Air testing for contaminants such as lead and mold has been requested and air samples have been taken. Public Works has been responsive to reports of water leakage and has followed up with proper clean-up of potentially hazardous materials. F6. Violations of the terms of probation result primarily from the presence of mental illness, drug usage, or gang involvement, but the Department lacks the resources to effectively treat individuals with these designations. F7. The definition of recidivism used in the past is a new violation of the law that occurs during a probation supervision term. There are many ways that recidivism has been looked at in the past under previous administrations. Recidivism is a key subject for data analysis that must be looked at in the future. F8. The job satisfaction of Probation Officers is high yet there can be considerable stress given the constant exposure to handling complex and heart-rending cases involving victims and their families.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Adult Probation Department should generate its own evidence as to how effective treatment services are with respect to reducing recidivism.
F5:
Water leaks in the Probation Department have been reported over a period of ten years. Air testing for contaminants such as lead and mold has been requested and air samples have been taken. Public Works has been responsive to reports of water leakage and has followed up with proper clean-up of potentially hazardous materials.
F6:
Violations of the terms of probation result primarily from the presence of mental illness, drug usage, or gang involvement, but the Department lacks the resources to effectively treat individuals with these designations.
F7:
The definition of recidivism used in the past is a new violation of the law that occurs during a probation supervision term. There are many ways that recidivism has been looked at in the past under previous administrations. Recidivism is a key subject for data analysis that must be looked at in the future. 11
F8:
The job satisfaction of Probation Officers is high yet there can be considerable stress given the constant exposure to handling complex and heart-rending cases involving victims and their families. F.9 Since the 2008-2009 Grand Jury investigation there has been a minimal turnover of Probation Officers and consistent reports of job satisfaction and good morale. In addition, opportunities for career advancement are available. 12
F9:
Since the 2008-2009 Grand Jury investigation there has been a minimal turnover of Probation Officers and consistent reports of job satisfaction and good morale. In addition, opportunities for career advancement are available. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
§ Director of Information Technology Services
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Literal homelessness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Literal homelessness.
F2:
At-risk of imminent homelessness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
At-risk of imminent homelessness.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Youth defined as experiencing homelessness under other federal statutory definitions including the definition used by school districts, 42 USC 11434a(2). OR
R4:
Survivors who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, have no other residence, and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing. UNSHELTERED VS SHELTERED HOMELESS: Among those in category 1, individuals experiencing homelessness are further identified as either unsheltered or sheltered: • An UNSHELTERED individual is one whose primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not meant for human habitation. 303 592 • A SHELTERED individual is one living in a designated publicly- or privately- operated emergency shelter providing temporary, safe living arrangements. 161 484 CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS: An individual experiencing homelessness is further identified as CHRONICALLY HOMELESS when: 203 405 • The individual has experienced unsheltered or sheltered homelessness for more than 12 of the previous 36 months, and has a disability. AT-RISK OF EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS: NOT INCLUDED 624 Individuals who have sought help from service providers to avoid experiencing in PIT count homelessness. 2 3 20 1 In 2020, the Napa Police Department Outreach Team posted the following data, which was collected separately 2 from the HMIS data system and provides some perspective on the types of services received by those clients who 3 were willing to speak with outreach workers: Number of People Served Housed 32 Diverted to housing by paid bus with services or other modes of transportation. Contacted in the Office 135 Contacted in the Field/ Street Outreach 929 Drug & Alcohol 180 Crisis/detox Contacts Mental Health Contacts 123 Homeless Prevention (Homes Saved from eviction) 55 4 21
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
A very large portion of the County’s population is protected from the most severe effects of Covid because they have received FDA-approved vaccinations. An increasingly large number of adults have received boosters and children are receiving vaccinations that have FDA emergency use approvals for vaccines for the younger age groups. As of the date of this report, however, approved vaccinations were still not available for children under age 5.
F2:
PHD staff, led by Dr. Karen Relucio, has worked long hours with high energy and great diligence to deal with the many challenges related to the Covid pandemic response. They have performed admirably and provided effective and needed leadership to the County’s Covid vaccination rollout efforts.
