Orange County Grand Jury
1999-2000
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Orange County Social Services Agency Adoption Unit has an insufficient number of available adoptive parents because it does not have sufficient recruiting programs. A response to Finding 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Funding should be increased for adoption recruitment to provide creative and effective recruiting programs to reach families in the community who are interested in providing foster and adoptive parenting. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F2:
There are many adoptive-assistance programs available to prospective adoptive families that could be better promoted. Wider promotion of such programs would help recruit prospective adoptive families. A response to Finding 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Social Services Agency should detail in a brochure the Adoption Assistance Program and the many other financial, educational, mental health, and other health benefits available to adoptive families. A response to Recommendation 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F3:
Consistent decision-making guidelines for social workers and management are not available. This is a critical factor given the high turnover rate of social workers in the Adoptions Unit. A response to Finding 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Social Services Agency should develop a framework and guidelines to assist social workers in timely decision-making in adoptions, based on well-researched clinical practices. A response to Recommendation 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 23
F4:
Many children in foster care are placed in several locations and homes, often separated from all that is familiar and secure to them. A response to Finding 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Social Services Agency Adoption Program should develop specific assessment guidelines to determine the needs of each individual child for placement in the appropriate foster care home to diminish the likelihood of multiple moves. If multiple moves are necessary, the importance of maintaining meaningful connections between placements should be considered. A response to Recommendation 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F5:
Often there is a delay in the adoptive process because of inattentiveness to the proper matching of children with foster families at the very beginning of out-of-home placement. A response to Finding 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 21
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Greater communication and collaboration should be promoted between the different units of the Social Services Agency, which would create a consistency and a framework for permanency planning for every child at the very beginning of an out-of-home placement. A response to Recommendation 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F6:
Brothers and sisters have been separated when placed in foster homes and also when placed in permanent homes. A response to Finding 6 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Social Services Agency should develop guidelines concerning sibling adoptions. A response to Recommendation 6 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F7:
More children are entering the child welfare and foster care system, and as a result the County social workers are overloaded with too many cases. The rate of burnout and turnover among social workers is alarmingly high, resulting in a workforce that is chronically inexperienced and under-trained. The personnel crisis, insufficient number of staff members, high turnover, and inexperience, has a detrimental effect on the quality of services provided. A response to Finding 7 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The budget for the Social Services Agency should be increased to employ and retain more qualified social workers. The Social Services Agency should consider following the recommendations of the National Association of Social Workers and limit cases to 25 per social worker. A response to Recommendation 7 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F8:
Because the waiting time for placement is so long and because worker turnover is high, families and children are forced to work with many different social workers. There is frustration and loss of confidence by both adoptive parents and the waiting child when they have to deal with numerous social workers, sometimes as many as five. A response to Finding 8 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Social Services Agency should appoint one social worker team that collaborates, cooperates, and communicates with each unit at each step of the foster-adoptive process for each child. A response to Recommendation 8 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F9:
The Social Services Agency recently implemented a concurrent pilot project. The Concurrent Planning Program has not been completely understood nor embraced by many County social workers. As a result there can be delays of one to two years in case resolutions. A response to Finding 9 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 10.The Social Service s Agency completes an AFCARS report every six months for each child in the welfare system. The agency also conducts reviews of the children who have a reunification plan and for children who have a plan of permanent placement. It is not clear how often these reviews are held and who contributes to the reviews. A response to Finding 10 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 11.A major complaint of adoptive families is that they are unaware of where they stand in the adoptive process. There has been a lack of communication between the social workers and the adoptive parents during the adoption process. A response to Finding 11 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 22 12.Post-adoptive communication and assistance has been minimal for many adoption families. A response to Finding 12 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 13.The survey of the Orange County adoptive parents initiated by the Grand Jury and implemented by the Social Services Agency was most informative and useful in evaluating the adoption program in Orange County. A response to Finding 13 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 14.The valuable input from adoptive parents in the survey and successful outsourcing by the Social Services Agency with private adoption agencies illustrates the valuable resources that are available from the private sector. A response to Finding 14 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Social Services Agency should provide concurrent planning instructions to all social workers in all adoption units. The agency should follow the mandate of recent federal and state law and promote a realistic and viable concurrent planning program. A response to Recommendation 9 is requested from the Social Services Agency Children and Family Services. 