Orange County Grand Jury
2003-2004
Findings & Recommendations
25 findings
F1:
of attendance matters and lack explicit expectations for students' attendance: Anaheim City • Buena Park • Centralia • Cypress • Fullerton Joint Union High School • Fullerton School La Habra City School • Magnolia School • Newport-Mesa Unified • Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified • Santa Ana Unified School • Moreover, the Web sites for Centralia and Magnolia do not address attendance at all.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
an enhanced treatment of attendance matters that includes explicit expectations for students' attendance: Anaheim City Buena Park Centralia • Cypress • Fullerton Joint Union High School Fullerton • La Habra City • Magnolia Newport-Mesa Unified • Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified • Santa Ana Unified (Finding 1)
F2:
While the Web sites for the following school districts provide attendance expectations for individual schools: Fountain Valley Huntington Beach City • Laguna Beach Unified • Ocean View Westminster there are no statements of expectations for the districts as a whole. The Web sites of the Capistrano Unified School District and the Orange
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each of the following school districts: Fountain Valley • Huntington Beach City Laguna Beach Unified • Ocean View • Westminster add to their respective Web sites, statements of attendance expectations for the district as a whole. (Finding 2)
F3:
Unified School District are outstanding in providing clear and explicit state- ments of attendance expectations. The Ocean View School District has recognized that school districts that
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Capistrano Unified and Orange Unified school districts continue to provide clear and explicit statements of attendance expectations on their respective Web sites, and Capistrano Unified mentor any other school districts that would like to emulate Capistrano Unified's outstanding Web site. (Finding 3) Ocean View School District continue to use its outstanding Attendance
F4:
reward and celebrate good attendance demonstrate improvements in Average Daily Attendance (ADA) that more than make up for the expenses of awards and public relations. Ocean View has adopted an outstanding Attendance Incentive Plan, approved by its Board of Trustees, that has separate lists of incentives in place at the district and at the school levels. Attendance-incentive programs work not only at the elementary and middle-
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Incentive Plan, approved by its Board of Trustees, that has separate incentives in place at the district and school levels to reward and celebrate good attendance, and Ocean View mentor any other school districts that would like to emulate Ocean View's outstanding Attendance Incentive Plan. (Finding 4) Irvine Unified School District continue to use its successful attendance-
F5:
school levels, but - given the right incentives or rewards - at the high-school Irvine Unified School District successfully uses attendance level, also. incentives at all levels. The rewards are valued by the students and help to keep attendance levels high. -31 - Because attendance incentives in the Centralia School District are devised and
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
incentive program, and any school districts that do not currently have an -36 - attendance-incentive program - particularly at the high-school level - adopt one. (Finding 5)
F6:
put in place by the individual schools, the district does not get involved. Los Alamitos Unified School District does not explicitly encourage good
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Centralia School District become fully aware of the attendance incentives currently in place at its schools, and provide leadership to its schools in setting standards for, and supervising, attendance-incentive programs throughout the district. (Finding 6) Los Alamitos Unified School District fill the void in its truancy-abatement
F7:
attendance, and the district's expectation of good attendance is not directly communicated to the district's students. In 2002-03, only 10 of the 27 school districts were represented on the County 8. (Department of Education) SAR Board. In 2003-04, that number has increased by one to 11. Membership on the County SAR Board is open to all County school districts, and all school districts – even those without SAR Boards – would benefit by their participation. The Orange County Superintendent of Schools / Department of Education has
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
program by formulating and putting in place an explicit program to encourage good attendance. (Finding 7) The Orange County Superintendent of Schools / Department of Education
F8:
(Department of Education) SAR Board. In 2003-04, that number has increased by one to 11. Membership on the County SAR Board is open to all County school districts, and all school districts – even those without SAR Boards – would benefit by their participation. The Orange County Superintendent of Schools / Department of Education has
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
strongly encourage each of the school districts in Orange County — even those without School Attendance Review Boards — to appoint a representative to the County SAR Board and to participate more fully in County SAR Board activities. (Findings 8 and 9) La Habra City, Magnolia, Santa Ana Unified and Westminster school districts
F9:
not done enough to encourage all of the school districts to participate on the County SAR Board. However, on March 4, 2004, the Department of Education did send all school districts an open invitation to attend any or all County SAR Board meetings.
F10:
The percentage of habitual truants referred to a SAR Board in the following school districts is unacceptably low: La Habra City 1.5% 0.2\% NOTE 3 Magnolia Santa Ana Unified 4.4% 1.2% Westminster
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
each formulate a corrective-action plan to improve its percentage of habitual truants referred to a SAR Board, beginning with the 2004-2005 school year and continuing thereafter. (Finding 10)
F11:
The Centralia, Garden Grove Unified and Laguna Beach Unified school districts do not collect information on habitual truancies and SAR Board referrals at the district levels.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Centralia, Garden Grove Unified and Laguna Beach Unified school districts each devise a method to collect data on habitual truancies and information on referrals of habitual truants to a SAR Board, beginning with the 2004-2005 school year and continuing thereafter. (Finding 11)
F12:
Cypress School District, Fullerton Joint Union High School District and Saddleback Valley Unified School District do not declare any of their truants to be habitual truants. Failure to identify as habitual truants those students who have been truant for three or more times during a school year appears to place those districts out of compliance with the State Education Code.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Cypress, Fullerton Joint Union High School and Saddleback Valley Unified school districts each bring itself into compliance with the provisions of the California Education Code by identifying habitual truants, beginning with the 2004-2005 school year and continuing thereafter. (Finding 12)
F13:
Huntington Beach Union High School District's self-described "out of control" and "epidemic" truancy situation is due only in small part to the lack of a SAR Board, but primarily to the lack of centralized attendance monitoring and control and to fragmented responsibility at the district level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Huntington Beach Union High School District centralize attendance monitor- ing and control at the district level, and assign ultimate responsibility for attendance monitoring and control to a single individual. (Finding 13)
F14:
Some school districts believe: that SAR Boards are ineffective, particularly at the high-school level; that SAR Boards are "a lot of work for no consequences at the D.A. level;" and that threats of SARB intervention and consequences that -32- are not reinforced by the District Attorney's office make the efforts of a SARB hollow and ineffective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools / Department of Education respond to a school district's perception that "SAR Boards are a waste of time at the high-school level." The District Attorney respond to school districts' views that "SAR Boards are a lot of work for no consequences at the DA level" and that "when SARB interventions and consequences are not reinforced by the District Attorney's Office, efforts of the SARBs become hollow and ineffective." (Finding 14) -37 -
F15:
School districts that limit or curtail their participation on the County SAR Board because of budgetary constraints may not be aware of the opportunity for reimbursement, through State or federal funding, afforded by Education Code §48323.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
All Orange County school districts become aware of the opportunity for reim- bursement through State or federal funding, afforded by California Education Code §48323, for participating on the County SAR Board. (Finding 15)
F16:
Centralia School District has no permanent SAR Board members at the district level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
Centralia School District consider adopting a district-level SAR Board and appointing permanent SAR Board members at the district level. (Finding 16)
F17:
School districts repeatedly identified three particular skills as being essential if SAR Boards are to be effective: law-enforcement skills (e.g., a School Resource Officer), prosecutorial skills (e.g., a Deputy District Attorney), and probation skills (e.g., a Probation Officer). Yet, more often than not, these skills are not present at district SAR Board meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
The Probation Department and the District Attorney improve the operational effectiveness of district-level SAR Boards by assigning, respectively, a Probation Officer and a Deputy District Attorney to attend SAR Board meetings in those school districts that request such participation. (Finding 17)
F18:
Centralia School District stated that it does not know if its SARB-referral documentation packages are adequate because the paperwork is handled by social workers at the school sites.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
Centralia School District assign responsibility for the content and quality of SARB-referral documentation packages to an individual at the district level. (Finding 18)
F19:
Periodic training of school administrators in preparing SARB-referral docu- mentation packages would be beneficial.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
The District Attorney provide for the periodic training of school administrators in preparing SARB-referral documentation packages. (Finding 19)
F20:
Santa Ana Unified School District's statement that periodic training of school administrators in preparing SARB-referral documentation packages is not necessary because clerical personnel do the work appears to underestimate the important and critical role that school administrators play in the SARB NOTE 5 process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
Santa Ana Unified School District ensure that school administrators are properly trained to prepare SARB-referral documentation. (Finding 20)
F21:
School districts that have chosen to embrace the Truancy Response Project have experienced significant improvements in their truancy problem and increased awareness among parents and students of the importance of regular attendance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
School districts that are not involved in the Truancy Response Project become involved as a means to significantly improve their truancy problems and to increase awareness among parents and students of the importance of regular attendance. (Finding 21)
F22:
School districts repeatedly identified a Deputy District Attorney, a law- enforcement officer and a Probation Officer as three key people who should make presentations to habitually truant students and their parent(s) at the District Attorney's Community Meetings. Yet, more often than not, neither a law-enforcement officer nor a Probation Officer is present at such meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
The Probation Department provide for having Probation Officers participate in the Truancy Response Project by making presentations to habitually truant students and their parents at the District Attorney's Community Meetings. (Finding 22)
F23:
In each of the four school years studied, five of the school districts without SAR Boards were slightly more successful at controlling attendance, on average, than 15 of the school districts with SAR Boards. -33 -
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
The Department of Education identify factors that might account for five school districts without SAR Boards being slightly more successful at controlling attendance, on average, than 15 school districts with SAR Boards. (Finding 23)
F24:
A need exists among the school districts that do not have their own SAR Boards for an operating SAR Board (not just an advisory or networking SAR Board) at the County level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
The Department of Education establish an operating SAR Board (not just an advisory or networking SAR Board) to meet the needs of those school districts that do not have their own SAR Boards. (Finding 24)
F25:
Truancy support by the Probation Department and the District Attorney's Office needs to be fully funded if these organizations are to be as effective as the school districts would like them to be. Responses to Finding 1 are required from the Superintendents of Schools of the following school districts: Anaheim City • Buena Park • Centralia •
Related Recommendations (1)
R24:
The Department of Education formulate a plan whereby all school districts provide equitable financial support to the Probation Department and the District Attorney's Office to ensure that these agencies are able to continue the -38 - truancy-abatement services for which the districts are the financial beneficiaries. (Finding 25) Responses to Recommendation 1 are required from the Superintendents of Schools of the following school districts: Anaheim City • Buena Park • • Centralia
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
State Senate Bill 19, partly amended by the California Childhood Obesity Prevention Act, authorized school districts to establish a Child Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee to help coordinate functions and activities that address students’ obesity problems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each Orange County school district establish a Child Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee to help coordinate functions and activities that address students’ obesity problems. (Finding 1)
F2:
All food and beverages prepared by school food services in Orange County schools, or supplied under contract by outside vendors and served on the school campuses, are regulated by federal and state requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
School districts in Orange County continue to ensure that food and beverages served on school campuses meet federal and state requirements. (Finding 2)
F3:
A study in Poway has shown that the greatest improvement in the physical fitness of students occurred when the physical education program was supervised by a Physical Education Specialist.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Orange County school districts appoint nutrition and physical education specialists who can train classroom teachers in the essentials of their specialties. (Finding 3)
F4:
The Newport-Mesa Unified School District, under the guidance of competent nutritional specialists, has developed menus of healthful food that the students are eager to purchase and consume.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Newport-Mesa Unified School District continue to offer healthful school meals that are appealing and appetizing to the student population, and offer guidance on menu planning to other school districts that request assistance. (Finding 4)
F5:
Various government grants are available to the schools to help finance and improve the schools’ nutrition and physical education programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Orange County school districts apply for state and federal grants available for improving physical education and nutrition programs. (Finding 5)
F6:
Most school districts, faced with budgetary cuts and greater priority on higher academic standards, have gradually decreased their emphasis on physical education.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Orange County school districts make available their playgrounds and outdoor facilities before and after school hours for their students under the supervision of interested faculty members and parents. (Finding 6)
F7:
Food items provided by the schools’ food services are not labeled with their caloric values and nutritional composition; nor is such information posted in the food-serving area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Orange County school districts ensure that either food items sold on their campuses be labeled with the caloric values and nutritional composition or that such information be posted in the food-serving areas. (Finding 7) 13
F8:
Body Mass Index is not fully utilized as an assessment tool by schools’ nutrition and physical education programs, but is used as appropriate by school nurses for clinical purposes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Orange County school districts incorporate instruction on the Body Mass Index into the nutrition and physical education programs and encourage students to share this information with their families. (Finding 8)
F9:
Santa Ana Unified School District has instituted a nutrition counseling and education program to teach healthful eating habits to students and their parents. Responses to Findings 1, 2, 3 and 5 through 8 are requested from the Superintendents of Schools of all school districts in Orange County. A response to Finding 4 is requested from the Superintendent of the Newport- Mesa Unified School District. A response to Finding 9 is requested from the Superintendent of the Santa Ana Unified School District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Santa Ana Unified School District expand its nutrition counseling and education program to all grades, and offer guidance on replicating this program to other school districts that request assistance. (Finding 9) Responses to Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5 through 8 are requested from the Superintendents of Schools of all school districts in Orange County. A response to Recommendation 4 is requested from the Superintendent of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. A response to Recommendation 9 is requested from the Superintendent of the Santa Ana Unified School District.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Commingling newly acquired (unassessed) animals with the population of healthy, adoptable animals encourages the spread of illness/disease and raises the likelihood of injury caused by aggressive behavior.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
ACS maintain a sufficient supply of cages and kennels to preclude commingling newly acquired (unassessed) animals with healthy, adoptable animals. (Finding 1)
F2:
The current Animal Care Services (ACS) practice of excluding kennel staff from making euthanasia decisions does not comply with ACS policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
ACS comply with its policies of requiring kennel-staff involvement in adoption and euthanization decisions. (Finding 2 and 5)
F3:
In following the “no kill” provisions of the Hayden Bill (California Civil Code §1833-1840, SB 1785), ACS frequently ignores other provisions of the bill that allow animals that are too old, too ill or too aggressive for adoption to be euthanized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
ACS request County Counsel to provide a written opinion on ACS’s obligations regarding animal euthanasia under the Hayden Bill (California Civil Code §1833-1840, SB 1785). ACS, guided by County Counsel’s written opinion, comply with the requirements of the Hayden Bill regarding animal euthanasia. (Finding 3)
F4:
ACS was out of compliance with California Health and Safety Code §121575-121710 with respect to the quarantining of an animal that had repeatedly bitten humans, and did not forward tissue samples of a euthanized animal for examination.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
ACS comply with California Health and Safety Code §121575-121710 regarding quarantine of animals that have repeatedly bitten humans, and forwarding of tissue samples of the euthanized animals for examination. (Finding 4)
F5:
ACS management frequently overrides the objections of kennel staff and allows overly aggressive animals to be adopted. Overly aggressive animals placed in adoptive homes could pose not only a public-safety hazard but also a threat of liability to the County.
F6:
ACS treats chronically ill animals with medication to mask the symptoms and then allows the sick animals to be adopted. Many of the adopted animals are returned when the symptoms of chronic illness recur.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
ACS refrain from allowing chronically ill animals to be adopted. (Finding 6)
F7:
ACS has donated adoptable animals to a veterinary hospital operated by associates of one of the managers. This practice not only denies to ACS the funds that it would normally receive when the animals are adopted, but also creates a conflict of interest for managers, whose primary responsibility should be to ACS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
HCA require that all ACS management personnel conduct themselves in such a manner that they avoid any conflict of interest that competes with or opposes the interests of ACS. HCA require that all ACS management personnel disclose at least annually any outside interests that might conflict with the terms of their employment or with the interests of ACS. (Findings 7 and 12)
F8:
ACS donates popular breeds of dogs to animal-rescue groups after the dogs have been spayed or neutered at County expense. This practice effectively uses County funds to underwrite the expenses of private organizations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
ACS make a concerted effort to place adoptable animals before donating them to organizations such as animal-rescue groups. (Finding 8)
F9:
A person hired by the Health Care Agency (HCA), and approved by the Board of Supervisors, as a senior manager of ACS, with the responsibility to administer a $10-million annual budget, lacked experience in managing a large-budget animal shelter. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
HCA provide oversight of ACS’s budget management. (Finding 9)
F10:
ACS makes little or no use of volunteers for animal care, depending instead on a variable supply of Work-Release Program inmates from the Theo Lacy Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
ACS make greater use of volunteers for animal care and become less dependent on the inconsistent supply of Work-Release Program inmates from the Theo Lacy Jail. (Finding 10)
F11:
The Animal Control Advisory Board, whose seven members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, is currently lacking two members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors appoint persons to fill the two vacancies on the Animal Control Advisory Board. (Finding 11)
F12:
The purchasing and contracting practices of ACS are not in compliance with County policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
HCA provide oversight of ACS’s purchasing practices and contracting practices to ensure that they are in compliance with County policy. (Finding 12)
F13:
Unless ACS is able to provide for expansion of the Animal Shelter, ACS may have to limit the services it provides or the number of animals it accommodates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
ACS and HCA jointly develop a plan either for expansion of the Animal Shelter or for limiting the services that the Animal Shelter provides or the number of animals that the Animal Shelter accommodates. HCA present the plan to the Board of Supervisors for their concurrence or approval. (Finding 13)
F14:
A fundraising foundation, Friends of Orange County Animal Services (FOCAS), was proposed in 2000 but never legally established, although it raised $25,000 for ACS. Those funds are in a trust account controlled by HCA. Responses to all findings are requested from the Health Care Agency and Animal Care Services. A response to Finding 4 is requested from the Orange County Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Assessment. Responses to Findings 9 and 11 are required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
HCA determine the need for an Animal Shelter foundation and, if warranted, follow the guidelines for establishing a nonprofit foundation. HCA disclose the plans for using the funds raised by FOCAS. (Finding 14) Responses to Recommendations 1 through 6, 10 and 12 are requested from Animal Care Services. Responses to Recommendations 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 are requested from the Health Care Agency. A response to Recommendation 11 is required from the Board of Supervisors. ENDNOTE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The impact of the Tobacco Settlement Revenue (TSR) in Orange County on the categories of medical services specified in Measure H has been immense, particularly to the emergency-room physicians and specialists who have been treating uninsured patients without compensation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Health Care Agency continue to follow the provisions outlined in Measure H, and ensure that the programs and services continue to be carried out properly and efficiently. (Findings 1, 3 and 4)
F2:
The construction of the new drug-rehabilitation module at the Theo Lacy Jail has been aided by TSR funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff-Coroner complete the construction of the new drug- rehabilitation module at the Theo Lacy Jail, aided by TSR funds, and apply TSR funds for the operation of the new facility. (Finding 2)
F3:
TSR funds have improved the broad range of services and programs to the medically needy and the senior citizens of Orange County.