F3:
The scope of services for which the Napa County PHD has been funded has decreased over the last several decades. During the County’s Covid response, PHD worked extremely well within the limits of its funding and intended scope but lacked sufficient resources to be more fully involved in actually administering vaccinations and performing testing. The precise roles that PHD plays versus those of the rest of the healthcare system should be considered carefully. The Grand Jury found that the success of the County’s Covid Pandemic response relied extensively on the participation, resources, goodwill, initiative, and cooperation of volunteers and private entities (commercial and non-profit). The current County public health model should be carefully evaluated to ensure that the success of PHD could be repeated predictably, should a County response of the magnitude required for Covid be necessary in the future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
As part of this After-Action Review, the County should evaluate the role, staffing, and funding of PHD to determine what changes and enhancements should be made so that the division can both meet the County’s ongoing public health needs and be optimally staffed to address its potential response roles in a future public health emergency. If the review determines that staffing and funding of PHD should be enhanced, a timeline and action plan should be established to implement the enhancements.
F4:
The County did not have an adequate plan in place to readily guide the County’s Covid vaccination rollout. While PHD communicated frequently and regularly with the many responding non-governmental entities, the roles, responsibilities, and scope of involvement of those entities were generally not well-articulated in a plan and not fully anticipated by some of the participants. Some of the responding entities were more cooperative and better- 21 PHD’s vaccination statistics are not sufficiently precise to accurately calculate the extent of this phenomenon and there were many reasons for residents to seek their vaccinations elsewhere; however, during this period most neighboring counties imposed “residents only” restrictions on their vaccine applications, which would seem to make it more difficult to get vaccinations outside of Napa. 11 able (or better-resourced) than others. If these anticipated response participants and their roles are not better addressed by a County plan, or in agreements or memoranda of understanding with the parties, there may be inefficiencies, redundancies, and gaps in effort as a result.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County should conduct a Covid response After-Action Review, identify lessons learned from its response activities, and fund and implement the review’s findings. The review should not be conducted solely by County government “insiders,” but also should include other stakeholders and as well as County residents.
R3:
The County should revise its Emergency Response Plans so that it is better prepared should a similar public health emergency occur in the future. The plans should attempt to spell out or better provide for the significant roles that are expected to be performed by private, non- governmental entities. For example, in a pandemic response the PHD may be expected to play a largely oversight and coordination role and would not itself be staffed to perform large-volume administration of vaccines or testing of them. If that is the case, the roles of private, non-governmental entities that will do the bulk of the vaccinations and testing should be documented in the plans and, to the extent possible, in contracts or memoranda of understanding with the County. Their work should be financially supported by the County in appropriate cases. If significant roles and responsibilities are not better-documented, PHD will continue to spend a great deal of its energy during a response trying to enlist and coordinate the participation of others. If this happens, the County runs the risk that those parties will not be as able or willing to play certain key functions, including devoting and donating the needed resources, should the need arise.
F5:
Response plans for public health emergencies cannot anticipate all possible contingencies. On the other hand, the Covid response illustrated a range of issues for which advance work on identifying options and available resources is paramount. Alternatives for vaccine storage, handling, and distribution, possible eligibility criteria for the order in which individuals receive vaccinations, communication approaches for more effectively notifying residents about vaccines and vaccinations, and mechanisms for easier access to vaccination appointments for all county residents should all be assessed. The County does not always have significant leeway when it is required to follow the lead of State and Federal governments, but the County must be prepared for those instances where such leadership is not forthcoming or circumstances do not allow time to develop and evaluate options in a leisurely fashion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Based on its Covid response experiences, PHD should assess what advance work can be done on identifying optional approaches and available resources to reduce its real time burden in the event of a similar future public health response.
F6:
The County’s Covid Pandemic response was made more difficult at times by the vast scope of what was needed. In addition, some State and Federal government decisions, actions, policies, and policy changes caused complications, as did inconsistent communication from the State to the counties.
F7:
The County did not always effectively communicate with its residents during the Covid vaccine rollout. Insufficient PIO resources, frequent turnover in the PIO role, and a lack of support or emphasis by County leadership for open and proactive communication undercut the County’s efforts. The County did not communicate enough with county residents about the effectiveness of Covid 19 vaccines and the availability of vaccinations at a time when residents deserved more. Residents were not given enough reassurance that the County was on top of the issues and up to the task of making sure that timely vaccinations would be available for everyone who wanted them (although thankfully, it turned out that they were). Some residents’ concerns are illustrated by the large number who felt that they had to seek vaccinations from sources outside the County.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The County should conduct a Covid response After-Action Review, identify lessons learned from its response activities, and fund and implement the review’s findings. The review should not be conducted solely by County government “insiders,” but also should include other stakeholders and as well as County residents.