24 10.Social Services Agency should conduct a six-month review for each out-of-home case. The Agency should implement a process of case staffings. These staffings should be attended by all currently assigned social workers and other staff and/or professionals who have knowledge and interest in the child. These staffings will lead to greater communication and collaboration between the different social worker units of the dependency and adoption process. A response to Recommendation 10 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 11.The Social Services Agency should communicate on a monthly basis with each adoptive family regarding where they stand and what is happening in their adoption process. A response to Recommendation 11 is requested from the Social Services Agency Children and Family Services. 12.After the adoption has been finalized, the Social Service Agency should be in monthly contact with the adoption family for at least one year, providing adequate post-adoptive services. A response to Recommendation 12 is requested from the Social Services Agency Children and Family Services. 13.The Social Services Agency should conduct an annual survey of recent adoption families to evaluate the adoption program and to use their input and recommendations to improve the performance of the County’s adoption program. A response to Recommendation 13 is requested from the Social Services Agency Children and Family Services. 14.An Advisory Committee should be established immediately to bring the resources and insights of the entire continuum of care, both public and private, and to oversee the development of an integrated plan for the Orange County foster and adoption system. A response to Recommendation 14 is requested from the Social Services Agency Children and Family Services.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R11-15:
yrs. 6% 11-15 yrs. 23%
R13-24:
months 22% Emancipation 7%
R16-18:
yrs. .002% 16-18 yrs. 3% 2. ADOPTION How many months have the waiting Where were the waiting children living on children been in continuous foster care? March 31, 1999? Mean Mos 46 Pre-adoptive home 15% Median Mos 38 Foster Family Home 21% (Relative) Less than 1 month .004% Foster Family Home 56% 1 through 5 mos 3% (Non-relative) 6 through 11 mos 6% Group home 3% 12 through 17 mos 8% Institution 4% 18 through 23 mos 10% Supervised Independent 1 24 through 29 mos 10% Living, runaway, etc, 30 through 35 mos 9% 36 through 59 mos 26% 60 0r more mos 27% 31 3. ADOPTIONS 36,000 children were adopted from the public foster care system in FY 1998. How old were the children when they were How many months did it take after termination adopted from the public foster care system? of parental rights for the children to be adopted? Mean yrs. 6.9 Mean mos 17 Median yrs. 6.3 Median mos 13 Under 1 year 2% 1 month 2.5% 1-5 years 46% 1-5 months 16% 6-10 years 37% 6-11 months 30%
R25-36:
months 13% Long-term foster care 5% 3-4 years 15% Case plan goal not yet 5 years or more 18% established 20% 32 6. FOSTER CARE 119,000 children entered foster care during 102,000 exited foster care during this period. the period of 10/1/98 through 3/31/99. What were the ages of the children who What were the ages of the children who entered care during this six month period? exited care during this six-month period? Mean Years 8.7 Mean Years 10.2 Medean Years 8.8 Median Years 10.2 Under 1 year 13% Under 1 year 4% 1 thru 5 years 24% 1 thru 5 years 26% 6 thru 10 years 22% 6 thru 10 years 23% 11 thru 15 years 29% 11 thru 15 years 24% 16 thru 18 years 11% 16 thru 18 yrs 20% 19+ years 3% 7. FOSTER CARE 102,000 children exited foster care during the period 10/1/98 through 3/31/99. What were the lengths of stay of the What were the outcomes for the children children who exited during this period? exiting foster care during this period? Mean months 22 Reunification 59% Median months 11 Living with relatives 10% 1 month 19% Adoption 15% 1 to 5 months 18% Emancipation 6% 6 to 11 months 14% Guardianship 2% 12 to 17 months 11% Transfer to another 3% 18 to 23 months 8% agency 24 to 29 months 6% Runaway 3% 30 to 35 months 4% 3 to 4 years 10% 5 yrs. or more 10% As of March 31, 1999, 44,000 children living in foster care were legally free to be adopted. As of March 31, 1999, how many months had elapsed since the court had terminated the parental rights and declared these children legally free to be adopted? Mean months 23 months Median months 14 months 33
R30-35:
months 4% 3-5 years 9.5% 4. FOSTER CARE 547,000 Children were in foster care on March 31, 1999. What were the ages of the children Where were these children in foster care living? In foster care? Mean years 9.9 Pre-adoptive home 3% Median years 10.0 Foster Family (Relative) 27% Under 1 year 3% Group home 8% 1 thru 5 years 25% Foster Family (non Relative)47% 6 thru 10 years 27% Institution 10% 11 thru 15 years 27 % Independent Living Program 1% 16 thru 18 years 16% Trial Home Visit 3% 19+ years 2% 5. FOSTER CARE What were the lengths of stay for What were the case goals of the children the children in foster care? In foster care? Mean months 33 Reunify with parents 41% Median months 22 Live with other relatives 4% 1 month 3% Adoption 20% 1-12 months 29% Guardianship 3%
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Although the Board of Supervisors expresses a desire to bring pressure on the appropriate entity to deal with toxic clean up and remediating this hazardous site, the Nesi/Ascon Hazardous Waste Site remains essentially untouched since 1984. A response to Finding 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should give the Nesi/Ascon site a high priority and use their positions to bring pressure on the appropriate entities to see that the mediation and security receive the attention they deserve. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 5
