Orange County Grand Jury
2002-2003
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Forty percent of medical emergencies occurred at remote juvenile facilities on weekends during the study year.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Conduct a study to better understand the severity of the medical emergencies occurring during nurses’ off-duty hours. (Findings 1-2)
R2:
Take appropriate action after analyzing the study to mitigate lost time and costs. (Findings 1-2)
F2:
DPCs are more inclined to transport a minor to Juvenile Hall in a medical emergency when a nurse was not present.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Conduct a study to better understand the severity of the medical emergencies occurring during nurses’ off-duty hours. (Findings 1-2)
R2:
Take appropriate action after analyzing the study to mitigate lost time and costs. (Findings 1-2)
F3:
Transporting minors to routine medical appointments increased demand on staff time, added transportation costs, and lost ADA funds. The total cost savings, cost avoidance, and additional ADA money to OCDE could be approximately $150,000 a year by the addition of a physician visit to remote facilities. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Examine the medical contract to see if it could include a weekly physician visit to all remote facilities. (Findings 3-4)
F4:
HCA currently has a contract with a local hospital and medical group to provide health care to juveniles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Examine the medical contract to see if it could include a weekly physician visit to all remote facilities. (Findings 3-4)
F5:
Juvenile Hall has changed the dental appointment procedure to reduce the number of routine dental trips from Joplin and Los Piños by sixty percent. Responses to Findings 1-5 are required from the Board of Supervisors. Response to Finding 3 is required from the Superintendent of the Orange County Department of Education. Responses to Findings 1-5 are requested from the Probation Department and the Health Care Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Continue the twice-weekly dental appointment practice for Joplin and Los Piños. (Finding 5) Responses to Recommendations 1-4 are required from the Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendations 1-4 are requested from the Probation Department and the Health Care Agency. 5
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Two Orange County supervisors recommended in February 2003 that a Human Resources Steering and Oversight Committee be formed to provide oversight and direction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors follow through on Human Resources Steering and Oversight Committee to oversee the County’s Human Resources labor negotiating activities implementing its recommendations. (Finding 1)
F2:
Operational capabilities of some departments are being adversely affected and they are forced to eliminate some existing programs due to cost increases in wages and benefits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Consider renegotiating certain pay and employment benefits that have become increasingly costly. (Finding 2 and 5) 8 Responses to Recommendations 2 and 3 are required from the Auditor-Controller. Responses to Recommendations 1 through 4 are required from the Board of Supervisors. Bibliography
F3:
Some affected departments/agencies management had little or no participation or input in the negotiations with bargaining units.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Auditor-Controller, Chief Financial Officer and affected departments should have greater participation and input to the negotiations with bargaining units. (Finding 3)
F4:
Proposed increases in benefits and wages are not thoroughly and accurately costed out prior to offering them to bargaining units or presented to the B.O.S.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Require that prior to passage, all new wage and benefit initiatives receive review by the Auditor-Controller with input and review by the Chief Financial Officer and by any affected department. This review should be required prior to submittal of all wage and benefit proposals to the County Executive Officer or the Board of Supervisors for approval. (Finding 4)
F5:
Orange County has recently established a pattern of ever expanding and increasing payroll and related benefits spending. This pattern is counter to the model of cost cutting in private industry and is vitally significant during periods of uncertain or diminished economic outlook. Responses to Findings 3 and 4 are required from the Auditor-Controller Responses to Findings 1 through 5 are required from the Board of Supervisors
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The expenditures by the CEO Office of Human Resources on a consultant contract in 1998 and 1999 exceeded the amount authorized by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on December 8, 1998.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Executive Officer investigate the management of the consultant contract, and if in fact mismanagement did occur, County Executive Officer to consider appropriate action. [Findings 1-4]
F2:
The CEO Office of Human Resources increased the billing rates up to 35% on the consultant contract without prior approval by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors appoint a committee of senior financial and purchasing personnel to review contracts approved by the Board of Supervisors for the past three years to determine if other contracts have exceeded the cost originally approved by the Board and were then returned to the Board for retroactive approval of the increased contract costs. [Finding 5]
F3:
The CEO Office of Human Resources made a significant change of scope in the consultant contract, but did not rebid the contract for the new services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors implement procedures to prevent future occurrences if the committee finds significant overruns on other contracts. [Finding 5] Responses are requested to Recommendation 1 from the Orange County Executive Officer. Responses to Recommendations 2-3 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. NOTES 1 County of Orange Contract Policy Manual, August 1998, -3-3 2 Price Agreement for a Performance Management Appraisal Training Program for the County of Orange with consultant firm, dated February 1, 1999, Proposal Cost Summary 3 Price Agreement for a Performance Management Appraisal Training Program for the County of Orange with consultant firm, dated February 1, 1999, Pricing Structure, 5
F4:
CEO Office of Human Resources added an additional project to the consultant contract (Human Resources Visioning Project) without competitive bidding or sole source justification.