F4:
Programs and services funded by Tobacco Settlement Revenues are being administered properly and efficiently by the Health Care Agency and the Sheriff-Coroner.
F5:
No other California county has passed an initiative like Orange County’s Measure H that restricts the county’s use of the Tobacco Settlement Funds. Responses to Findings 1, 3 and 4 are requested from the Health Care Agency. A response to Finding 2 is required from the Sheriff-Coroner. A response to Finding 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors continue to ensure that Orange County’s share of the Tobacco Settlement Funds are applied in accordance with the provisions of Measure H, for the benefit of, and with input from, the people of Orange County. (Finding 5) A response to Recommendation 1 is requested from the Health Care Agency. A response to Recommendation 2 is required from the Sheriff-Coroner. A response to Recommendation 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors. COMMENDATION The Health Care Agency and the Sheriff-Coroner are commended for executing the provisions of Measure H properly and efficiently.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The project had 41 Change Orders totaling $2,055,690. Contract completion time extensions of 377 days had been approved at the time of the Grand Jury’s review of the project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department immediately pursue the necessary steps to effect reimbursement of those costs associated with the errors and failures of the architect and various engineers who were responsible. (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8)
F2:
Some Change Orders were necessary to correct errors in the calculation of loads and to provide missing supporting structure for structural elements.
F3:
The majority of the Change Orders were required due to the failure of the architect and the structural, mechanical and electrical engineers to coordinate their plans and to adequately detail how items were to be built within the limited spaces available.
F4:
It was not discovered until the underground foundation stage of the project that the architect failed to supply the contractors with the revised set of plans that changed critical layouts. This omission caused the first of many delays when work had to be stopped and redone, which contributed to cost overruns.
F5:
The contractors were reimbursed for accelerated completion of several phases of the project as well as “out of sequence” installations. The basis of these payments was found to be very subjective and could not be audited to verify the actual costs to the contractor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
On future projects, the Orange County Sheriff Construction Management Team authorize payment of overtime for accelerated or out-of-sequence installations at a per-unit cost agreed upon prior to execution of the work so that audits can be made and payments can be justified. (Finding 5)
F6:
The general contractor was paid $1,660 per day for 122 days of approved time extensions for what is described as “general conditions” due to delay. The amount was found to be very subjective and could not be audited to verify the contractor’s actual daily cost.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In future projects, the Orange County Sheriff Construction Management Team require that the daily reimbursable cost for delays in the construction beyond the control of the general contractor be established with full documentation so that audits can be made and payments can accurately reflect the true additional costs involved. (Finding 6)
F7:
The County of Orange withheld retention payments for uncompleted work for a lengthy period. This retention was in addition to the Performance Surety Bond already supplied by the contractor to ensure completion. At the completion of the Grand Jury’s study in March 2004, the general contractor still had not received all of his funds, even though the project was accepted as completed in January 2004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Orange County Sheriff Construction Management Team re- examine their policy of withholding retention payments and only hold back the industry standard of 150 percent of the value of those uncompleted “punch list” items. (Finding 7) Responses are required to Recommendations 1-4 from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses are required to Recommendations 1-4 from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner.
F8:
The County did not pay the architect to remedy errors but did pay for additional expenses and granted increases above the contracted amount despite serious deficiencies in the services provided. Responses to Findings 1-8 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Findings 1-8 are required from the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The jail facilities operated by the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department continue to suffer from overcrowded conditions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner continue to diligently pursue compliance with State standards and to address the projected growth of the inmate population by planning for the addition of jail beds. (Finding 1) 5
F2:
There are insufficient short-term holding facilities for arrestees awaiting transport from the several Orange County Sheriff-Coroner contract cities to Orange County Central Jail. Arrestees must be transported individually or in small numbers up to 40 miles one- way.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner locate a suitable site to construct a secure detention facility for the short-term housing of inmates to eliminate the need to transport individuals or small numbers of inmates long distances from the point of arrest to the Orange County Central Jail complex in Santa Ana. (Finding 2)
F3:
Registered Nurses are unavailable evenings and weekends at the Los Piños Conservation Camp, a remotely located facility for juveniles. This requires transport of ill or injured wards to a hospital 15-20 miles away in Riverside County. Responses to Findings 1-3 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Findings 1 and 2 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. A response to Finding 3 is requested from the Orange County Probation Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Orange County Probation Department take steps to place a full-time Registered Nurse, including evenings and weekends, in its Los Piños Conservation Camp. (Finding 3) Responses are required to Recommendations 1-3 from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses are required to Recommendations 1 and 2 from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. A response is requested to Recommendation 3 from the Orange County Probation Department. 6
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Few mechanisms exist in Orange County to share information among agencies involved with child abuse that would help those agencies to discern patterns of abuse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Determine the extent to which Children and Family Services, the Anaheim Police Department and medical providers shared information on potential child abuse in this case.
F2:
At the time of this child’s death, the Child Abuse Registry had no policy to document all incoming calls on child abuse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Determine if further intervention could have saved this child’s life.
F3:
The Anaheim Police Department failed to acknowledge two prior responses to the female child victim’s address on Oct. 17, 2001, and Oct. 18, 2001, and no reports of those responses were written.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Determine if a public-health nurse is available at the Child Abuse Registry (CAR) to provide assistance.
F4:
The Child Abuse Registry and Emergency Response Programs have a vacant position for a public-health nurse to gather, evaluate and interpret medical information.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Investigate whether CAR logs all incoming calls to their database.
R8:
The Child Abuse Registry add a public-health nurse to assist social workers at CAR in interpreting and evaluating medical information on children who come to the attention of Children and Family Services. (Finding 4)
F5:
Mandated reporters failed to contact the Child Abuse Registry to report injuries to the FCV and a sibling, delayed in reporting those injuries to CAR and did not follow up with written reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Determine if the Anaheim Police Department records all calls to addresses where possible child abuse occurs.
F6:
The child-advocacy home made a call to the Child Abuse Registry on or about Jan. 22, 2002, reporting new injuries to the FCV, but no documentation of that telephone call exists.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Determine if the state-mandated reporters who deal with child abuse are trained by Social Services to follow the required protocol.
F7:
Despite the inability of the Social Services Agency and the Anaheim Police Department to confirm abuse of the FCV, an aggregation of facts/observations might have revealed a pattern of abuse. 7
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Investigate the need for forum-style Child Death Reviews.
F8:
Children and Family Services failed to conduct an internal Child Death Review involving a meeting of parties/agencies associated with this case.