R6:
The County should also provide additional PIO resources so that the County government can more effectively, accurately, and proactively communicate with its residents about critical information. The County should, at a minimum, have separate PIOs for emergency operations and the County’s day-to-day functions. Additional resources should be allocated 14 to develop public information support capacities throughout the County government, not just a single position at its center. This should include subject matter experts designated in key groups like Public Health who are trained and able to work on public information issues and assist those with PIO responsibilities. County residents deserve clear and informative communication from their government.
R7:
The EOC and the County’s Response Plans for public health emergencies should include more detailed PIO/communication details than presently exist. They should define and allocate the needed communication approaches and resources and identify the technical and public information skills required to fill those roles. Communication plans should spell out available communication mechanisms, stress the importance of proactive communication to residents about the risks of the public health concern, and explain the importance of the treatment or vaccination and how to readily obtain it.
F8:
The Grand Jury observed that County government leaders devote few resources to the PIO function; as a result, those assigned to the task often had so many demands on their time that they had little capacity to engage in anything but reactive communication efforts. The County has usually had only one PIO on staff to handle communication about all County issues, even during emergencies. This staffing was clearly insufficient during the County’s Covid response.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The County should conduct a Covid response After-Action Review, identify lessons learned from its response activities, and fund and implement the review’s findings. The review should not be conducted solely by County government “insiders,” but also should include other stakeholders and as well as County residents.
R6:
The County should also provide additional PIO resources so that the County government can more effectively, accurately, and proactively communicate with its residents about critical information. The County should, at a minimum, have separate PIOs for emergency operations and the County’s day-to-day functions. Additional resources should be allocated 14 to develop public information support capacities throughout the County government, not just a single position at its center. This should include subject matter experts designated in key groups like Public Health who are trained and able to work on public information issues and assist those with PIO responsibilities. County residents deserve clear and informative communication from their government.
R7:
The EOC and the County’s Response Plans for public health emergencies should include more detailed PIO/communication details than presently exist. They should define and allocate the needed communication approaches and resources and identify the technical and public information skills required to fill those roles. Communication plans should spell out available communication mechanisms, stress the importance of proactive communication to residents about the risks of the public health concern, and explain the importance of the treatment or vaccination and how to readily obtain it.
F9:
The Grand Jury found no evidence of a coordinated effort by the County to try to systematically deliver, directly or through healthcare providers, some form of individual communication to each County resident reassuring them about the utility and importance of receiving vaccinations and providing assistance about how to obtain them. Telling residents to sign up for MyTurn was not a panacea for the first five months of the vaccination rollout.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County should conduct a Covid response After-Action Review, identify lessons learned from its response activities, and fund and implement the review’s findings. The review should not be conducted solely by County government “insiders,” but also should include other stakeholders and as well as County residents.
R8:
Whenever a mass-vaccination effort is needed, the County should identify mechanisms to systematically deliver, directly or through healthcare providers, individual communication to each resident about the importance of receiving vaccination or other treatment and assistance to readily obtain them.
F10:
Many County residents, including “at-risk” groups, did not have sufficient access to computers, reliable internet access, or tech-savviness to get access to vaccination appointments. For these and other reasons, they were at a significant disadvantage. The County’s call center and outreach efforts helped, but awareness about the scope of these 12 services was limited. The County seemed to provide insufficient assistance to these residents, especially when vaccine doses were in short supply.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The County should consider whether procuring a mobile clinic vehicle (or similar capability), along with sufficient staff to operate it, would assist PHD in their off-site vaccination efforts or other responsibilities.
F11:
The County’s initial choice to use an EOC personnel structure for the Covid response was appropriate and important but using it continuously for over a year and a half resulted in a depleted and exhausted County workforce and left many other County services unperformed for a long period.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County should conduct a Covid response After-Action Review, identify lessons learned from its response activities, and fund and implement the review’s findings. The review should not be conducted solely by County government “insiders,” but also should include other stakeholders and as well as County residents.