F5:
Orange County Board of Supervisors retroactively approved the unauthorized expenditures, increased billing rates and changed the scope in the consultant contract on December 7, 1999. Responses to Findings 1-4 are requested from the Orange County Executive Officer, Response to Finding 5 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Light rail is a component of the public transportation system for the future growth of Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) continue with Preliminary Engineering for the CenterLine project. (Finding 1)
F2:
There is currently no single bus line traveling the proposed CenterLine route.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
OCTA consider initiating a bus line simulating the CenterLine route and operation before the start of CenterLine construction. (Finding 2)
F3:
A link to Santa Ana College will increase the projected ridership.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
OCTA study including a link to Santa Ana College as part of the initial project. (Finding 3)
F4:
The location of the stations is a key element to the success of a light rail system.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
CenterLine stations at University of California at Irvine and John Wayne Airport be located as convenient to the facilities as the existing parking. (Finding 4)
R5:
OCTA consider the feasibility of placing the South Coast Plaza station as near to the “front door” as engineering and operational considerations allow. (Finding 4)
F5:
An open dialogue between OCTA and the residents along the route is important to the planning and implementation of the CenterLine.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
OCTA hire a neutral facilitator to guide the discussions at community forums. (Finding 5)
F6:
An accurate forecast of the ridership, the construction schedule, and the cost is essential to the success of the CenterLine Project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
OCTA provide a conservative ridership forecast for the first five years of operation. (Finding 6)
F7:
Enhancements added to a light rail system after the completion of preliminary engineering are a principal cause of budget overruns. Responses to Findings 1 through 7 are required from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors. 7
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Enhancements to the project during construction be paid for by the benefiting cities. (Finding 7) Responses to Recommendations 1 through 8 are required from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors based upon Findings 1 through 7. Bibliography
F8:
Enhancements to the project during construction be paid for by the benefiting cities. (Finding 7) Responses to Recommendations 1 through 8 are required from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors based upon Findings 1 through 7. Bibliography
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Children and Families Commission of Orange County maintains the program criteria consistent with state guidelines and purposes of the Children and Families First Act of 1998.
F2:
Children and Families Commission of Orange County ensures that grantees spend funds according to the criteria consistent with state guidelines and purposes of the Children and Families Act of 1998.
F3:
Some children and family programs have been fragmented and overlapping in Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Move forward all assessments with the purpose of avoiding fragmentation and duplication of effort while still capturing all needed data. In addition, synthesize some of the key data thereby exposing professionals to cross cutting data and fostering integrated, concentrated impacts. (Finding 3 and 4)
F4:
Difficulty in defining or creating clear solutions to any one issue is the result of the many organizations directing their resources and efforts toward defining and solving problems. The variety of assessments exemplifies the variety of approaches.
