Orange County Grand Jury
2000-2001
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The annual cost of Juvenile Justice for Orange County agencies is enormous, approximately $250 million. 9
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should reprioritize and reallocate existing justice system funds, identify and actively seek new funding sources, and provide additional funding to support, coordinate, assess and expand a countywide delinquency prevention and intervention effort. (Finding 1 and 2)
F2:
Delinquency prevention and early intervention programs in Orange County have shown promises of success in reducing juvenile crime. The Orange County Probation Department's ‘8% Solution’ is a successful critical intervention program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Probation Department, in conjunction with the Orange County Superintendent of Schools, should devise a master plan to develop and provide delinquency prevention and intervention programming for an effective countywide application. The Orange County Board of Supervisors must support this effort in the County Strategic Plan. (Finding 2)
F3:
The County of Orange and its Probation Department are facing a crisis in the very near future of insufficient detention beds for juvenile offenders. By 2005, 1313 additional beds are needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should ensure continued funding for the additional juvenile detention beds necessary to resolve the pending crisis of a shortage of juvenile facilities. This includes completion of the addition to Juvenile Hall and the construction of both the Rancho Potrero Leadership Academy and the South Orange County Juvenile Hall. (Finding 3) 10
F4:
Classes in life skills, such as resume writing, interview techniques, and handling checking accounts, along with vocational training, are important in the curriculum of public schools in Orange County. A response to Finding 4 is required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. Responses to all Findings are required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Orange County Probation Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors in conjunction with the Orange County Superintendent of Schools should develop, as part of the overall Strategic Plan of the County, a process that would encourage the participation of trade unions and business councils in the development of meaningful vocational training. (Finding 4) Responses to Recommendation 1 and 4 are required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. Responses to all Recommendations are required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Orange County Probation Department.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
30 findings
F1:
The Juvenile Court Schools, more specifically the Institutional/YFRC Schools, are scattered across the entire ACCESS program which consists of more than 80 sites.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Institutional/YFRC Schools should be organized and administered as a separate unit in the ACCESS program with a mission statement, strategic plan and goals and objectives unique and specific to its purpose. (Findings 1 and 2)
F2:
There is no specific mission statement, strategic plan, or goals and objectives for the Institutional/YFRC Schools. 14
F3:
The Principal Administrative Regions (PARs) are too large and too diverse to provide adequate supervision for the Institutional/YFRC Schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Principal Administrative Regions (PARs) should be reorganized to maximize effectiveness of the Institutional/YFRC Schools. (Finding 3, 4 and 19)
F4:
There is a lack of stability of PAR principals and administrators to establish consistent leadership and direction for the Institutional/YFRC Schools.
F5:
Budget and the budget process for textbooks and supplies for the Institutional/YFRC Schools lack consistency and priority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The budget for books and supplies for the Institutional/YFRC Schools should be given high priority, with consistent dollar amounts from year to year to enable effective planning. Procedures for acquisition of books and supplies should be uncomplicated. (Findings 5 and 6)
F6:
The vast majority of the teachers and staff is dedicated and committed as evidenced by the expenditure of hundreds of dollars of personal funds for classroom supplies and equipment.
F7:
Curriculum varies greatly from site to site in the Institutional/YFRC Schools because they operate with a great deal of autonomy. An inadequate supply of textbooks adds to the problem.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should develop a standard curriculum and list of appropriate textbooks and educational materials that will maximize the learning experience while minimizing the disruption as students transition between Institutional/YFRC Schools. (Finding 7)
F8:
Two computer-assisted programs are used at several sites. The Bridges program diagnoses learning disabilities. It is used at Joplin and Los Piños Schools. The New Century program, an integrated learning system, is used at Juvenile Hall and the Youth Guidance Center.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The New Century and Bridges programs should be evaluated for educational effectiveness and, if appropriate, the Orange County Superintendent of Schools should expand and provide permanent funding. (Finding 8)
F9:
The lack of sufficient vocational education programs in the Institutional/YFRC Schools impedes the acquisition of practical job skills for youth released from Institutions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should expand vocational education programs in the Institutional/YFRC Schools that can provide job skills. (Finding 9)
F10:
There are no certificated academic counselors available for students in the Institutional/YFRC Schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The addition of certificated academic counselors for students in the Institutional/YFRC Schools should be a priority of the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. (Finding 10)
F11:
The perception of a lack of partnership between probation and school personnel exists in the Institutional Schools, and to a lesser extent, the YFRC Schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools and Probation Department should develop training and team building to enhance partnership and collaboration. (Finding 11 and 15)
F12:
Some Institutional School facilities provided by the Probation Department have inadequate space and have experienced substandard or deferred maintenance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Probation Department should continue to renovate and replace schoolrooms and offices in their juvenile facilities. (Finding 12)
F13:
Office space for teaching staff at Santa Ana Jail is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Probation Department should request additional office space for teaching staff at Santa Ana Jail. (Finding 13)
F14:
The ACCESS program is in the process of seeking accreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. A Program Quality Review has been prepared.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should give highest priority to full accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges for the ACCESS program. (Finding 14) 17
F15:
Many Institutional/YFRC teachers believe that probation and education do not work well together. Teachers often feel like outsiders.