F2:
The City of Huntington Beach does not assume the degree of responsibility for monitoring the Nesi/Ascon site that seems prudent to the Grand Jury. In the face of what could be a disaster, or even death, more and better monitoring must be in place at the site. Trespass enforcement and fence checks need to be made more often and be more thorough. A response to Finding 2 is requested from the City Council of Huntington Beach and from the Huntington Beach Fire and Police Departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The police and fire departments of Huntington Beach should do a more thorough job of monitoring the site. The Grand Jury urges the City of Huntington Beach to pursue a more stringent policy of safety enforcement of the appropriate regulations and rules pertinent to the toxic dangers facing the City. A response to Recommendation 2 is requested from the City Council of Huntington Beach, and from the Huntington Beach Fire and Police Departments.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Although the County does an admirable job of keeping the flood control channels clean throughout the year, there is still a substantial amount of macro-pollution that enters the 8 three harbors of the County from the County-maintained flood control channels and County-maintained storm drains, especially following the first rain storm of the year. A response to Finding 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors, and requested from the Public Facilities and Resources Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Public Facilities and Resources Department create an action plan that will be in place during the year 2000 that will include the following to reduce the macro-pollution that fouls the County’s harbors by 50 percent in 2004. · Additional debris-screening and collecting devices (such as the “trash rakes” at the Orange County Water District’s facility in Anaheim), be installed at locations in flood control channels as they enter the harbors in Newport Beach and Huntington Beach, and · The debris booms, the logboom of Newport Beach, and steel grates currently employed in the County receive a very thorough cleaning just prior to the anticipated first significant rain of the rainy season, rather than by the arbitrary date of October 15. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors and is requested from the Public Facilities and Resources Department and the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Newport Beach.
F2:
In spite of the County’s strong emphasis on public education as required by the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order #96-31 WPDES #CAS618030, a significant amount of trash finds its way into the County-maintained flood control channels and County-maintained storm drains, rather than being disposed of properly. A response to Finding 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Public Facilities and Resources Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A more extensive County public education campaign, including print and electronic media, signs, postings, and warnings in appropriate languages along flood control channels and County-maintained storm drains that would inform the public about the illegality as well as the negative environmental impact of disposing of debris in the flood control channels and County storm drains. A response from Recommendation 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda and requested from the Public Facilities and Resources Department. 10
F3:
There are many inadequately grated, screened, or filtered storm drains in the coastal cities or on County coastal property, other than new construction, that conduct storm water and its accompanying debris directly into the harbors of the County. A response to Finding 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors, and the City Councils of Dana Point, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and requested from the Public Facilities and Resources Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
An action plan that specifically details a retrofitting campaign to be completed by 2004 of placing grates, filters, or other small aperture devices over or within storm drains that empty directly to County harbor waters. A response to Recommendation 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors the City Councils of Dana Point, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and requested from the Public Facilities and Resources Department.
F4:
There is no apparent goal-driven program by the cities, except for Dana Point, to retrofit older storm drains and catch basins with grates or similar straining or filtering devices. A response to Finding 4 is required from the City Councils of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
All cities in the County, except for the City of Dana Point, create an action plan to be completed by 2004, to begin the installation of high-tech storm drains and catch-basin filtering devices. A response to Recommendation 4 is required from the City Councils of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda.
F5:
The amount of money the County provides the harbor cities for floating debris removal is insufficient. A response to Finding 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Seal Beach.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County increase the amount of dollars by $25,000 each to Dana Point, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach each year for three years, beginning in 2000, for harbor debris clean-up. A response to Recommendation 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F6:
The contract that Huntington Beach has with a private company for harbor debris removal does not include debris removal for the entire harbor. A response to Finding 6 is required from the City Council of Huntington Beach. 9
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, and the County contract jointly for the debris removal in all waterways of Huntington Harbour. A response to Recommendation 6 is required from the Board of Supervisors and from the City Councils of Huntington Beach and Seal Beach.