F5:
Multiple service systems and programs lead to difficulty in creating any clear/credible message for the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Promote a clear picture of programs and providers to create a unified message or system to help all families define their needs and access appropriate, helpful programs. (Finding 5)
F6:
Prevention offers the greatest opportunity to serve the most needs in the most cost effective manner and will save dollars in remedial programs, treatment services and social services.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Continue to emphasize how important the childhood years are to the future of a child. (Finding 6)
R4:
Continue to emphasize prevention programs for better outcomes for families and future savings. At the same time continue to foster integrated, concentrated impacts in child care programs to effect the lives of even more children. (Findings 6 and 7) Responses to Recommendations 1 - 2 are requested from the County Executive Office, (Child Care Coordinator). Responses to Recommendations 1 - 4 are requested from Orange County Children and Families Commission. 8
F7:
Long standing neighborhood child care programs have very long wait lists and are threatened by state and county budget cuts and poor economic conditions. Responses to Findings 1 - 7 are requested from Orange County Children and Families Commission. Responses to Findings 3 – 5 are requested from the County Executive Office, (Child Care Coordinator).
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
Forty-two out of 136 in the experimental group youth have successfully completed the YFRC program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Continue to follow-up these graduates for at least 10 more years to validate whether they are still law-abiding citizens. (Finding 1)
F2:
The experimental group had a better GPA than the control group during the first year but the trend was reversed in the fourth six-month period.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Investigate why the youth become less responsive to the treatment after 18 months and make modifications to the programs as indicated. (Finding 2 & 3)
F3:
The recidivism in the experimental group was significantly reduced during the second and the third six-month period while the fourth six-month result was less impressive.
F4:
Youth at South and Central centers are participating in a program offered by the Orange County Community Council called the Philanthropist which teaches the importance of sharing and giving. The Council matches money raised by the youth on an 8:1 basis. The maximum Council match is $4,500. The youth have a direct positive impact on their community by distributing this money to their selected local charities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Approach the Orange County Community Council about expanding the youth empowerment program, Philanthropist, to the other four centers. (Finding 4)
F5:
YFRC students’ community services, restorative justice, and sharing and giving programs help to create clean, healthy, safe, and desirable neighborhood environments. YFRC treatment centers make good neighbors. However, some communities still perceive the treatment centers as a threat.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Solicit community’s involvement in the treatment center’s activities. (Finding 5)
F6:
Discipline is a key to the program. The balance between a treatment (counseling and intervention) and probation (sanction and consequence) is an art. Deputy Probation Officers need more immediate discipline options for timely consequences.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Give Deputy Probation Officers more options to hand troublesome youth timely consequences. (Finding 6)
F7:
Some students feel isolated because the probation rules prohibit them from contacting their YFRC friends outside of the program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Create a mentor program that addresses the issue of isolation. Students at the local colleges and universities are good source for role models. (Finding 7)
F8:
Because county departments are experiencing a budget crunch, OCPD has had to freeze two open Deputy Probation Officer positions at YFRC treatment centers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Recruit and train volunteers to fill some of the voids caused by the countywide budget cuts. (Finding 8)
F9:
Female students at South Center watch a video-taped program during the time the male students are off campus involved in outdoor sports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Create more program opportunities for female students. (Finding 9) 7
F10:
Orange County Superintendent of Schools provides free or reduced rate lunch for qualified youth. Parents who are not qualified for the free lunch programs are assessed $30 a month, but the collection of this money is extremely difficult.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Include lunch money in the YFRC budget for the students whose parents fail to pay. (Finding 10)
F11:
Parent participation is an important part of the program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Use parent participation as one measure to rate the performance of the In-Home service counselors. (Finding 11)
F12:
In-Home services for the six centers collectively cost the county about $840,000 a year. The service provider submits a quarterly report to detail its services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Examine In-Home Services performance reports in a detailed manner to insure the program’s cost effectiveness. (Finding 12)
F13:
A nurse is a strong collaborative partner at the North - Early Intervention Program and El Toro sites. The other four centers do not have this advantage. 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Add a part-time nurse to the collaborative team at the four centers that are without or find a more affordable alternative. (Finding 13)
F14:
The 2000-2001 Orange County Grand Jury reported on the State of Education in the Juvenile Justice System. Many of their recommendations were implemented or are in progress at the YFRC treatment centers. While the accumulative student information system, AERIES, is installed and operating at all centers, some teachers still experience delays in receiving and interpreting student information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Provide all teachers direct access to AERIES and give them training to interpret the information. (Finding 14)
F15:
School libraries and recreational reading materials are almost nonexistent. Both the 1993-1994 Grand Jury and 2000-2001 Grand Jury defined in detail the need for library and recreational reading materials in the juvenile justice facilities. Responses to Findings 1-13 are requested from the Orange County Probation Department. Response to Finding 8 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. A response to Finding 13 is requested from the Orange County Health Care Agency. Responses to Findings 14-15 are required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools.