F16:
The interface between OCDE and Probation Department is poor in the area of collaboration. There is also a lack of stability of principals, vice principals and teachers in the Institutional/YFRC Schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Probation, teachers and the Orange County Superintendent of Schools administrators should have regular meetings to discuss educational goals and responsibilities. (Finding 16 and 17)
F17:
Communication in the ACCESS program is from top down with little participation from the bottom up. 15
F18:
A program for personnel training, National Training Curriculum for Educators of Youth in Confinement, is being implemented in a plan to bring the program to both education and probation personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should conduct training sessions based on the National Training Curriculum for Educators of Youth in Confinement Program. (Finding 18)
F19:
The assignment of PAR principals to multiple sites results in inadequate communication and guidance.
F20:
An updated Memorandum of Understanding for the Operation of Probation Facility Schools between the Orange County Probation Department and Orange County Superintendent of Schools has been drafted but not approved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The draft of the Memorandum of Understanding for the Operation of Probation Facility Schools between the Orange County Probation Department and Orange County Superintendent of Schools should be completed and implemented. (Finding 20)
F21:
New and substitute teachers do not receive specialized classroom training prior to teaching in Institutional/YFRC School settings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should institute instructional methods training for new and substitute teachers assigned to Institutional/YFRC Schools. (Finding 21)
F22:
Staff development workshops and conferences are not always relevant to actual classroom instruction in the Institutional/YFRC Schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should offer additional teacher workshops and seminars aimed at correctional school programs. (Finding 22)
F23:
There is no central site offering safety and security training for teachers assigned to Institutional/YFRC Schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools and Probation Department should conduct a standard Safety and Security Program for new Institutional/YFRC School faculty to be held at a central site. (Finding 23)
F24:
The only established Institutional/YFRC School library facility is located at Juvenile Hall.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should give high priority to development of school libraries serving all Institutional/YFRC Schools and provide adequate budget for library staff. (Finding 24 and 25)
F25:
Book purchases for Institutional/YFRC Schools under the California Public School Library Act have been minimal due to lack of library staff and space at the various sites. This has resulted in significant (>40%) carryover of state funds to next fiscal year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should assume sole responsibility for providing library books and materials for the Institutional/YFRC Schools. (Finding 25 and 26)
F26:
A modest recreational reading program has been established at Joplin Youth Center, Juvenile Hall and Juvenile Hall Annex with purchases from the Ward Welfare Fund and donations from teachers and the general public.
F27:
There is a problem in the accuracy, timely recordation and transfer of academic credits for youth entering, within, and exiting Institutional/YFRC Schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should develop and implement a plan to replace SASI with a new program that will maintain accurate and timely records accessible by authorized education personnel. (Finding 27)
F28:
Most youth do not meet with a Field Probation Officer prior to release from either Joplin Youth Center or Los Piños Conservation Camp.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
All Wards should meet with their Field Probation Officer prior to release from Institutional/YFRC Schools. (Finding 28)
F29:
The OCDE Transition Specialist serves about one third of those minors soon to be released. A response to Finding 12 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Findings 1-11 and 14-27 and 29 are required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. Responses to Findings 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26 and 28 are requested from the Orange County Probation Department. 16
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools should develop and implement a plan to provide transition specialist services to all juveniles preparing for release. (Finding 29) 18 A response is required to Recommendation 8 from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses are required to Recommendations 1-7, 10-20 and 22 from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. Responses are requested to Recommendations 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19 and 21 from the Orange County Probation Department.