R5:
Napa County’s EOC model should be evaluated to determine how it can be better structured to manage concurrent emergencies. The EOC plan should also establish a process that requires the transition from “emergency” to “ongoing” response after a much shorter period of time than was employed for the Covid response. After the transition the focal activity (in this case Public Health) should be adequately reinforced to continue the County’s response activities. This would allow (a) non-emergency County functions to more quickly return to normal and County staffers to return to their roles and responsibilities, (b) less-encumbered County emergency resources would be available should a concurrent emergency occur, and (c) the integrity of the County workforce would be maintained.
F12:
The County either did not sufficiently consider transitioning earlier to a different personnel structure than the EOC or allocated insufficient resources to evaluate and implement other options for continuing its Covid response. A different personnel structure than the “all hands-on deck” EOC approach used for Covid (even though its sense of urgency was toned down to some extent over time) could have allowed some County resources to return more quickly to their normal functions, while providing additional needed technical and other support to the PHD to continue their response work.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County should conduct a Covid response After-Action Review, identify lessons learned from its response activities, and fund and implement the review’s findings. The review should not be conducted solely by County government “insiders,” but also should include other stakeholders and as well as County residents.
R5:
Napa County’s EOC model should be evaluated to determine how it can be better structured to manage concurrent emergencies. The EOC plan should also establish a process that requires the transition from “emergency” to “ongoing” response after a much shorter period of time than was employed for the Covid response. After the transition the focal activity (in this case Public Health) should be adequately reinforced to continue the County’s response activities. This would allow (a) non-emergency County functions to more quickly return to normal and County staffers to return to their roles and responsibilities, (b) less-encumbered County emergency resources would be available should a concurrent emergency occur, and (c) the integrity of the County workforce would be maintained.
F13:
The County’s ability to respond to other emergencies could have been significantly hindered by the long-term use of this EOC structure for the Covid response. Due to Napa County’s relatively small size, many of the same resources must be employed whenever County responds to fires, earthquakes, and other emergencies, including substantial public health group resources. It is beyond the scope of this investigation to assess whether the County’s emergency responses to the devastating fires from August through October 2020 were hampered by the continued use of the EOC structure approach for Covid, or whether key staff were over-stretched and not performing at peak efficiency. There is little question that the County was very lucky that the 2021 fire season in Napa was a relatively quiet one.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County should conduct a Covid response After-Action Review, identify lessons learned from its response activities, and fund and implement the review’s findings. The review should not be conducted solely by County government “insiders,” but also should include other stakeholders and as well as County residents.
R5:
Napa County’s EOC model should be evaluated to determine how it can be better structured to manage concurrent emergencies. The EOC plan should also establish a process that requires the transition from “emergency” to “ongoing” response after a much shorter period of time than was employed for the Covid response. After the transition the focal activity (in this case Public Health) should be adequately reinforced to continue the County’s response activities. This would allow (a) non-emergency County functions to more quickly return to normal and County staffers to return to their roles and responsibilities, (b) less-encumbered County emergency resources would be available should a concurrent emergency occur, and (c) the integrity of the County workforce would be maintained.
F14:
This investigation did not include a review of the “vaccine inquiry” involving a County Supervisor that was conducted by the law firm Meyers Nave at the behest of the Board of Supervisors (report dated 5/5/2021). However, multiple interviewees volunteered their concerns about the timing of the inquiry (seen as unnecessarily during the height of the vaccine rollout) and its purpose. During the investigation, PHD staff was diverted from their vital responsibilities responding to a public health emergency just to be scrutinized and questioned by Meyers Nave. The Grand Jury was told multiple times that the inquiry left an already over-taxed and over-stressed staff extremely demoralized. Apparently, those wounds have not healed. COMMENDATION The Grand Jury commends the Napa County PHD for their dedication, leadership, and commitment to the residents of Napa County in all aspects of the County’s Covid response, including providing Covid vaccinations. 13
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The City of Napa’s Community Development Department’s IT system is obsolete, does not meet current needs, and has contributed to delays in review processes. The Cultural Heritage Commission is a five-member advisory body to the City Council on matters related to preservation of historic resources. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that management fast-track the implementation of the Tyler Intergov Information System and encourage CDD’S employees in their training and use of the new system.
F2:
A new IT system will be implemented by the City over the next 16-18 months starting in February 2022.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City should designate a project manager to have oversight over the review process for plans as they move through departments and oversee the timeframe to increase efficiency.