Related Recommendations (2)
R14:
Provide library and recreational reading material for the YFRC schools. (Finding 15) Responses to Recommendations 1-12 are requested from the Orange County Probation Department. A response to Recommendation 12 is requested from the Orange County Health Care Agency. Responses to Recommendations 13-14 are required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1996-2002 Final Report. Orange County Repeat Offender Prevention Project. (2002) Ethnicity and Age. The 8th Annual Report on the Conditions of the Children in Orange County. (2002) Orange County Juvenile Court Schools. Orange County Grand Jury Final Report 1993-
R15:
Responses to Recommendations 1-12 are requested from the Orange County Probation Department. A response to Recommendation 12 is requested from the Orange County Health Care Agency. Responses to Recommendations 13-14 are required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1996-2002 Final Report. Orange County Repeat Offender Prevention Project. (2002) Ethnicity and Age. The 8th Annual Report on the Conditions of the Children in Orange County. (2002) Orange County Juvenile Court Schools. Orange County Grand Jury Final Report 1993- 1994. Joplin Youth Center – A Day in the Life. Orange County Grand Jury Final Report 2000- 2001. Kurz, G. A. and Moore, L. E. (1994). The 8% Problem: Chronic Juvenile Offender Recidivism, Santa Ana, CA. Orange County Probation Department. Schumacher, M. A. & Kurz, G. A. (2000). The 8% Solution Preventing Serious, Repeat Juvenile Crime Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. “Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice” Chapter in Volume 4 (p.302). Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Criminal Justice 2000. National Institute of Justice, July 2000, NCJ 182411. Department of Finance www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEGMOGRAP/E4call.htm 8 2 Juvenile Arrests (2002). The 8th Annual Report on the Conditions of Children in Orange County Santa Ana, CA. Kurz, G. A. and Moore, L. E. (1994). The 8% problem: Chronic Juvenile Offender Recidivism, Santa Ana, CA. Orange County Probation Department. Schumacher, M. A. & Kurz, G. A. (2000). The 8% Solution Preventing Serious, Repeat Juvenile Crime Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 5 1996-2002 Final Report (2002) Orange County Repeat Offender Prevention Project, 8% Early Intervention Program, Santa Ana, CA. Orange County Probation Department. Schumacher, M. A. & Kurz, G. A. (2000). The 8% Solution Preventing Serious, Repeat Juvenile Crime (p. 42) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 7 “Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice.” Chapter in Volume 4 (p. 302): Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Criminal Justice 2000. National Institute of Justice, July 2000, NCJ 182411. 9
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
There is a lack of uniformity in local building codes involving roofs for identical environmental conditions within Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each responding jurisdictional agency should consider amending the building code to require the most fire retardant class of roof covering (Class A) for new construction of all residential structures (Group R) in all fire zones. (Findings 1 through 4)
F2:
The testing and qualification standards of wood shakes and shingles are below the environmental conditions of Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each responding jurisdictional agency should consider amending the building code to require the most fire retardant class of roof covering (Class A) for re-roofing of all residential structures (Group R) in all fire zones, when more than 50 percent of the roof is replaced within one year. (Findings 1 through 4) A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the cities of: Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Hills, Newport Beach, Rancho Santa Margarita, Santa Ana, Stanton, Tustin, Westminster. A response to Recommendation 2 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the cities of: Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Westminster. California State Fire Marshal, California Incident Reporting System: http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pdf/cfirs/residentialstruc.pdf 2 CHEMCO Inc., The Finest Exterior Fire Retardant treatment For Wood Roofs, http://www.chemco.org/subpages/qa.html#how-long. Wesco Cedar, Inc, FTX Fire Retardant Shakes and Shingles are Legal and Safe in California, Approval & Specifications, http://www.wescocedar.com/approvalspecs.html 4 2001 California Building Code, Chapter 15, Section 1501. 10 5 Firehouse, Fire Politics, November 1994. California State Fire Marshal, Fire Hazard Zoning and Mitigation Code Adoption: http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pdf/LocalAdoption.pdf 7 Committee for Firesafe Dwellings, Concrete Roof Tiles, Report BRC.01, . Office of Public Insurance Counsel, Homeowners Insurance Underwriting Guidelines, Changes in the Market, http://www.opic.state.tx.us/homeguide.html. USAA Educational Foundation, Good Information for Good Decisions, Insurance, How to Reduce Your Premiums, http://www.usaaedfoundation.org/insurance/home/hi04/hi04.htm. 10Sacramento Business Journal, July 8, 2002, http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2002/07/08/story7.html. 11Dulley, James, New residential metal roofs are attractive, long lasting and efficient, The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA, update bulletin 782 (http://www.dulley.com). 11