F2000:
There are dedicated administrative and teaching staff who are providing quality education in a difficult environment. If society is really serious about the rehabilitation and preparation of youth for assimilation into the mainstream of our communities, these recommendations should be given highest priority. The future of our youth and our society is at stake. PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION Quality education is a top priority for our nation, state, and local communities. Education is a key ingredient for success of all juveniles including those within the Orange County Juvenile Court School system. Often these juveniles have met with educational failure prior to their designation as Wards of the Court. They lack educational skills, motivation, self-discipline and self-esteem. These youths will eventually be mainstreamed into our society. Success of this rehabilitation process depends heavily on the quality of the educational component. The staff at these facilities face an immense challenge. The purpose of this Grand Jury study was to evaluate the Orange County Department of Education’s role in providing quality education to minors at Juvenile Court Schools and, more specifically, the Institutional/YFRC schools. The study focused on five key areas: • Organization and Administration • Internal Communication • Staff Development • Institutional/YFRC School Libraries • Transition Process HISTORY/BACKGROUND The Orange County Department of Education administers the Alternative, Charter, and Correctional Education Schools and Services (ACCESS) program in the County for those students who are not attending classes within the regular public school districts. Juvenile Court Schools are part of the ACCESS Program. As shown in the table below, the Grand Jury focused on the seven juvenile institutional school sites where minors are detained and the five Youth and Family Resource Centers (YFRC) where minors are on probation. The Grand Jury visited each of the Institutional/YFRC sites and met with administrators, teachers and probation personnel. Following the initial meetings, questionnaires were prepared on observed issues. Based on questionnaire responses, follow- up interviews were conducted. Orange County Juvenile Institutional/YFRC Sites Site Description School Students Primary center for intake and detention Juvenile Hall of juvenile offenders Otto Fisher 470 Juvenile Hall Annex Houses high security risk males Otto Fisher 40 Santa Ana Jail (Juvenile Section) Houses high security risk males Summit 64 Central Men’s Jail (Juvenile Section) Houses male minors tried as adults Summit 17 Youth Guidance Center Boys and girls detention center Rio Contiguo 125 Los Piños Older boys vocational and forestry Conservation Camp program Los Piños 125 Joplin Youth Center Younger boys rehabilitation program Joplin 64 Collaborative 8% Solution and Youth & Family Resource Challenge Programs for boys & girls Centers(5) on probation Pathways 150 The 8% Solution Program is an early intervention program that focuses on minors age 15 or younger when entering the Juvenile Justice System if they have three or more profile factors placing them at great risk of becoming chronic offenders. These factors are: significant family problems, significant problems at school, a pattern of drug and/or alcohol use and delinquent peers or criminal patterns. The Program not only focuses on high-risk youth, but extends to the minor’s family. Minors who are on probation are picked up each morning by Probation counselors and returned home after a full day of education and rehabilitative services. Non-compliance or lack of cooperation can result in a probation violation, subsequent court action and possible detention at Juvenile Hall. This much-expanded multidisciplinary team approach is more costly than other rehabilitation programs because public and private service providers are included in the Program. The Youth and Family Resource Center (YFRC) is the collaborative, multidisciplinary response to the 8% Solution Program managed by the Orange County Probation Department. All-inclusive services consist of probation, mental health, drug and alcohol abuse, education, transition programming, employment and family counseling at each YFRC site. There are currently five, soon to be six, sites in the County. While evaluation continues through 2001, preliminary results of the 8% Solution Program are promising. According to the Orange County Probation Department, the Program youth are committing fewer and less serious crimes than their non- program counterparts. Rates of alcohol and drug abuse one year after entering the Program dropped by more than half. Petition filings for probation violations 3 and new crimes after one year were reduced by 31%, and days spent in custody were reduced by 26% on average when compared to the control group. The 8% Challenge Program is a partially state-funded program for older youth which is directed toward vocational guidance, work experience and skill development to help them live on their own. Evaluation of this more recent Program is in progress. Organization and Administration The Orange County Department of Education is the legislatively mandated provider of juvenile court school education. Juvenile