F9:
In lieu of a roundtable gathering, a single senior social worker was assigned to prepare a written report. A social worker who visited the home and examined the child was never interviewed for the report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
When investigating a child’s death and documenting the findings, Social Services Agency ensure that all social workers who have been in contact with the child are interviewed. (Finding 9)
F10:
Because law-enforcement agencies frequently call in on the public phone line rather than the dedicated line at the Child Abuse Registry, they experience delays in getting information on prior reports for child abuse. Responses to Findings 1, 2 and 4-10 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. Responses to Findings 3 and 7 are required from the City Council of the City of Anaheim and requested from the Police Chief of the Anaheim Police Department. A response to Finding 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Child Abuse Registry publicize to all Orange County law- enforcement agencies that a dedicated phone line exists solely for use by police departments. Ensure that incoming calls on the dedi- cated line are given prompt attention. (Finding 10) Responses to Recommendations 1-6 and 8-10 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. Response to Recommendation 7 is required from the City Council of the City of Anaheim and requested from the Police Chief of the Anaheim Police Department. A response to Recommendation 8 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 9
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Public opposition to land application of Class B biosolids is increasing, and long-term viability of the practice is tenuous.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Orange County Sanitation District phase out Class B biosolids land-application programs except in remote 13 locations where no nearby residents will be impacted. (Finding 1)
R2:
Orange County Sanitation District develop plans to stabilize all biosolids through lime application and/or composting to Class A standards. (Findings 1 and 2)
F2:
Continuation of Class A biosolids land-application programs can postpone expenditure of funds to develop other viable alternatives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Orange County Sanitation District formulate a schedule and costs for implementing a long-range biosolids management plan, and inform the public of anticipated cost increases. (Findings 2 and 3)
F3:
Developing alternatives to replace Class B biosolids land- application programs will increase the cost of beneficially using biosolids.
F4:
Public tolerance for Class A biosolids land-application projects can be enhanced by demonstrating commitment to protecting public health and addressing nuisance issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Orange County Sanitation District explore opportunities to partner with EPA in developing an incident-report data system, conducting a local survey of emerging compounds and pathogens in sewage wastes, and/or implementing a monitoring program at a biosolids land-application site. (Findings 4 and 5) Responses to all recommendations are required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District. REFERENCES CH2M-Hill, December 2003, Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan, Prepared for Orange County Sanitation District Environmental Protection Agency, September 1999, Biosolids Generation, Use, and Disposal in the United States, EPA Report 530-R-99-009 Environmental Protection Agency, March 2000, Biosolids Management and Enforcement, Office of the Inspector General Audit Report Environmental Protection Agency, December 2003, Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge; Final Agency Response to the National Research Council Report on Biosolids Applied to Land and the Results of EPA’s Review of Existing Sewage Sludge Regulations, published in Federal Register Environmental Science Associates, October 1999, Orange County Sanitation District 1999 Strategic Plan, Final Program, Environmental Impact Report 14 National Research Council, 2002, Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices, Report to Environmental Protection Agency Orange County Sanitation District, April 2002, Answers to Questions About Biosolids, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet Orange County Sanitation District, April 2002, Answers to Questions About Biosolids — Monitoring, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet Orange County Sanitation District, April 2002, Answers to Questions About Biosolids — Odors, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet Orange County Sanitation District, April 2002, Answers to Questions About Biosolids — Pathogens and Safety Concerns, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet Orange County Sanitation District, 2003, Biosolids Management Compliance Report, Year 2003, Report to EPA Orange County Sanitation District, February 2003, Environmental Management System for OCSD Biosolids, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet Orange County Sanitation District, October 2003, Environmental Management System for Biosolids, Orange County Sanitation District Manual Orange County Sanitation District, November 2003, Answers to Questions About Orange County Sanitation District, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet 15
F5:
Participating in EPA programs to develop a national incident- report data system, conducting surveys of emerging compounds and pathogens in waste streams, and implementing monitoring programs at a land-application site would demonstrate Orange County Sanitation District’s commitment to protecting public health and addressing nuisance issues. Responses to all findings are required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Orange County Housing Authority relinquished control of California Coastal Commission affordable-housing units to Community Housing Enterprises in a series of Assignments between June 18, 1984 and December 10, 1985.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Orange County Housing Authority rescind the six invalid releases issued to owners of California Coastal Commission affordable-housing units and make appropriate corrections to public property records. (Findings 1-3)
F2:
Orange County Housing Authority releases of California Coastal Commission affordable-housing units issued after 1985 were contrary to County policy and procedures and were invalid.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Orange County Housing Authority rescind the six invalid releases issued to owners of California Coastal Commission affordable-housing units and make appropriate corrections to public property records. (Findings 1-3)
F3:
Orange County Housing Authority issued post-1985 invalid “Release-Notice of Intent to Abandon Option” forms for Niguel Beach Terrace Units 10, 140, 187 and 188; Spinnaker Run Unit 123; and Beacon Hill Terrace Unit 53.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Orange County Housing Authority rescind the six invalid releases issued to owners of California Coastal Commission affordable-housing units and make appropriate corrections to public property records. (Findings 1-3)
F4:
Additional Orange County Housing Authority invalid releases of California Coastal Commission affordable housing units may have been issued but not discovered during this investigation. 9
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Orange County Housing Authority conduct a thorough review of all releases issued since 1985 to identify any that violate applicable rules and regulations, notify affected parties and take steps to correct errors in public property records. (Findings 4-6)
F5:
Invalid releases by Orange County Housing Authority cloud property titles, which may cause serious legal and financial problems for affected parties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Orange County Housing Authority conduct a thorough review of all releases issued since 1985 to identify any that violate applicable rules and regulations, notify affected parties and take steps to correct errors in public property records. (Findings 4-6)
F6:
Invalid releases by Orange County Housing Authority may expose the County to damage claims from affected parties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Orange County Housing Authority conduct a thorough review of all releases issued since 1985 to identify any that violate applicable rules and regulations, notify affected parties and take steps to correct errors in public property records. (Findings 4-6)
F7:
Invalid releases by Orange County Housing Authority, if used to facilitate inappropriate sales or leases, reduce the number of affordable-housing units available to serve the needs of low- and moderate-income home seekers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Orange County Housing Authority develop procedures to readily identify all future requests for release associated with California Coastal Commission affordable-housing units and promptly forward such requests to the Civic Center Barrio Housing Corp. or its assign for processing. (Findings 7 and 8)
F8:
Resale proceeds foregone as the result of Orange County Housing Authority releases of California Coastal Commission affordable-housing units could have been used to defray admin-istrative costs of the affordable-housing program and could have helped fund additional projects to replace affordable-housing units lost through market-value sales. Responses to all findings are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and requested from the Orange County Housing Authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Orange County Housing Authority assist Civic Center Barrio Housing Corp. efforts to administer the California Coastal Commission affordable-housing program by identifying and referring eligible low- and moderate-income home seekers to ensure that an adequate supply of eligible buyers are available to fill the needs of their program. (Finding 8) Responses to all recommendations are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to all recommendations are requested from the Orange County Housing Authority. ATTACHMENT 1 Niguel Beach Terrace Condominiums Released by Community Housing Enterprises Between 1984 and 1987 # 55 # 108 # 179 # 224 # 326 57 120 186 281 327 67 137 194 282 357 69 150 203 284 394 77 169 211 319 395 ATTACHMENT 2 Niguel Beach Terrace Condominiums Released by Civic Center Barrio Housing Corp. Between 1994 and 1997 # 58 # 89 # 117 # 170 # 243 66 97 122 220 285 76 112 139 226 12 ATTACHMENT 3 Assignments of California Coastal Commission Affordable-Housing Units From Orange County Housing Authority to Community Housing Enterprises
F1985:
The releases were ostensibly granted by the issuance of a Housing Authority “Notice of Intent to Abandon Option” form which states, in part: “The following described real property is hereby released from the terms, covenants, conditions and encumbrances of the Agreement and no further action on the part of the Orange County Housing Authority, the County of Orange (or its successor or assign), or any other party is required to effectuate such release:” Standing alone, this form would have released owners from all the original stipulations outlined in the Attachments and permitted unencumbered market-value sales or leases. However, Housing Authority relinquished all interests to the properties in its earlier Assignments to Housing Enterprises (see Attachment 3), thereby rendering these Notices invalid. Unequivocal evidence that post-1985 Housing Authority releases of Coastal Commission-permitted housing units are invalid is contained in a June 25, 2003 letter sent by a Coastal Commission official to an owner of a Niguel Beach Terrace condominium. The owner had submitted a copy of a Housing Authority “Notice of Intent to Abandon Option” form issued on June 14, 2001 as evidence of program compliance. In their response to the owner, the Coastal Commission noted that the Housing Authority: “…had no interest in your unit at the time of this purported ‘release’ and, therefore, no legal ability to issue such a ‘release’. …(Barrio Housing Corp.) is the only entity that had the legal ability to issue such a release….” Clearly, Housing Authority invalid releases for the Niguel Beach Terrace properties are not recognized by the Coastal Commission and merely cloud the titles of the affected properties and mislead owners. The invalid releases of Niguel Beach Terrace properties by Housing Authority officials that were gleaned from the County Clerk-Recorder Office property files include Units 10, 140, 187 and 188 (see Attachment 4). Because the Coastal Commission and Barrio Housing Corp. have stated that they plan to expand their investigations of possible violations of resale and occupancy restriction to other Coastal Commission-permitted affordable-housing projects in Orange County, the review of property records that was conducted as a part of this study was not limited to the Niguel Beach Terrace complex. Although the review was not exhaustive, it revealed that the Housing Authority issued invalid releases to the owners of Unit 123 in Spinnaker Run and Unit 53 in Beacon Hill Terrace (see Attachment 4). While there may have been compelling reasons to release these restricted properties from resale controls, it is apparent that the Housing Authority did not have the power to issue legitimate “Notices of Intent to Abandon Option” forms for these properties on the dates listed in Attachment 4. CAVEATS The Grand Jury review of property records was conducted by searching for property transactions coded as a “Release” or “Notice” and associated with various abbreviated versions of “Orange County Housing Authority.” Although the search was conducted as thoroughly as time would allow, it is possible that some transactions were overlooked. If County clerks recorded property transactions under different codes or used an unusual abbreviation for the Housing Authority, the screening technique would not have identified the action. It is important to note that only random searches were conducted on pre-1994 records that are only available for review on microfilm. It is also possible that some Housing Authority releases were sent directly to property owners and not filed with the County Clerk-Recorder Office. Consequently, there are no assurances that the six identified invalid releases listed in this report are all that were issued. FINAL OBSERVATIONS It was noted that many of the unauthorized and invalid releases were issued shortly before or after the properties in question had been sold. The timing of the transactions, at the very least, gives the perception that the releases were issued with the intent to facilitate what would otherwise have been illegal sales. If the transactions were market-value 8 sales (which is reasonable to assume), sellers very likely realized handsome profits. Had these sales been executed under the auspices of the affordable-housing program by the designated agency, proceeds of the sales could have been used to serve the housing needs of low- and moderate-income families. In response to the Coastal Commission’s aggressive enforcement actions against Niguel Beach Terrace homeowners, numerous parties have retained legal counsel to represent them in potential litigation. At least one owner has filed a claim for money damages against several of the agencies involved in the administration of the program, including the Housing Authority. As the controversy surrounding Niguel Beach Terrace properties wends its way through the legal process, it is possible that the public will react negatively to alleged profiteering by some beneficiaries of the low- and moderate-income housing program. It is also possible that the public will have questions for the agencies entrusted to administer the program and wonder if Orange County has indeed given away the farm. FINDINGS Under California Penal Code Sec. 933 and Sec. 933.05, responses are required to all findings. The 2003-2004 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following eight findings: 1. Orange County Housing Authority relinquished control of California Coastal Commission affordable-housing units to Community Housing Enterprises in a series of Assignments between June 18, 1984 and December 10, 1985.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Orange County Housing Authority inform the California Coastal Commission, Civic Center Barrio Housing Corp. and
R6:
On May 30, 2003, Beacon Hill Terrace Unit 53, Terrace Circle, Laguna Niguel, County Clerk-Recorder Document No. 2003- 684285 13
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Increased urbanization in the upper Santa Ana River basin will increase the amount of Santa Ana River water available for capture in the Anaheim recharge facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Orange County Water District continue to explore opportunities to increase recharge capacity in the Anaheim recharge facilities including plans to increase the capacity of pipelines that transport water to the deep-basin system. (Findings 1 and 2)
F2:
Using Kraemer Basin to recharge purified wastewater will reduce capacity to capture Santa Ana River floodwater and result in the loss of some floodwater during abnormally wet years.