F3:
The cities’ and county’s roofing codes do not adequately take into account the climate, particularly the Santa Ana winds, and topographical conditions unique to Orange County. 9
F4:
Fire conflagrations stress finite fire fighting resources especially during the period of Santa Ana winds. A response to Findings 1 through 4 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Cities of: Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Westminster.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The support provided by Orange County departments and agencies contributes to the success of the Drug and Dual Diagnosis Programs. There is also a plan for a Mental Health Court Program that will require additional support.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Development of a public information plan to emphasize the importance and the success of the Orange County Specialty Courts and support to the public to obtain broader community awareness. (Finding 1)
F2:
The funding reductions by the County for the support of the Orange County Specialty Courts during this period of budget reductions and increasing caseloads, will jeopardize their success.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Consider placing a higher priority on the allocation of Orange County funds to maintain the support for the Specialty Courts. (Finding 2)
F3:
A need exists to support Mental Health cases involving adults with mental health conditions within the Criminal Justice System.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Consider taking immediate action to allocate County funding to include support for a program for adults with mental health conditions within the Criminal Justice System. (Finding 3) 8
F4:
An Operational Agreement between County and Court does not exist for the planned Mental Health Court.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Prepare an Operational Agreement or its equivalent, for the planned Mental Health Court to establish the basis for needed department or agency support. (Finding 4)
F5:
Available residential treatment care facilities (beds) to accommodate the Drug Court and Mental Health Court Operations are in short supply.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Develop a detailed plan to overcome the shortage of available ‘beds’ needed to accommodate and to provide treatment for the present and planned Specialty Court defendants. (Finding 5)
F6:
A Chief of Operations within Behavioral Health Services is a critical need for coordinating Mental Health support throughout the Orange County Court system. Responses to Findings 1- 6 are required from the Board of Supervisors and the District Attorney. Responses to Findings 1- 6 are requested from the County Executive Officer, the Orange County Public Defender, the Probation Department, and the Health Care Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Consider filling the vacant position of Chief of Operations in the Behavioral Health Services. (Finding 6) Responses to Recommendations 1-6 are required from the Board of Supervisors and District Attorney based upon Findings 1-6. Responses to Recommendations 1-6 are requested from the County Executive Officer, the Orange County Public Defender, the Probation Department and the Health Care Agency based upon Findings 1-6. Endnotes 1 Success of Drug Courts in Orange County California: Process and Outcome Evaluations ; Final Report Executive Summary for OC Superior Courts: by Elizabeth P. Deschenes, Ph. D. etal. Issued July 27,2001 2 1996-1997 Orange County Grand Jury: Management Audit of the Orange County District Attorney, prepared by the Grand Jury in conjunction with Price Waterhouse and issued June 30, 1997. San Bernardino County Mental Health Court Packet received October 25, 2002. San Bernardino County Sheriff Representative during presentation at San Bernardino Jail Facilities, November 13, 2002. Judge from San Bernardino County Speaking on Mental Health Courts Satellite Broadcast of November 14, 2002. Riverside County Department of Health Care Memorandum of Understanding Dated November 9,
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The county jails have been overcrowded for the past two decades.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The OCSD attempt to achieve compliance with State standards for local detention facilities and begin planning for new jail beds. (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
F2:
The current rated capacity of the county jail system is 4,133 beds.