Court Schools, and specifically the Institutional/YFRC schools, are scattered throughout the entire Alternative, Charter, and Correctional Education Schools and Services (ACCESS) program, which includes more than 80 sites Countywide. ACCESS is divided into ten instructionally related Principal Administrative Regions (PAR) for administrative purposes. The rationale for this PAR organization is both geographical and functional. In some cases, the principal of the PAR supervises both. Juvenile Court Schools and Community Day schools. The schools within each PAR operate with a great deal of autonomy. The Grand Jury believes that Institutional/YFRC schools are unique enough to benefit significantly from being organized functionally, with dedicated management and administration, customized mission statement, goals, objectives and strategic plan, and their own PARs. This reorganization should accomplish the following: • Recognize the critical role of education in the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. • Recognize the unique challenge to effectively teach groups of different ages with a wide range of academic proficiencies and learning styles during relatively short detention periods. • Recognize the need for educators to collaborate closely with probation staff in a team approach to ensure security and safety, correct behavioral problems, advance educational skills and develop vocational skills. One of the major complaints revealed by questionnaire responses and personal interviews was the unavailability of the PAR principals because their area of responsibility and span of control was too extensive. Some principals have overseen as many as nine schools and could not be present at an institutional school on a regular basis. In addition, principals are required to participate in countless administrative meetings. It was also noted that principals were changed or moved too often. For example, at Juvenile Hall there have been three 4 principals in the past two years. This causes a change in focus or direction that is disruptive to continuity and management stability. The Grand Jury recommends that Institutional/YFRC schools should have their own dedicated PAR structure. This would strengthen the stability of PAR principals and administrators, allowing development of more consistent leadership, communication and direction. Another area of concern, highlighted by questionnaires and interviews, was the budget and budget process for classroom textbooks and supplies for Institutional/YFRC schools. Comments about the budget process included that it lacked consistency and priority and was confusing to the teachers. Many teachers were frustrated and resorted to spending money out of their own pockets for supplies. Some solicited bookstores and other providers; at times the copy machine became the solution. The process of dealing with an inadequate source of textbooks, coupled with a high degree of autonomy at each school site, creates a problem. Curriculum and textbooks vary greatly from site to site. Student abilities are incredibly diverse, and often students are described as having "scattered skills”. Students frequently move from institution to institution and find themselves using different textbooks, a different version, or no textbook at all. Academic credit can be lost. This is frustrating for the student and potentially damaging to already bruised self- esteem.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The County of Orange Ordinance Number 99–10, which applies only to new construction, deals with barriers for swimming pools, spas and hot tubs and does not apply to private residential pools/spas completed prior to the Winter of 1996.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should amend and add a provision to the County of Orange Ordinance Number 99-10 to apply retroactively upon the sale, rental or lease of a residence with a pool/spa and should encourage all of the cities within Orange County to enact similar provisions to their pool/spa codes. (Finding 1)
F2:
One of the exceptions to Ordinance Number 99–10 (above) allows a door exit alarm to satisfy the barrier requirement. Door exit alarms are easily disabled.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should eliminate the exception that allows a door exit alarm to satisfy the barrier requirements of Ordinance Number 99-10 and encourage all of the cities within Orange County to eliminate similar provisions from their pool/spa codes. (Finding 2)
F3:
Within Orange County jurisdictions, drowning/immersion reports submitted to the County Health Care Agency from which to extract data to determine causes and outcomes are not uniform in format.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Orange County Health Care Agency and the Orange County Fire Authority should undertake a coordinated effort to establish a computerized uniform database to enable analysis similar to that used in the Health Care Agency Immersion and Surveillance Survey 1991 and 1992. (Findings 3, 4 and 7)
F4:
While drowning is the leading cause of accidental death among children ages 1-4 in Orange County, because incident numbers are small, it is difficult to achieve statistically significant results when analyzing causation and outcomes.