F7:
Trash, consisting of a significant amount of plastic and Styrofoam, makes up most of the macro-pollution in the County’s harbors. A response to Finding 7 is required from the Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Dana Point, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Seal Beach.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The County initiate a procedure that will, by 2004, prohibit the use of disposable plastics and Styrofoam in eating establishments operated by and for the County. A response to Recommendation 7 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
The cities institute a procedure that strongly encourages businesses within its city limits to substantially reduce the use and sale of disposable plastics and Styrofoam, and increasingly participate in the growing plastic- and Styrofoam-recycling industry. A response to Recommendation 8 is required from the City Councils of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda. 11
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The radio dispatchers who take 9-1-1 calls suffer fatigue from working long hours, and from stress for reasons stated under the heading, “Multi-Tasking.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Increase the number of radio dispatchers to 41 in order to reduce stress and fatigue, and to facilitate scheduling and reduce overtime.
F2:
There is no immediate crisis counseling available to the radio dispatchers. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Evaluate and adopt a Critical Incident Stress Management program to provide peer counseling to radio dispatchers following a traumatic event.
F3:
Radio dispatchers do not have regular rest periods and customarily eat their lunch at their workspace. This may be inconsistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Orange and the Orange County Employees Association.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Establish rest period and lunch schedules for the dispatchers to reduce fatigue and stress and to ensure compliance with the current Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Orange and the Orange County Employees Association.
F4:
Direct supervision of the radio dispatchers is provided by five sergeants. The sergeants are highly compensated because of their training and experience in law enforcement. Replacing sergeant supervisors with civilian supervisors would save approximately $237,500 per year, when implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Promote from within and/or hire five civilian supervisors and reassign sergeants as the new supervisors become available.
F5:
Having a civilian classification for supervising radio dispatcher would provide career advancement opportunities for radio dispatchers. There is no normal progression for them at this time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Establish a civilian classification for radio dispatcher supervisor. 5
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Currently there is no regularly scheduled public (or governmental) committee that is dedicated to the enhancement of water quality for the watershed that drains into the coastal areas between the Santa Ana River and the San Gabriel River, known as the West County Coastal Watershed. A response to Finding 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors, and requested from the Chief Executive Office and the Public Facilities and Resources Department. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A West County Coastal Watershed Coordinating Committee should be established by Public Facilities and Resources Department to serve as a clearinghouse for all organizations and individuals and to operate as a round-table forum to facilitate the sharing of information between persons, agencies, and organizations with an interest in water quality in the West County Coastal Watershed area. The Director of the Public Facilities and Resources Department should review whether the Newport Bay Coordinating Committee has accomplished its goals and how a similar organization could act as the model for a West County Coastal Watershed Coordinating Committee. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors, and requested from the Chief Executive Office and the Public Facilities and Resources Department.
F2:
Managing a watershed committee is a time-consuming endeavor. The size of the Coastal and Historical Facilities staff has been kept at a minimum since the Orange County bankruptcy. A response to Finding 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors, and requested from the Chief Executive Office and the Public Facilities and Resources Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A managerial position should be added to the Coastal and Historical Facilities staff to aid in the formation and administration of the West County Coastal Watershed Coordinating Committee. A response to Recommendation 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors, and requested from the Chief Executive Office and the Public Facilities and Resources Department. 3
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The federal government’s lack of promised funding for special education during the last 25 years means that over $70 million worth of programs and services are denied all public school children in Orange County each year. This problem continues to escalate 9 both in terms of the number of students affected and the monetary encroachment on the general budgets of the 27 school districts across the County. A response to Finding 1 is required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All Orange County school districts should develop a plan to insure that parents, staff, and the general public are informed of the federal government’s history of underfunding special education and the extent to which it negatively impacts the education of all students. This plan should include procedures that encourage parents, staff, and interested community members to insist that the federal government budget its promised funding. A response to Recommendation 1 is requested from the school districts of Anaheim City, Anaheim Union High, Brea-Olinda Unified, Buena Park, Capistrano Unified, Centralia, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton Joint Union High, Fullerton, Garden Grove Unified, Huntington Beach City, Huntington Beach Union High, Irvine Unified, La Habra City, Laguna Beach Unified, Los Alamitos Unified, Lowell Joint, Magnolia, Newport-Mesa Unified, Ocean View, Orange Unified, Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified, Saddleback Valley Unified, Santa Ana Unified, Savanna, Tustin Unified, and Westminster.