F3:
The jails operated at 121% over rated capacity in the year 2002.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The OCSD develop a master plan of the James A. Musick facility. (Findings 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8)
F4:
The OCSD uses several options to reduce inmate population.
F5:
Approximately 8,500 inmates were released early in the year 2002.
F6:
The Theo Lacy Facility will be completely built out during 2005.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The OCSD seek funding approval for staff at the Theo Lacy expansion. (Findings 6, 11) Food Services
F7:
The only current jail site that is available for expansion is the James A. Musick facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The OCSD begin an in-depth need assessment immediately. (Findings 7, 8, 9, and 10)
F8:
The OCSD predicts a need for 8,050 total beds by the year 2010.
F9:
The most recent needs assessment by OCSD was completed in 1998.
F10:
Jail maintenance costs for the past two years have been nearly $10 million.
F11:
Staffing for the beds at Theo Lacy, scheduled to open in 2005, has not received budget approval. Food Services
F12:
The James A. Musick Facility produces food products for annual savings of $500,000.
F13:
Food Services is planning the implementation of a cook-chill system. A $280,000 cost savings within the first two years of operation is projected. Correctional Programs
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Food Services continue the planning of a centralized cook-chill food production system to provide a more cost-effective system. (Finding 13) Correctional Programs
F14:
A wide variety of educational and vocational programs are available in the Orange County jails.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The OCSD continue to operate programs that provide educational and vocational skills for inmates, and continue to increase the literacy rate and the “pass” rate for GED testing. (Findings 14, 15)
F15:
The Sheriff’s Department does not collect data to evaluate program success. Responses to Findings 1- 15 are required from the Orange County Sheriff. Responses to Findings 1,7,9, and 11 are required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The OCSD collect data to evaluate success of programs. (Finding 15) Responses to Recommendations 1-7 are required from the Orange County Sheriff. Responses to Recommendations 1-5 are required from the Board of Supervisors. 9
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
In the Proposition 36 Court, the severity of drug addicted crimes and criminal sophistication are higher than projected by County planners.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Assess the factors related to Probation violations during participation in Proposition 36 and implement corrective measures. (Finding 1)
F2:
When an individual is determined to be eligible under the terms and conditions of Proposition 36 there is a need for immediate assessment, treatment, follow-up and drug testing to begin.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Continue efforts to increase treatment and provisions for expediting a timely assessment of the defendant to achieve immediate placement into treatment following sentencing. (Finding 2) 8
R3:
Prepare a plan and implement action to increase testing and supervising of the participants under the terms and conditions of Proposition 36. (Finding 2).
F3:
Crime rates in some Orange County Cities show increases since the inception of Proposition 36 that may be attributable to Proposition 36 or to other factors, such as economy downturns, and drug driven property crimes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Examine county and city arrest and incarceration records and statistical data of persons enrolled in Proposition 36 Court to determine the program’s effectiveness relative to reducing criminal involvement in serious crimes. (Finding 3).