F5:
Members of the Drowning Prevention Network, including representatives of the Health Care Agency and the Orange County Fire Authority, have done an excellent job of informing the Orange County public. However, there is no regional drowning/immersion prevention organization or authority to take advantage of the Southern California television broadcast area that would maximize coverage of the public education/awareness message.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should establish a regional coalition to include representatives from contiguous Southern California Counties for coordination of all aspects of drowning/immersion incident prevention. (Finding 5)
F6:
After verification of minimum standards compliance at the final inspection of a new single-family residential pool/spa by the Planning and Development Services Department there is no further ongoing inspection and enforcement of pool/spa safety features.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should consider devising a means for ongoing systematic enforcement of the County of Orange Ordinance Number 99-10 for private residential pools/spas and encourage all the cities within the County to enact similar provisions for their pool/spa codes. (Finding 6)
F7:
The Orange County Fire Authority has developed and implemented a computer- based reporting form for drowning/immersion incidents.
F8:
The County has recently utilized GIS (Geographic Information System) technology. This could be used to map the locations of all residential pools/spas in Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County and the Orange County Fire Authority should use available GIS technology to map locations of all residential pools/spas for ongoing enforcement of the County’s pool/spa safety ordinance and encourage a coordinated effort to include all cities within the County. (Finding 8) Responses to all Recommendations are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendations 3 and 5 are required from the Orange County Fire Authority. Responses to Recommendations 3 and 6 are requested from the Orange County Health Care Agency.
F9:
The Orange County District Attorney usually does not prosecute drowning/immersion incidents, which typically involve ordinary negligence rather than criminal negligence. Responses to Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. A Response to Finding 4 is required from the Children and Families Commission. Responses to Findings 6, 7 and 8 are required from the Orange County Fire Authority. A Response to Finding 9 is required from the District Attorney. Responses to Findings 1 and 2 are requested from the Planning and Development Services Department. Responses to Findings 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are requested from the Orange County Health Care Agency.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Public Guardian does not require special qualifications of prospective conservators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Office of the Public Guardian should strongly consider advocacy for legislation that would authorize access to the results of a criminal records check as part of the procedure to determine the suitability of potential conservators. (Finding 1) A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Public Guardian.
F2:
Public Guardian investigators lack the legal authority to determine whether a potential conservator has a criminal record.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The office of the Public Guardian should review the Adult Protective Services Division of the Social Services Agency records of abuse as part of its procedures to determine the suitability of conservators. (Finding 2) A response to Recommendation 3 is required from the Public Guardian and requested from the Social Services Agency.
F3:
Adult Protective Services records of abuse do not distinguish between offenses committed by conservators and non-conservators. Responses to Findings 1 through 3 are required from the Public Guardian. A response to Finding 3 is requested from the Social Services Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Adult Protective Services division of the Social Services Agency records involving abuse should identify offenses committed by conservators as distinguished from offenses committed by non-conservators. (Finding 3) A response to Recommendation 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 3
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Government financial assistance and innovative financial packages are essential for the production of very-low income housing for residents of Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County and cities should make a concerted effort to create innovative financial packages with private, non-profit and public sectors to produce additional affordable housing for the working poor, large families, elderly and disabled. (Finding 1)
F2:
The County does not have a consolidated document or map to illustrate available land for affordable housing units. The County and individual cities create their own separate documents depicting the land available to meet affordable housing needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and the Orange County Planning and Development Services Department should take the lead with cities in the County to create a consolidated Geographic Information System (GIS) map or other instrument designating available land for affordable housing units. This map should be made available to private and public entities. (Finding 2)
F3:
The City—County Housing Roundtable brings together local government housing experts to discuss mutual programs and plans from a regional perspective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A regional approach to provide affordable housing in the County should be continued. (Finding 3)
F4:
Production of affordable housing is most successful when the County and cities cooperate with all stakeholders to provide land, zoning and financing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Orange County HCD should continue to bring stakeholders (business, labor, local elected officials, government staff, lenders, housing developers, and non-profit service providers) together to accomplish the task to produce more affordable housing units in the County. (Finding 4)
F5:
The County and cities have a great challenge to provide needed affordable housing for the extremely-low and very-low income people including the working poor, large families, seniors on fixed incomes and the disabled.