F3:
The contracts for the new IT system have been signed and the funds allocated. The CDD currently does not use the current IT system but in the future it will be integrated into the new IT system. The new system will be Tyler Intergov and is cloud based, which is a substantial advantage. This system will be integrated into all of the other City systems of the other departments that are involved in the application review process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City should develop an historic buildings resource database and integrate it into its new IT system.
F4:
Most documents project applicants need to complete the CDD review process will be submitted and available online at full implementation of the new IT system. It will no longer be necessary to provide multiple copies of plans because all departments involved in the review process of projects will be able to access the same data online.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury suggests that the Planning Commission and City Council meet yearly to discuss future growth and development issues. 9
F5:
The CDD’s application review process and general responsiveness to the public were adversely affected by the COVID pandemic.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Community Development Department should educate the public about the Napa City fee structures to make clear they they include services that are not offered by other cities. This approach results in extra costs outside the fee services in those other cities.
F6:
Citizen groups often provide new information at the public meetings to the Planning Commission which can result in a delay of a project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the CDD either designate a planning staff member or contract with a consultant who specializes historic preservation.
F7:
The Grand Jury believes that CDD’s fees are appropriate since they cover services not provided by other jurisdictions.
F8:
The absence of expertise in CDD regarding the renovation of historic sites means that some historic building project applications might not receive appropriate review.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The CAC has not been effective in developing and implementing actions for county-wide programs to combat climate change.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CAC should increase the sense of urgency in implementing GHG emission reduction actions.
F2:
Interviews of Napa CAC members confirmed that the Napa County CAC has decided not to take any major steps toward greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction until the GHG study is released.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The CAC should create monitoring protocols that seek to identify what its individual members have set as goals and to identify whether they have met meaningful standards consistent with those goals. These should be formalized and reported to the CAC on a quarterly basis. R.3 The CAC should provide a detailed prioritized list of potential projects for possible grant funding and either retain or designate a current staff person as a grant researcher and writer to identify and seek grants from any possible source. R.4. The CAC should restructure itself to provide authority over and accountability of its member jurisdictions. 7
F3:
Interviews revealed that the CAC was generally unfamiliar with the EV charging station subsidy programs currently available through the California Energy Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The CAC should provide a detailed prioritized list of potential projects for possible grant funding and either retain or designate a current staff person as a grant researcher and writer to identify and seek grants from any possible source.
F4:
The CAC struggles with a lack of county-wide GHG mitigation funding. However, it has not placed a priority on having an experienced, effective grant and funding pursuit individual on staff to seek and secure GHG reduction grants, even though grant subsidies for programs like EV charging stations currently exist.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The CAC should restructure itself to provide authority over and accountability of its member jurisdictions. R5. To benefit its work, the CAC should consider the following actions: • Reducing the number of CAC members, currently from 12 (2 per jurisdiction), to 6 (1 per jurisdiction) to facilitate faster action, use of advisors and plan development. • Utilize county citizens familiar with GHG emission reduction strategies to assist the CAC in the preparation of recommended actions. RESPONSES The following responses under Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 are requested from the following elected city officials: REQUIRED RESPONSES § Town Council of Yountville § City Councils of Napa, American Canyon, St. Helena and Calistoga § The Napa County Board of Supervisors § The Climate Action Committee, a Joint Powers Agreement Authority under California law 8
F5:
Past studies have stated that the two largest GHG emission categories are Transportation and Buildings. The Grand Jury’s interviews confirm that these two categories are expected to remain the top two items in the GHG study currently underway. The CAC in its three years of existence has not defined and proposed any action items to address the top two categories of emissions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
To benefit its work, the CAC should consider the following actions: • Reducing the number of CAC members, currently from 12 (2 per jurisdiction), to 6 (1 per jurisdiction) to facilitate faster action, use of advisors and plan development. • Utilize county citizens familiar with GHG emission reduction strategies to assist the CAC in the preparation of recommended actions. RESPONSES The following responses under Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 are requested from the following elected city officials:
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Napa County Animal Shelter cares for approximately 150-200 animals every month. The Shelter has the ability to quarantine animals, administer medications, isolate problem animals when necessary, and rehabilitate some animals demonstrating problematic behaviors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to resolve animal behavior problems more rapidly, this Grand Jury recommends that the Shelter secure a contract with a Certified Animal Behaviorist. This specialist would be asked to commit to a defined period of time each week/month to develop a program for each such animal that may ultimately lead to adoptability. In the contrary situation the Behaviorist, with concurrence from a Shelter supervisory person, may determine that no amount of behavior modification training will guarantee that an animal will be able to thrive in a home environment without the possibility of future aggression or unpredictable impulsive actions.