F4:
Funding is inadequate to support sufficient residential and intensive outpatient needs.
F5:
County departments (Probation, District Attorney, Health Care Agency and Public Defender) involved with Proposition 36 are absorbing additional cost shortfalls not currently included in SACPA cost projections. Responses to Findings 1- 5 are required from the Board of Supervisors, the District Attorney, and the Sheriff-Coroner. Responses to Finding 3 are required from the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. Responses to Findings 1- 5 are requested from the County Executive Officer. Responses to Findings 1, 2, 4 & 5 are requested from the Orange County Public Defender, the Probation Department, and the Health Care Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Provide costs for current year (2002-2003) and projected cost for future years (two), for departments for beds and personnel to support Proposition 36. (Findings 4&5) Responses to Recommendations 1-5 are required from the Board of Supervisors; based upon
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R36:
received November 25, 2002. SACPA Progress Report by the SACPA/Proposition 36 Implementation Committee, for the period of July 1, 2001 through March 31,2002, released June 18, 2002. Item V of Minutes from OC Criminal Justice Coordinating council Meeting of September 20, 2002 4 Memorandum from OC Probation Department to OC Grand Jury re: Probation Department Needs, dated July 25, 2002. Superior Court of California County of Orange Commissioner for Proposition 36 Court, October 1, 2002. 9
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The County Executive Office did not take all necessary steps to promptly investigate the allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation by Employee Number One as required by the Orange County EEO Policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
An independent qualified EEO investigator conduct a thorough investigation of Employee Number One’s allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation. (Finding 1)
F2:
The County Executive Office did not take all necessary steps to promptly investigate the allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation by Employee Number Two as required by the Orange County EEO Policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
An independent qualified EEO investigator conduct a thorough investigation of Employee Number Two’s allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation. (Finding 2)
F3:
The County Executive Office did not take all necessary steps to promptly investigate the allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation by Employee Number Three as required by the Orange County EEO Policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
An independent qualified EEO investigator conduct a thorough investigation of Employee Number Three’s allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation. (Finding 3)
F4:
The County Executive Office did not take all necessary steps to promptly investigate the allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation by Employee Number Four as required by the Orange County EEO Policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
An independent qualified EEO investigator conduct a thorough investigation of Employee Number Four’s allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation. (Finding 4)
F5:
The County Executive Office did not take all necessary steps to promptly investigate the allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation by Employee Number Five as required by the Orange County EEO Policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
An independent qualified EEO investigator conduct a thorough investigation of Employee Number Five’s allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation. (Finding 5)
F6:
At its current reporting level, the EEO Access Office does not have the independence to investigate certain management employees. Responses to Findings 1 – 6 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Findings 1 – 6 are requested from the County Executive Officer. 7
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Evaluate the current reporting relationship for the EEO Access Office to enable proper performance of its duties. (Finding 6) Responses are required to Recommendations 1 – 6 from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendations 1 - 6 are requested from the Orange County Chief Executive Officer. BIBLIOGRAPHY County of Orange Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Procedures 7 Steps to Lawfully Investigate Harassment and Discrimination Complaints, presented by Brightline Compliance LLC, October, 2001 Orange County Commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity, January, 2002 Update EEOC Compliance Manual, May 20, 1998, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTES 1 Orange County Human Resources EEO Access Office www.oc.ca.gov/hr/eeo/index.htm 2 Orange County Human Resources EEO Access Office www.oc.ca..gov/hr/eeo/commit.htm 3 Orange County Human Resources EEO Access Office www.oc.ca.gov/hr/eeo/newpolicy.htm 4 County Executive Office Letter dated June 14, 2001 [to five employees] 5 EEOC Compliance Manual, Washington, D.C.: May 20, 1998, The U.S. EEO Commission 8