F6:
The County’s and cities’ Housing Authorities have been provided with the opportunity for additional Federal Section 8 Housing Assistance Vouchers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Each time the Federal Government allows applications for additional Federal Section 8 Housing Assistance Vouchers the Housing Authorities of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove and Santa Ana should vigorously pursue them. (Finding 6)
F7:
The County has participated in cooperative efforts with some cities by providing financial support to develop affordable housing. Responses to all Findings are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and 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 Yorba Linda 10 Responses to Findings 1-5 are requested from the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department. Responses to Findings 2 and 4 are requested from the Orange County Planning and Development Services Department. A Response to Finding 6 is requested from the Orange County Housing Authority and the Housing Authorities of the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove and Santa Ana.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should continue to support a regional approach to affordable housing including financial support to cities in their efforts to create additional units. (Finding 7) 11 Responses to all Recommendations are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and 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 Yorba Linda Responses to Recommendations 1-5 are requested from the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department. A Response to Recommendation 1 is requested from the Orange County Planning and Development Services Department. A Response to Recommendation 4 is requested from the Orange County Housing Authority and the Housing Authorities of the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove and Santa Ana.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
For the first time ever, the County of Orange and its 34 cities worked together with a common focus toward a state-of-the-art $100 million countywide communications system for public safety.
F2:
During implementation of the new 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS), deficiencies existed in the System for the police agencies in the County of Orange, particularly in the cities of Irvine and Tustin. This reduced level of communications performance has put public safety officers and the communities they serve at risk.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CCCS staff should utilize an outside consultant to evaluate the need for corrective action to improve the communications system. (Findings 2–4) A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner and the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
There have been fewer implementation problems in the north county area of the CCCS than in the south.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CCCS staff should utilize an outside consultant to evaluate the need for corrective action to improve the communications system. (Findings 2–4) A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner and the Board of Supervisors.
F4:
There has been no recent (5 or more years) countywide survey for 800 MHz radio reception coverage. (The county made no initial survey.)
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The CCCS staff should utilize an outside consultant to evaluate the need for corrective action to improve the communications system. (Findings 2–4) A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner and the Board of Supervisors.
R2:
A countywide survey should be conducted to evaluate the radio coverage area. (Finding 4)
F5:
Prior to implementing the CCCS with law enforcement, the system should have been thoroughly tested by agencies in the County not involved with public safety.
F6:
The reduction of the decibel (db) level penetration from 20db to 15db inside buildings has had a detrimental effect on the overall efficiency of the CCCS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
County and city governments should consider the enactment of ordinances requiring that new commercial construction include bi-directional amplifier (BDA) installations for public safety communications within new structures. Retrofitting of existing commercial structures should be included. (Finding 6)
F7:
Existing CCCS antenna sites, particularly in the south county area, do not provide adequate, dependable area-wide communications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Additional CCCS tower sites must be considered to ensure adequate coverage in areas of known deficiency. (Finding 7)
F8:
Commercial wireless communication antenna sites that utilize the 800 MHz radio frequencies within the County create interference with the CCCS and can completely block transmission in the immediate area surrounding these sites.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The CCCS staff should study the feasibility of developing partnerships with commercial wireless communications providers for the joint use of tower sites and facilities as radio antenna locations. (Finding 8)
F9:
The handheld radios and motorcycle radio head/consoles were not designed specifically for local law enforcement use, nor was local law enforcement consulted for design input prior to initial implementation. 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The CCCS staff should make a recommendation to the equipment manufacturer for the development and/or replacement of motorcycle consoles and handheld radios with user-friendly equipment that does not create a safety problem for the user. (Finding 9) 7
F10:
The County did not adequately provide initial training and realistic expectations of the CCCS to public safety users.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Recurrent and ongoing training of CCCS users should continue to be emphasized. (Finding 10) Responses to Recommendations 2 thru 6 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner.
F11:
There is no government agency with binding legal authority over the CCCS. Presently, no contractual commitment for future funding of the CCCS exists.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Participating agencies should consider a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) having the legal authority to manage and maintain the CCCS. The JPA would replace the Governance Committee. (Finding 11)
F12:
Public safety agencies are forced to compete with commercial communications providers (i.e., television, wireless, etc.) for federally assigned frequencies without preference or priority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Governmental entities and public safety agencies in the County should develop a strategy to elevate public safety communications and frequency acquisition to the highest priority and encourage their respective professional organizations to assist and participate in a national endeavor. (Finding 12 and 13) Responses to Recommendations 7–10 are requested from the County Executive Office and the Public Facilities and Resources Department. Responses to Recommendations 7–10 are required from the city councils of cities represented on the CCCS Governance Committee (Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Lake Forest and Tustin), the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner and the Board of Supervisors.