F2:
Impounded or surrendered animals with significant behavioral problems create an immediate barrier to adoption or foster care. The Napa County Code requires that a pro-bono Animal Behaviorist attend to these problematic situations; this can be difficult and time-consuming to manage. During the Grand Jury’s visit to the Shelter, several dogs were observed to be agitated inside their enclosures and were generally unapproachable due to the potential for injury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Ordinance currently states that two county personnel, neither of whom reports to the other, have the authority to euthanize animals after seven specific steps outlined in the Ordinance have been completed regardless of health, injury, feral nature, or age. An exception to these conditions should be made when the suffering cannot be relieved, i.e., irremediable suffering. In this instance, this Grand Jury recommends that the two county personnel (a Shelter Attendant and 9 the Shelter Manager) should have the authority to euthanize an animal without having completed these steps, if it has been determined that an animal is suffering needlessly. A ballot measure with voter approval would be required to expand this exception to include Animal Shelter staff. Shelter personnel are fully trained and competent to perform owner requested euthanasia; this Grand Jury recommends that they should have the authority to do so when necessary to relieve irremediable suffering.
F3:
A dog with a feral nature must be offered to a non-profit organization for possible adoption.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
COMMENDATION: The Shelter personnel have a unique responsibility within Napa County governmental agencies. They must accommodate the needs of the public and provide shelter for animals sometimes under trying emotional circumstances. They are able to care for many species of animals besides dogs, cats, and rabbits, which are the focus of the Live Release Statistics. They have on occasion housed various birds, chickens, rodents, cattle, pigs, and horses particularly when a natural disaster occurs, such as recent wildfires.
F4:
Socialization, including a mitigation plan to deal with the behavior problems of aggressive animals, may not be achievable given the obstacle of obtaining a pro bono behaviorist. This path is rarely viable since the time devoted to the animal is limited and may be insufficient to change the animal’s behavior and make it suitable for adoption.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
COMMENDATION: Shelter personnel seek to find alternatives for surrendered animals, such as non-profit animal welfare organizations able to adopt animals and locate foster homes, often a difficult task.
F5:
Shelter managers explained that the requirement for approval to euthanize animals must be obtained by a licensed veterinarian via a telephone consultation. This requirement can result in unintended consequences when a veterinarian’s approval cannot be quickly obtained. There may be requests for vital signs, injury identification, or other specific information, which take time to provide and are likely to lead to the same conclusion held by the Shelter personnel in the first case, i.e., the animal cannot be saved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
COMMENDATION: Based on site visits and interviews with Shelter personnel, two Animal Services officers, and two volunteers, the Shelter has performed a very credible job in improving the Live Release outcomes while meeting Measure A requirements.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Many Angwin residents interviewed stated they did not recall having received notice prior to the Napa County Board of Supervisors’ ‘yes vote’ in favor of keeping Old Howell Mountain Road closed. The Grand Jury is aware that under the Brown Act, no more than 72 hours’ notice of any agenda item is required. But depite repeated efforts, the Grand Jury was unable to confirm that even so minimal a notice occurred. Moreover, given the level of local concern about Old Howell Mountain Road, more prominent notice and even the opportunity for a public hearing would have been appropriate. Had this happened, years of concern and confusion could have been avoided.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Napa County Office of Emergency Services should hold a public forum with Angwin residents and explain the reasons for the closure of Old Howell Mountain Road. Other relevant agencies should be invited to attend.
F2:
These residents believe that they did not receive an explanation of why Old Howell Mountain was not repaired and they were not adequately represented in the decision-making process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
During this forum, the Napa County Office of Emergency Services should explain feasibility and potential cost of repairing the road.
F3:
The residents of Angwin have been impacted multiple times by evacuations due to wildfires and want to have as many evacuation routes as possible, in order to avoid a tradgedy like the Paradise, California scenario.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The forum should provide residents an opportunity to have their questions answered and to express their opinions about the decision to close Old Howell Mountian Road. This forum should take place before September 1, 2022.