F2:
While the Orange County Department of Education and some school districts have done some lobbying of the federal government to increase funding for special education, this effort has not been coordinated among all school districts in Orange County. A response to Finding 2 is required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should develop a plan to more forcefully insist that the federal government fully fund its promised 40 percent of the cost of special education. All school districts in Orange County should be included and encouraged to be actively involved in this plan. A response to Recommendation 2 is required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. 10
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The five smaller justice centers need improved security measures to better protect County employees (Table 7). A response to Finding 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F2:
Except for the Central Justice Center, there is no weapon screening in the twelve County buildings and justice centers included in this report. A response to Finding 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine short-term security improvements for the five smaller justice centers. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 2a. The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine long-term security improvements for the six justice centers. Even after the passage of AB233, the exterior security of justice centers is still a responsibility of the County (Rule 810). 2b. The Board of Supervisors should direct the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner to appoint a study team to develop a long-range plan to improve the security of employees and the public in County buildings (non-justice centers). These plans (2a and 2b) would address findings two through six. Specific actions would include: · Develop steps to improve security at all County buildings (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the possible use of the marshals assigned to courtroom duty to perimeter and entrance security at peak traffic periods in the five justice centers without weapons screening (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the increased use of surveillance cameras for entrance and perimeter security in the justice centers and most vulnerable County buildings (Finding 3). · Investigate steps to improve security in the Hall of Administration (Finding 5). · Explore the possibility of collecting data on weapons confiscated from visitors and those confiscated from employees at the Lamoreaux and the Central Justice Centers (Finding 6). · Determine if the County employees in the smaller justice centers need to be included in the weapon screening process. (Finding 6). A response to Recommendations 2a and 2b is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
There are entrance and perimeter surveillance cameras installed in only two of the twelve buildings selected for this study. A response to Finding 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine short-term security improvements for the five smaller justice centers. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 2a. The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine long-term security improvements for the six justice centers. Even after the passage of AB233, the exterior security of justice centers is still a responsibility of the County (Rule 810). 2b. The Board of Supervisors should direct the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner to appoint a study team to develop a long-range plan to improve the security of employees and the public in County buildings (non-justice centers). These plans (2a and 2b) would address findings two through six. Specific actions would include: · Develop steps to improve security at all County buildings (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the possible use of the marshals assigned to courtroom duty to perimeter and entrance security at peak traffic periods in the five justice centers without weapons screening (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the increased use of surveillance cameras for entrance and perimeter security in the justice centers and most vulnerable County buildings (Finding 3). · Investigate steps to improve security in the Hall of Administration (Finding 5). · Explore the possibility of collecting data on weapons confiscated from visitors and those confiscated from employees at the Lamoreaux and the Central Justice Centers (Finding 6). · Determine if the County employees in the smaller justice centers need to be included in the weapon screening process. (Finding 6). A response to Recommendations 2a and 2b is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F4:
Five of the six justice centers (North, West, Harbor, South Main, and South Annex) have no deputies dedicated to entrance or perimeter security. A response to Finding 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 9
F5:
Of the six County buildings included in this study, the Hall of Administration is the building with the greatest need for improved security for employees and visitors (Table 8). A response to Finding 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine short-term security improvements for the five smaller justice centers. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 2a. The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine long-term security improvements for the six justice centers. Even after the passage of AB233, the exterior security of justice centers is still a responsibility of the County (Rule 810). 2b. The Board of Supervisors should direct the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner to appoint a study team to develop a long-range plan to improve the security of employees and the public in County buildings (non-justice centers). These plans (2a and 2b) would address findings two through six. Specific actions would include: · Develop steps to improve security at all County buildings (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the possible use of the marshals assigned to courtroom duty to perimeter and entrance security at peak traffic periods in the five justice centers without weapons screening (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the increased use of surveillance cameras for entrance and perimeter security in the justice centers and most vulnerable County buildings (Finding 3). · Investigate steps to improve security in the Hall of Administration (Finding 5). · Explore the possibility of collecting data on weapons confiscated from visitors and those confiscated from employees at the Lamoreaux and the Central Justice Centers (Finding 6). · Determine if the County employees in the smaller justice centers need to be included in the weapon screening process. (Finding 6). A response to Recommendations 2a and 2b is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F6:
There is no historical or current data that differentiates between those weapons confiscated from visitors and those confiscated from employees at the Lamoreaux Justice Center or the Central Justice Center. A response to Finding 6 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine short-term security improvements for the five smaller justice centers. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 2a. The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine long-term security improvements for the six justice centers. Even after the passage of AB233, the exterior security of justice centers is still a responsibility of the County (Rule 810). 2b. The Board of Supervisors should direct the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner to appoint a study team to develop a long-range plan to improve the security of employees and the public in County buildings (non-justice centers). These plans (2a and 2b) would address findings two through six. Specific actions would include: · Develop steps to improve security at all County buildings (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the possible use of the marshals assigned to courtroom duty to perimeter and entrance security at peak traffic periods in the five justice centers without weapons screening (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the increased use of surveillance cameras for entrance and perimeter security in the justice centers and most vulnerable County buildings (Finding 3). · Investigate steps to improve security in the Hall of Administration (Finding 5). · Explore the possibility of collecting data on weapons confiscated from visitors and those confiscated from employees at the Lamoreaux and the Central Justice Centers (Finding 6). · Determine if the County employees in the smaller justice centers need to be included in the weapon screening process. (Finding 6). A response to Recommendations 2a and 2b is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F7:
The South Main and South Annex Justice Centers have significant safety and security concerns in addition to the elements displayed in the Table 7. These include: · Lack of secure parking for court officers (South Annex). · Numerous areas to correct to achieve ADA compliance; 61 action items for a 42,000 square foot building (South Main). · Congested working conditions—(South Main and South Annex). · Challenge of controlling visitor traffic in a multi-building/trailer complex (South Main). · Difficulty of installing weapon-screening equipment in a leased commercial facility (Annex). A response to Finding 7 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The capital expenditures for the construction of a new South Justice Center should be included in the fiscal year 2000–2001 budget (Finding 7). A response to Recommendation 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 11
F8:
Many County buildings have numerous areas to correct to achieve full ADA compliance. A response to Finding 8 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the County Executive Office, Division of Risk Management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should continue to examine ways to accelerate the current ADA II transition plan, especially in the phases dealing with the exterior and interior paths (Finding 8). A response to Recommendation 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F9:
The County has prepared a 2000–2003 ADA II transition plan for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance for all County-owned and leased facilities with public access requirements as identified in May 1999. A response to Finding 9 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the County Executive Office, Division of Risk Management. 10.A plan has been developed to expand weapon screening to the four smaller County- owned justice centers (North, West, Harbor, and South Main). A response to Finding 10 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 11.The Social Services Agency building on Eckhoff has less square footage per employee than the other eleven buildings (Tables 5 and 6). A response to Finding 11 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 10
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The proposed four-year ADA II transition plan needs sustained financial support from the Board of Supervisors at each annual budget review until the plan is completed (Finding 9). A response to Recommendation 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Orange County Toxicology Laboratory’s average time from receipt of request to completion of toxicology tests is approximately eight weeks and appears to be longer than in comparable counties. A response to Finding 1 is required from the Sheriff-Coroner. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A joint work-flow efficiency study be conducted by the Orange County Toxicology Laboratory and a qualified outside management consulting firm. The objective of the study should be to reduce the average process time for toxicology reports from eight to four weeks. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Sheriff-Coroner. 3
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Security measures at Orangewood Children’s Home are well designed and effective; however, 24-hour security officer coverage and receiving dock vigilance could be improved. (During the past several years, many security upgrades have been added to protect the facility.) A response to Finding 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To continue the process of continuous improvement in the security arrangements for Orangewood Children’s Home, two enhancements are suggested: · A contingency plan should be developed to ensure 24-hour coverage if a scheduled security officer is absent for any reason (vacation, holiday or illness). · A video camera should be installed to monitor the receiving dock area (vulnerable to outsiders). A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 9
F2:
There has been a significant decline in the average daily population of Orangewood Children’s Home from 1998 to 1999. However, the demand for County-supplied clothing remains high because children entering the foster care system and bypassing Orangewood still receive three days of clothing. A response to Finding 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The current annual budget of $180,000 for new clothing should not be reduced based solely on the significant decline in the average daily population of Orangewood Children’s Home from 1998 to 1999. A response to Recommendation 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F3:
There is an effective automated system for releasing new clothing items; however, there is no inventory control system for used clothing. A response to Finding 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
A study should be initiated on the feasibility of creating an inventory control system for all or selected used-clothing items. This study should address the question of whether such a system can be operated on a cost-effective basis. A response to Recommendation 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F4:
Many donated items (clothing, footwear, toys, etc.) are received daily by Orangewood Children’s Home. These items are screened for potential use at the home. If they do not pass the inspection process, they are transferred to the foster care store in bulk without any regard to saleability or pricing. A response to Finding 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