F13:
The close proximity of private and public sector radio frequency assignments within the 800 MHz range is detrimental to public safety. Responses to Findings 1–13 are required from the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
The County and cities, along with the CCCS staff, should coordinate future installation of commercial wireless communications antenna sites to mitigate interference with public safety communications. (Finding 13)
R13:
Responses to Recommendations 7–10 are requested from the County Executive Office and the Public Facilities and Resources Department. Responses to Recommendations 7–10 are required from the city councils of cities represented on the CCCS Governance Committee (Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Lake Forest and Tustin), the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner and the Board of Supervisors.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Seventy-four percent of Orange County wastewater collection and/or treatment agencies require restaurants in their jurisdictions to have grease traps/interceptors installed and 66% have discharge ordinances.
F2:
Few wastewater collection and/or treatment agencies (27%) are using these discharge ordinances as a basis for grease trap/interceptor inspections and maintenance activities and resultant enforcement actions when restaurants are not in compliance with the ordinance. Responses to Findings 1 and 2 are required from: The City Councils of: Anaheim Laguna Beach San Juan Capistrano Brea La Habra Santa Ana Buena Park La Palma Seal Beach Cypress Los Alamitos Stanton Fountain Valley Newport Beach Villa Park Fullerton Orange Westminster Garden Grove Placentia Yorba Linda Huntington Beach San Clemente 5 And The Boards of Directors of: Aliso Water Management Agency Santa Margarita Water District Costa Mesa Sanitary District South Coast Water District El Toro Water District South East Regional Reclamation Irvine Ranch Water District Authority Moulton Niguel Water District Sunset Beach Sanitary District Midway City Sanitary District Trabuco Canyon Water District Orange County Sanitation District Yorba Linda Water District Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
All Orange County wastewater collection and/or treatment agencies form a coalition for the purpose of formulating a standardized grease discharge ordinance for use by all affected wastewater collection and/or treatment agencies. (Finding 2)
R2:
This ordinance should carry enough enforcement power to effectively prevent cooking grease from being discharged by restaurants and should include a vigorous inspection schedule, maintenance criteria and clearly defined enforcement procedures and sanctions where violations are noted. (Finding 2)
F3:
The Orange County Sanitation District, through its member agencies and the Orange County Health Care Agency have carried out public education efforts aimed at reducing cooking grease discharge from restaurants and residential sources. A Response to Finding 3 is from requested from the Orange County Health Care Agency A Response to Finding 3 is required from the Board of Directors, Orange County Sanitation District and Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
All Orange County wastewater collection and/or treatment agencies should carry out aggressive grease discharge prevention education and training programs aimed at individual restaurant owners and staff in their respective jurisdictions. Due to the high turnover in both restaurant businesses and workers, this effort should be carried out continually, countywide, throughout the year. (Finding 3)
R4:
Completion of training programs should be made a condition for wastewater discharge permit issuance to all new applicants, where discharge permits are required. This educational program should also contain a component directed toward owners and/or managers of large housing complexes. (Finding 3) Responses to Recommendations 1 - 4 are required from: The City Councils of: Anaheim Laguna Beach San Juan Capistrano Brea La Habra Santa Ana Buena Park La Palma Seal Beach Cypress Los Alamitos Stanton Fountain Valley Newport Beach Villa Park Fullerton Orange Westminster Garden Grove Placentia Yorba Linda Huntington Beach San Clemente And The Boards of Directors of: Aliso Water Management Agency Orange County Sanitation District Costa Mesa Sanitary District Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area El Toro Water District Sewer District Irvine Ranch Water District Santa Margarita Water District Moulton Niguel Water District South Coast Water District Midway City Sanitary District South East Regional Reclamation Authority 7 Sunset Beach Sanitary District Yorba Linda Water District Trabuco Canyon Water District
F4:
All Orange County restaurants are inspected on a regular basis by qualified Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division Specialists.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Orange County Health Care Agency should require, and then routinely inspect and review grease trap/interceptor maintenance logs to be accurately kept by restaurant operators to assure proper emptying and cleaning frequency of these devices. This log review should be made part of the Health Care Agency’s regularly scheduled restaurant food safety inspection visit procedures. (Findings 4 and 5) A Response to Recommendation 5 is requested from the Orange County Health Care Agency. A Response to Recommendation 5 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors 8
F5:
Orange County Health Care Agency specialists do not routinely inspect restaurant grease traps/interceptors unless there is an obvious indication of malfunction, even though these inspections are thorough in all other aspects of sanitation and food safety. Responses to Findings 4 and 5 are required from Orange County Board of Supervisors and requested from the Orange County Health Care Agency
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The CEO has the authority to run the County and its departments with most appointed department heads reporting directly to the CEO. Elected department heads work in concert with the CEO to evaluate their proposals. The CAO was an administrator with limited executive authority. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Orange County government continues with the current County Executive Office configuration, including the position of CEO.