F4:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors caused unnecessary mistrust in their local government by not sufficiently communicating with Angwin-area residents regarding the closure of Old Howell Mountain Road.
F5:
Multiple agencies, including , Napa County Office of Emergency Services, Napa County Public Works, CalFire, Napa County Fire Department and local construction companies have deemed the road unrepairable, due to a nearly three-mile long section of unstable ground and other hazards; however, the Napa County Office of Emergency Services and the Napa 1 Only after careful research was the Grand Jury able to find a general reference to Howell Mountain Road on the December 8, 2020 Board of Supervisors meeting agenda. Item 10B included the following: “Director of Public Works requests discussion and possible direction on the status of Old Howell Mountain Road.” Supporting Documents and a Roads 4 Year Plan were also referenced. Public comments by one resident were not read but added subsequently after the meeting. There was no mention of a final vote. County Board of Supervisors did not effectively communicate to the public their reasons for their decision not to repair the road.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
A guilty plea can have serious consequences for any misdemeanor defendant, including an increase in potential penalties on future charges.
F2:
A guilty plea by a non-citizen misdemeanor defendant can have additional serious consequences, including immediate deportation on the charges, or deportation on future charges.
F3:
There are likely cases where unrepresented misdemeanor defendants pleaded guilty without full comprehension of the potential consequences on their immigration status or future penalty increases.
F4:
Where a Public Defender is appointed, the potential for a defendant to make a fully informed response to a proffer, i.e., a proposed resolution, is much greater.
F5:
Avoiding the unintended consequences described above would be enhanced if there was a Public Defender in the courtroom at every arraignment. 7
F6:
Funding of an additional attorney in the Office of the Public Defender would enable the office to provide a Public Defender at virtually all misdemeanor arraignments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
This Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider funding the Office of the Public Defender to support an additional attorney with the priority of attending misdemeanor arraignments not otherwise covered, and handling other work as needed.
F7:
Given present resources and staffing, the Public Defender’s office provides consistently high-quality representation to defendants in the cases in which it is appointed.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The City of Napa has developed a systematic and criteria-based approach to prioritizing sidewalk repairs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City of Napa should describe the rationale and advantages of the Napa Neighborhood Streets and Sidewalk Program on the Public Works Department website.
F2:
The City of Napa strives for efficiency, due to its limited number of repair crew personnel (22 full time repair crew personnel), in order to maximize sidewalk repairs throughout the year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City of Napa should use its Public Works Department website to explain the prioritization of sidewalk repair, including shaving and asphalt patching under the Napa Neighborhood Streets and Sidewalks Program.
F3:
The City of Napa has identified the following five important sidewalk conditions, each assigned a numerical score (1-5), to determine repair prioritization: A. Pedestrian travel areas B. Years until the sidewalk falls onto the schedule of repair under the Napa Neighborhood Streets and Sidewalk Program C. Tree issues around the sidewalk D. Proximity to schools E. Size of concrete displacement
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City of Napa should use the Public Works Department website to explain how crew efficiency assists in getting more sidewalk repairs completed each year. 5
F4:
The Public Works Department goal for sidewalk repair is to group by proximity/location the highest-ranked priority projects, in order to develop a list of the maximum number of high priority repairs that can be completed as a single project. The goal is to complete repairs ranging from a minimum of 9 to a maximum of 15 locations to minimize movement of repair crews and maximize efficiency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City of Napa should use the Public Works Department website to emphasize the Cost Sharing program and the benefits it provides to residents whose sidewalks are not scheduled for near-term repairs.
F5:
The Public Works Department views efficiency in sidewalk repairs as a major factor in the timely repair of all damaged sidewalks. The Public Works Department has evidence and experience that the sidewalk repair rates of the Napa Neighborhood Program are four to five times greater than completing individual priority locations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City of Napa should update the Public Works Department website to reflect its strong financial and operational commitment to sidewalk repair year over year and to describe any plans for the future.