F3:
Increased rates of recharge in the Anaheim recharge facilities will cause local groundwater levels to rise.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Orange County Water District develop inland well fields to increase the rate of groundwater withdrawals near the recharge facilities. (Finding 3)
F4:
Depressed groundwater levels near the coast have exacerbated the inland advance of saline water.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Orange County Water District curtail groundwater withdrawals from deep wells and obtain blending water for the Talbert Gap seawater- intrusion barrier from other sources. (Finding 4)
F5:
Seasonal increases in groundwater withdrawal rates place added stress on the aquifer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Orange County Water District discourage seasonal increases in rates of groundwater withdrawals to minimize stress on the aquifer. (Finding 5)
F6:
Saline water is migrating around the eastern end on the Talbert Gap seawater-intrusion barrier.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Orange County Water District initiate data-collection programs to define the lateral and vertical extent of permeable zones on the east side of the Santa Ana River to facilitate easterly extension of the Talbert Gap seawater-intrusion barrier. (Finding 6)
F7:
There are physical limits on the aquifer’s capacity to transport water from areas of recharge to areas of withdrawal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Orange County Water District expedite planning, data-collection and analysis efforts to secure necessary permits for a mid-basin injection program. (Findings 7 and 8)
F8:
Changes in groundwater management strategies will be required to increase the current rate of groundwater withdrawals to satisfy future water needs. A response to each finding is required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. 21
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Orange County Water District seek waivers from regulatory agencies to expedite mid-basin injection based on laboratory and field investigations, which demonstrate that purified wastewater from the Groundwater Replenishment System will pose no risk to public health. (Finding 8) A response to each recommendation is required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. COMMENDATION The 2003-2004 Grand Jury commends the staff of Orange County Water District for their foresight, expertise and dedication in managing the County’s precious groundwater resources and planning for the decades ahead. The Groundwater Replenishment System is only one of many innovative programs implemented by Orange County Water District to enhance groundwater production for current users while preserving the resource for future generations. Orange County Water District efforts to capture and recharge floodwater have been particularly noteworthy. The average of 70,000 acre-feet of storm flows captured each flood season saves Orange County water users more than $17 million per year.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The District Attorney concluded that, as to the crime of filing a false police report [Penal Code §118.1], there was no violation of the law, since a prosecution under that statute requires proof of a false statement and not simply an omission on the part of the peace officer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To avoid public perceptions of conflict of interest, the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department use an outside law-enforcement agency to conduct an independent investigation of this incident, either separate from or parallel to the Sheriff’s Department internal-affairs investigation. (Findings 1, 2 and 3) A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner.
F2:
As to the crime of conspiracy to obstruct justice [Penal Code §182 (5)], the District Attorney concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove a violation of the statute beyond a reasonable doubt.
F3:
Some Orange County Sheriff’s Department managers were not forthright in explaining the true facts of the incident to the public and to other governmental agencies. Responses to Findings 1 and 2 are required from the District Attorney. Responses to Findings 1, 2 and 3 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The actual costs related to administrative leaves are much greater than the amount reported to the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Auditor-Controller change the County Payroll and Accounting systems to accurately track all costs related to paid administrative leaves. (Findings 1 and 5)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors continue to track administrative leaves approved by the CEO and determine the actual cost of paid administrative leaves. (Findings 1, 5 and 7)
F2:
The agencies/departments develop cases independently before submitting them to CEO/Employee Relations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The CEO centralize some of the Human Resources functions that are cur- rently within the agencies/departments. (Findings 2 and 4)
F3:
County Counsel becomes involved in dismissal cases only when requested to do so by Employee Relations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Counsel, Employee Relations and the appropria te Agency/Department Head meet to discuss each dismissal case soon after the investigation has been completed and the case has been submitted to Employee Relations. (Finding 3)
F4:
Not all agencies/departments have the same human resources skill sets.
F5:
The County accounting system is not designed to capture the actual costs of administrative leaves.
F6:
The Probation Department is not in agreement with CEO/Employee Relations regarding sufficient cause for disciplinary action and the appropriate action required. 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County Counsel, Employee Relations, District Attorney’s Office, Sheriff- Coroner and Probation Department representatives meet to determine what off-duty conduct standards might be applicable to employees with peace officer status. Representatives from employee organizations should also participate. (Finding 6) 7
F7:
The CEO’s reports to the Board of Supervisors for the first two quarters of the 2003 -2004 fiscal year indicate a significant reduction in cost of administrative leaves from the previous five years.
F8:
Arbitration cases would be conducted more efficiently if all cases were assigned to the same individual in CEO/Employee Relations. Responses to all findings are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and requested from the Orange County CEO. A response to Finding 3 is requested from County Counsel. A response to Finding 5 is required from the Auditor-Controller. A response to Finding 6 is requested from the Probation Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
CEO/Employee Relations assign a single individual to all dismissal arbitration cases. (Finding 8) Responses to all recommendations are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and requested from the Orange County CEO. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Auditor-Controller. A response to Recommendation 3 and 4 is reque sted from the Probation Department. A response to Recommendation 3 and 4 is requested from County Counsel. A response to Recommendation 4 is required from the Sheriff-Coroner. A response to Recommendation 4 is required from the District Attorney. 8
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R98-99:
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 4 raeY lacsiF Probation Sheriff-Coroner District Attorney Other Agencies Percentage Chart 1 Administrative Leave Salary Costs
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The SAUSD has received no clear guidance for the implementation of Proposition 227.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Rely on Education Code 305 and its own close reading of the law in implementing the mandates of Proposition 227. (Finding 1)
F2:
The SAUSD has fostered an atmosphere that has encouraged resistance to implementation of Proposition 227 by the Board of Education, administrators, teachers and other staff and parents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Commit itself to complying with the mandates of Proposition 227 and educate its staff and parents both in the requirements of the law and the benefits of English proficiency for their children. (Finding 2)
F3:
Parents of SAUSD school children were led into believing that lengthy bilingual education programs rather than rapid English acquisition were in their children’s best interests.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Use contact with parents on an individual level, at their committee meetings and at community tutoring sessions to emphasize the advantages of early and rapid English acquisition. (Finding 3)
F4:
The SAUSD has instituted elaborate and lengthy programs in bilingual education that impede student progress in the acquisition of English proficiency by devoting too much time to the teaching of Spanish and core curriculum in Spanish.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Discontinue its numerous classes in “Spanish language arts” in bilingual and 2Way programs and accelerate the ratio of the use of English to Spanish in the teaching of core curriculum subjects. (Findings 4 and 5)
F5:
In the bilingual education programs in the SAUSD, the emphasis on instruction of and in the Spanish language is so extensive that it is, in effect, schooling in a foreign language, parallel to mainstream schools, in which English is just one of many subjects taught.