To improve service to the foster care store, the following changes should be considered in the handling of donated material. (See Appendix A) · In the screening process, items that are not useable or saleable or could potentially represent a safety hazard should be discarded and considered for sale to a contract dealer. · Saleable items should be sorted by major category for ease of handling at the foster care store. · A pricing system should be investigated for installation at Orangewood Children’s Home for items transferred to the foster care store. A response to Recommendation 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F5:
Orangewood Children’s Home is becoming increasingly populated with older children. In September 1999, children ages 11 through 18 represented 58 percent of the total population at Orangewood Children’s Home. (In September 1998, older children accounted for 36 percent of the total.) This trend is likely to continue based on recent state legislation, such as AB1197. In many cases, these older children are individuals 8 with behavioral and emotional challenges. The Social Services Agency has recently formed a community task force to study the implications of an older population at Orangewood. A response to Finding 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The community task force should focus their initial efforts on providing staffing recommendations for Orangewood to the Social Services Agency before the 2000-01 budget process is completed. A response to Recommendation 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F6:
Based on the average daily population of 110 children in 1999, Orangewood Children’s Home is currently overstaffed with counselors and support personnel. A response to Finding 6 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Social Services Agency should consider the following in determining future staff levels for Orangewood Children’s Home: · Explore whether new employees at Orangewood could complete the required 12-credit early childhood education program on their own time. · A five-year population projection by age category should be completed for Orangewood in preparation for the 2000–01 budget. A response to Recommendation 6 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 10
F7:
Information about the foster care store is not provided to new foster care parents in current orientation material. A response to Finding 7 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Orientation material presented to new foster care parents should include information about the foster care store. A response to Recommendation 7 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F8:
Group counselors at Orangewood Children’s Home receive all Child Abuse Registry (CAR) calls on weekends and from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays. These counselors do not receive the training given to the CAR social workers on a continuing basis. A response to Finding 8 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Orangewood Children’s Home should remain the receiving location for child abuse calls from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. and on weekends. The Social Services Agency and Child Abuse Registry should initiate a study of the feasibility of re-training Orangewood Children’s Home group counselors along with CAR social workers so that after-hours calls can be handled more effectively. A response to Recommendation 8 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Recruitment of licensed foster care parents is adding about 200 new parents per year. However, approximately the same number of foster parents are also leaving the system. A response to Finding 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Social Services Agency should strive to improve the retention rate for foster care parents. Some suggestions to consider: · Continue to lobby the state to raise payments. · Work with the Board of Supervisors to obtain additional funding for pilot projects focused on retention (e.g., bonus payments for years of service). A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F2:
The Social Services Agency has been successful in expanding placement programs (Enhanced Placement Options) designed to keep children united with their extended families or maintained in the least restrictive family-like setting. A response to Finding 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Shelter Care Master Plan should be revised to emphasize the placement of children in family-like settings rather than out-of-home placement. A response to Recommendation 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F3:
Based on current and future Social Services Agency plans, additional resources will continue to be dedicated towards advancing and expanding placement programs. A response to Finding 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Social Services Agency should develop monitoring tools to evaluate whether the expanded placement program results in increased permanency of placement (increased adoptions and placement with relatives and foster parents). A response to Recommendation 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F4:
Until the second half of 1998, Orangewood Children’s Home was operating at or over capacity. This was the operating environment in which the 1998 Shelter Care Master Plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors. This plan focuses primarily on fixing the problem by constructing new buildings. A response to Finding 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Social Services Agency should consider utilizing the planned Tustin (phase 2) Facility as a community multi-care center offering services such as parent counseling, day-care nursery, and respite-care for central/south Orange County. It is also recommended that any El Toro expansion (phases three and four) be eliminated from the five-year strategic plan. A response to Recommendation 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F5:
Overcrowding at Orangewood Children’s Home has not been an issue for the last year. In fact, the facility is now under-utilized. A response to Finding 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 11
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Social Services Agency should appoint a committee to develop other uses for Orangewood Children’s Home. Some suggestions to consider: · Use part of Orangewood Children’s Home as a 24-hour day-care nursery based on the successful 16-year-old Minneapolis Crisis Nursery Program. Orangewood Children’s Home is fortunate to have 300 active volunteers who could help develop and support this program. · Use part of Orangewood Children’s Home as an intensive pre-emancipation and Independent Living Program overnight-training facility for youths about to “age out” of the foster care system. A response to Recommendation 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The primary access road is a winding narrow road with blind curves. The road is a maximum of 15 feet wide over most of the 1.3 mile distance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Widen the primary access road to the Emergency Operations Center to 24 feet and eliminate blind curves.