F6:
City residents do not have easy access to sidewalk repair information due to the Public Works Department’s outdated sidewalks website. An updated website could help to inform the public about the City of Napa’s strong financial and operational commitment to sidewalk repair given budgetary constraints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Jury recommends that Public Works Department annually publish on the City of Napa’s website a street address list of priority projects completed each year, to be completed by December 31, 2020.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The current number of Probation Officers assigned to the Department appears to be sufficient with respect to maintaining the system. However, there are additional training and rehabilitation activities that are not being provided due to probation officers’ high volume of Court appearances, submission of Court reports, meetings with victims and families, and ongoing supervision of probationers. The hiring of additional Probation Officers would help spread the work out more evenly and help to reduce recidivism.
F2:
The Probation Department is currently working to develop a coordinated case management system, which will assist Probation Officers in managing their caseloads and provide information about the types of services received by probationers.
F3:
There are no formal quality assurance and performance evaluation programs to measure the impact that therapeutic treatment activities are having on reducing recidivism. There should be in-house research examining whether cognitive-behavioral groups led by Probation Officers have a positive impact on reducing recidivism. F.4 The Adult Probation Department utilizes Evidence-Based practices such as cognitive behavior therapy but does not collect its own data (outcome measures) as to the efficacy of these groups in reducing recidivism.
F4:
Reduced need for detention model. There are too few youth in need of Juvenile Hall’s traditional detention model. A powerful design for NHA would be a better path forward for this facility and for the youth of Napa. 10 (cid:3066)(cid:3072)(cid:3072)
F5:
Water leaks in the Probation Department have been reported over a period of ten years. Air testing for contaminants such as lead and mold has been requested and air samples have been taken. Public Works has been responsive to reports of water leakage and has followed up with proper clean-up of potentially hazardous materials.
F6:
Violations of the terms of probation result primarily from the presence of mental illness, drug usage, or gang involvement, but the Department lacks the resources to effectively treat individuals with these designations.
F7:
The definition of recidivism used in the past is a new violation of the law that occurs during a probation supervision term. There are many ways that recidivism has been looked at in the past under previous administrations. Recidivism is a key subject for data analysis that must be looked at in the future. 11 (cid:3066)(cid:3071)(cid:3067)
F8:
The job satisfaction of Probation Officers is high yet there can be considerable stress given the constant exposure to handling complex and heart-rending cases involving victims and their families. F.9 Since the 2008-2009 Grand Jury investigation there has been a minimal turnover of Probation Officers and consistent reports of job satisfaction and good morale. In addition, opportunities for career advancement are available. 12 (cid:3066)(cid:3071)(cid:3068)
F9:
Since the 2008-2009 Grand Jury investigation there has been a minimal turnover of Probation Officers and consistent reports of job satisfaction and good morale. In addition, opportunities for career advancement are available. 12 (cid:3066)(cid:3071)(cid:3068) RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Under the leadership of its current chair or of a consultant hired for that purpose, the JJC, a state-mandated body, should generate a development program that expands its current understanding of the potential of its group for leadership for the juvenile justice system. The program should include, but not be limited to, activities such as those noted below. a. Confirm with the State of California that the Commission is properly interpreting and applying state legal requirements b. Study websites presented by more active JJC’s c. Report on activities broader in scope than their own d. Critique videos prepared to explain the functioning of JJC’s e. Conduct Zoom interviews with outstanding leaders of other JJC’s f. Consult with university researchers who focus on leadership for juvenile justice g. Sponsor training sessions organized by external organizations for JJC leaders h. Attend appropriate regional and State conferences
R2:
To insure oversight and transparency the Napa County Board of Supervisors should direct the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) to report to the Board of Supervisors on a regular schedule at public meetings of the BOS. The JJCC should add more public members, meet regularly as required by law, provide timely public notice of meetings with agendas, provide minutes, recorded video, and follow the requirements of the Brown Act.
R3:
The Napa County Board of Supervisors should direct the JJCC to inform the public about participation in JJCC meetings, in person and by remote means and about obtaining agendas, minutes and reports necessary for participation. The JJCC should redo its webpage to create greater transparency. The Grand Jury suggests studying the San Francisco JJCC webpage (link below) as a model of transparency. The webpage should accurately reflect its origin in the law and its legal responsibilities and obligations. The webpage should also include the names and official contact information of JJCC members 11 (cid:3066)(cid:3072)(cid:3073)
R4:
14 (cid:3066)(cid:3071)(cid:3070)
R5:
§ Director of Information Technology Services