F2:
The County Executive Office promotes the use of business methods from the private sector in delivering services to Orange County residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Orange County continues using sound business methods, such as a strategic financial plan, annual business plans and off-site countywide management meetings, to plan a practical and fiscally sound future for the County. The Board of Supervisors is required to respond to Recommendations 1 and 2. 5
F3:
The existing Five-Year Strategic Financial Plan, the change from CAO to CEO and the innovative business changes have been rewarded by favor on Wall Street, which took notice of the changes and gave the County a more favorable bond rating and loan opportunities. The Board of Supervisors is required to respond to Findings 1, 2 and 3.
F11:
As you look into what the future might hold for you and Orange County, would you be more comfortable with a CEO or CAO? Many of the current managers have been employed with the County since before the bankruptcy, but not necessarily in their current position nor in the same department. The principle question “which form of administration is best for Orange County, CAO or CEO”, was answered with “CEO” in almost all cases. The authority of the CEO establishes the stability of the everyday business of the County and is attractive to those who look for timely answers to requests. The CEO has an overall view of the business of the County and that results in a more organized decision-making process. The success of the CEO, by William Popejoy, Jan Mittermeier, and now Michael Schumacher, is a testament to the merit of the office. This group of leaders, our County managers, supported with the tools of the business world, has shown great improvement in carrying out the responsibilities of their departments when compared to the time prior to the bankruptcy. The residents of Orange County should know that the perils of the past are gone, proving that “in every dark cloud, one can find a silver lining”. METHOD OF STUDY Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews with current and former upper level management of Orange County. A questionnaire was developed and the same questions were asked during each interview. FINDINGS Under California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses are required to all findings. The 2000-01 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at three findings: 1. The CEO has the authority to run the County and its departments with most appointed department heads reporting directly to the CEO. Elected department heads work in concert with the CEO to evaluate their proposals. The CAO was an administrator with limited executive authority. 4 2. The County Executive Office promotes the use of business methods from the private sector in delivering services to Orange County residents.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Dispatchers assigned to all shifts experience illness, stress and fatigue that compromise the ability of the EOC to function at maximum performance levels. Because of dispatcher shortages, selected personnel are required to work overtime. This situation is causing morale problems for dispatchers and budgetary problems for the EOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Recruit, hire and train thirteen radio dispatchers, an additional radio dispatch supervisor and four additional Centrex operators.
F2:
The overall working environment, which includes computer consoles, keyboards, monitors and chairs, is not “ergonomically friendly.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Replace existing computer console workstations with new workstations to conform to Federal OSHA standards and guidelines and consider the implementation of height adjustable tabletops.
F3:
Cramped conditions within the dispatch area have contributed to stress and fatigue. Additionally, lighting and sound are not conducive to an ideal working environment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Expand the existing facility to accommodate additional workstations and support personnel. Improve lighting and acoustical characteristics.
F4:
Well-trained staff dispatchers have resigned in large numbers to accept jobs in the same field throughout the County where the pay and working environment are better.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Adjust pay scale levels to be equivalent to comparable positions within the County of Orange.
F5:
Because of personnel shortages, dispatchers do not take mandated rest and meal breaks as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, 1998-2000, with the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department, County of Orange, and The Orange County Employees Association. This practice causes stress and fatigue and is a major factor in the problems at the EOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Enforce rest and meal breaks as outlined in the current Memorandum of Understanding, 1998-2000, with the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner Department, County of Orange, and The Orange County Employees Association.
F6:
The County Executive Office, Division of Risk Management, was not consulted when the new computer equipment was considered for purchase in August of 1998. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Consult the County Executive Office, Division of Risk Management when new equipment is being considered for purchase and seek advice from Safety Officers.