F6:
The SAUSD has used the waiver program inappropriately, unnecessarily placing many children in bilingual education rather than English immersion and/or mainstream classes in English.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Reduce the length and curtail the scope of existing and projected bilingual education and 2Way programs and issue waivers for children to stay in these programs only for the most compelling reasons. (Findings 6 and 7)
R6:
Use the resources recovered from the curtailment of bilingual education and 2Way programs in Spanish to establish more English immersion classes in which children from different language
F7:
Plans to reform the administration of the waiver process conflict with existing and projected bilingual and 2Way programs, which continue for several years. A response to each finding is required from the Superintendent of the Santa Ana Unified School District and the Santa Ana Board of Education.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Procedures of the Orange County Internal Audit Department for processing calls to the Fraud Hotline still exist only in a draft form dating from 1997. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Finalize and issue the operating procedures for the Fraud Hotline. (Finding 1) 5
F2:
A designated person within IAD staffs the Fraud Hotline during business hours. Many after-hours calls are not processed because callers do not leave adequate information for an investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Design an after-hours call-response system that asks questions of the caller that would normally be asked during business hours. (Finding 2)
F3:
Most calls to the Fraud Hotline are redirected to another department or agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Meet with other agencies that have hotlines to develop a better system to process hotline calls, with the objective of reducing the number of redirected calls. (Findings 3 and 7)
F4:
Many reference telephone numbers used by the IAD are incorrect, and telephone-number verification processes are not in place.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Update a list of reference telephone numbers. Adopt a method for periodically verifying and updating the telephone numbers thereafter. (Finding 4)
F5:
Although posters were initially provided to county agencies and departments, few of the posters are currently displayed and many county employees are not aware of the Hotline. There is no publicity program to enhance public awareness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Inform Orange County employees of the existence of the Fraud Hotline, by redistributing posters to all agencies and departments. Place and maintain additional posters in county public-announcement areas, e.g., Board of Supervisors’ bulletin boards at the Hall of Administration. Send a quarterly internal e-mail to all employees explaining the purpose of the Hotline. Contact the employee organizations and request that they provide quarterly information about the County Fraud Hotline in their communications to employees. (Finding 5)
F6:
Orange County Intranet, which is for internal use only, provides no information regarding the Fraud Hotline.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Design an internal Web page that provides information about all telephone numbers available to employees to report county- related misuse of county resources. (Finding 6)
F7:
Orange County Office of Risk Management, the District Attorney and the IAD all operate hotlines, yet those three organizations do not coordinate their systems.
F8:
The Fraud Hotline’s Procedures Manual assures anonymity for callers but does not address protection of callers from retaliation. Responses to all findings are requested from the Orange County Internal Audit Department. Response to Finding 7 is required from the District Attorney and requested from the CEO, Risk Management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Develop and disseminate a policy that identifies Orange County employees are protected by the California Labor Code §1102.5 (2004) and California Labor Code §1102.8 (2004) (Finding 8) Responses to all recommendations are requested from the Orange County Internal Audit Department. A response from the Orange County Board of Supervisors is required for Recommendation 7. APPENDICES
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Orange County District Attorney’s Office is in need of additional staff to effectively investigate and prosecute complex and time consuming identity-theft crimes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County District Attorney increase the number of investigators and prosecutors to allow for both identity-theft specialization and in-depth case investigation.
F2:
Some city police agencies need more training by the District Attorney’s Office to properly investigate and prepare identity-theft cases for presentation to prosecutors. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County District Attorney provide more training to local police agencies in investigative techniques and case preparation to ensure that cases will be accepted by the District Attorney for prosecution. (Finding 2)
F3:
Identity Theft Sub-Task Forces are in place in five major population centers in California and are functioning to facilitate better com- munication, coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement and public record-keeping agencies involved in prevention, investigation and prosecution of identity theft. Orange County does not have an Identity Theft Task Force or Sub-Task Force.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Orange County District Attorney, the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner Department and the city police departments in Orange County take steps to form and actively participate in a countywide Regional Identity Theft Task Force comprised of representatives of each of these agencies. The task force should seek the cooperation and participation of the United States Postal Inspector, the United States Secret Service, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States Federal Trade Commission. (Finding 3)
F4:
The Orange County District Attorney’s Office, Orange County city police agencies and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department provide some form of public information and resource materials outlining how one can prevent identity theft as well as corrective steps to take where identity theft has occurred.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Orange County city police departments and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department work cooperatively to develop standardized public information materials, possibly modeled after excellent pamphlets that now exist, for use by all departments. (Finding 4)
F5:
Eight city police agencies in Orange County have developed specialized identity-theft crime reporting forms that incorporate standardized terms and information formats. These forms can help identity-theft victims repair damaged credit history more quickly. Response to Finding 1 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Findings 1-4 are required from the Orange County District Attorney. Responses to Findings 3-5 are required from the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner. Responses to Findings 3-5 are required from the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, La Habra, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin, Westminster and Yorba Linda.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Orange County city police departments and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department adopt a standardized identity-theft crime- reporting form, possibly modeled after forms now in use by several police departments. (Finding 5) Response is required to Recommendation 1 from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses are required to Recommendations 1-3 from the Orange County District Attorney. Responses are required to Recommendations 3-5 from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Responses are required to Recommendations 3-5 from the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, La Habra, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin, Westminster and Yorba Linda. BIBLIOGRAPHY Synovate, “Federal Trade Commission–Identity Theft Survey Report,” Fed- eral Trade Commission, September 2003 “Survey on Identity Theft,” Gartner Research Group, July 2003 Gayer, Jennette, “Policing Privacy: Law Enforcement’s Response to Identity Theft,” The California Public Interest Research Group, May 2003 “ID Theft–When Bad Things Happen to Your Good Name,” Federal Trade Commission, September 2002 “Identity Theft: The Aftermath 2003,” Identity Theft Resource Center, Summer 2003 8
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.