F2:
The secondary access road to the Emergency Operations Center is almost unusable in its present condition and location. It is not satisfactory for use as a backup to the primary access road.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Upgrade the secondary access road to the Emergency Operations Center or otherwise provide a viable alternative to the primary access road.
F3:
Some areas of the County could become completely isolated due to the nature of certain emergencies. In that event, transporting emergency team members to the Emergency Operations Center from designated pick-up stations by helicopter would be the most effective, and perhaps the only feasible method.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Divide the County into several areas or zones and, by agreement with local authorities, establish helicopter pick-up sites.
F4:
There are no agreements or procedures with other agencies, the State of California or the federal government for emergency helicopter transport to the Emergency Operations Center.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Develop agreements and procedures with other agencies, the state of California and the federal government for the use of helicopters in an emergency. The helicopters would be utilized to transport top County officials and support-members of the team to the Emergency Operations Center.
F5:
The existing alternate EOC does not meet the criteria for a facility of that type as stated in Annex A, , VII of the County of Orange Emergency Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Establish an alternate EOC that meets the criteria stated in Annex A, , VII of the County of Orange Emergency Plan.
F6:
The County of Orange Emergency Plan has not been reviewed on a continuing basis nor have revisions or additions been incorporated in the plan since its inception on August 1, 1997. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Establish procedures to facilitate continuous review of the County of Orange Emergency Plan so that revisions and additions will be made on a timely basis. 6
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
Contains radiological monitoring equipment;
R8:
Contains communications equipment to communicate with the next level of government and the public; and
R9:
Contains adequate space to accommodate key government officials, agency chiefs, department heads, and support staff required to carry out essential emergency services. B. In addition to the criteria for a primary EOC, the objectives to be considered when designating an alternate EOC are listed below:
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Social Services Agency has not complied with the provisions of Penal Code Section 933.05, with regard to Recommendation 2 of the 1998–99 Grand Jury report Child Care Welfare to Work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors institute a findings and recommendations follow-up program to ensure that, on an ongoing basis, all County elected officers and agency heads comply with Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05.
F2:
The County Executive Office has not complied with the directives adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their March 29, 1994, meeting.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Executive Office comply with the four directives of the Board of Supervisors as set forth by the Board of Supervisors in their March 29, 1994, minute order. EXHIBIT A RESPONSE REVIEW RECORD Grand Jury Report Title: Committee making review: Date of completion of this review:
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Plan assets have not been invested to realize a return sufficient to provide the benefits promised to the employees and to minimize the County’s cost of the Plan. The fund assets reside in the Treasurer’s Investment Pool where they are invested in short- term maturities earning approximately 5 percent. A response to Finding 1 is required from the Treasurer-Tax Collector.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Plan assets should be invested to realize a return sufficient to provide the benefits promised to the employees and to minimize the County’s cost of the Plan. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Treasurer-Tax Collector.
F2:
Certain provisions of the Plan are unclear, incorrect, or ambiguous. A response to Finding 2 is required from the Treasurer-Tax Collector. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Plan be thoroughly reviewed and those provisions that are unclear, incorrect or ambiguous, be amended. A response to Recommendation 2 is required from the Treasurer-Tax Collector.
F3:
In accordance with the Plan §10.8 and the brochure supplied to the employees, a determination letter was to be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This letter was not obtained. The Plan provides that the deductions from employee earnings shall be post-tax until a determination letter is obtained from the IRS, then pre-tax. The County is currently making deductions on a post-tax basis. A response to Finding 3 is required from the Treasurer-Tax Collector.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
A determination letter be obtained from the IRS as soon as the Plan is amended and the County should make deductions on a pre-tax basis. A response to Recommendation 3 is required from the Treasurer-Tax Collector.
F4:
Only two actuarial valuations have been made of the Plan since inception. County Counsel, on two occasions, recommended that there be annual evaluations (or at a minimum every three years). A response to Finding 4 is required from the Treasurer-Tax Collector.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
An actuarial valuation of the Plan be made as soon as possible. A response to Recommendation 4 is required from the Treasurer-Tax Collector. 3
F5:
The actuarial valuation as of January 1, 1998 recommended a County contribution. The County did not make this contribution. A response to Finding 5 is requested from the County Executive Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The actuary’s recommended contribution, if any, be made. A response to Recommendation 5 is requested from the County Executive Office.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
The Plan be frozen for current employees, and a new defined-contribution plan for less- than-half-time and extra-help employees be established and administered by the County Executive Office, Office of Human Resources, Employee Benefits, and a determination letter for this new plan be obtained from the IRS. A response to Recommendation 6 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the County Executive Office. 4