Orange County Grand Jury
2005-2006
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (8)
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F6:
2 Independent reviews of LEAs: As the Mayor of the City of Laguna Woods, I believe that the practices of law enforcement agencies in Orange County are subject to the scrutiny on independent reviews by the communities they serve. Their policies and procedures come under regular review by the state and federal judicial systems, their elected and appointed officials, their legal counsel and their residents. In addition to making complaints to the law enforcement agency itself, members of our communities have many options available to them if they believe that their law enforcement agency is not performing competently, or they believe they were treated unfairly. In the seven years since the City incorporated, we have received very few complaints about OCSD service and those have been investigated by our staff and successfully resolved. I believe that the review systems currently being used in our City and the OCSD are working effectively and that the amount of oversight currently provided is sufficient.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
2 Near-term, independent review of LEA policies, procedures, and compliance: The City of Laguna Woods believes that the internal and external system of checks and balances currently in place in the OCSD are functioning effectively. There are periodic and ongoing reviews of policies, procedures and compliance. There is no evidence to suggest that the recommendations proposed by the Grand Jury would enhance the systems currently in place. We do not support additional independent review.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F6:
5.) Responses to Recommendations 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5 and 7.6 are requested from the Director, Social Services Agency. Response to Recommendation 7.4 is required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools, Department of Education. Response to Recommendations 7.1 and 7.6 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. 8. Acknowledgement The Grand Jury commends the ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY and MUNICIPAL FIRE FIGHTERS for their assistance in expanding the number of safe drop-off sites in OC from 33 to 170 and their commitment to caring for these infants and their mothers. 9. Appendix 9.1 Selected References 1. “Safely Surrendered Law”, State of California, SB 1386, 2001 2. “Amend Sunset Clause of Safe Surrender”, State of California, SB 116, 2005 3. “Authorized Inclusion of Safe Surrender Instruction in California Schools’ Health Curriculum, Grades 7-12,” State of California, SB 2817, 2002 4. OC Grand Jury reports for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 5. SSA Report to Board of Supervisors – Findings and Recommendations 2001-2002, 2002-2003 6. State of California Report to the Legislature on the Safe Surrender Baby Law, 2000, 2003, 2005 7. “Safe Surrender Babies in California”, State of California, Social Services, May 14, 2003 8. “Safe Surrender Baby Campaign Fast Facts”, State of California, January 2002 9. “Tobacco Settlement Revenue”, Welcome to TSR Web Site, Orange County, Health Care Agency 10. “Infant Surrender FAQ’s”, Orange County Fire Authority, 2005 11. News Release, Orange County Fire Authority, January 27, 2005 12. Safe Haven For Abandoned Babies Task Force, Los Angeles Children’s Planning Council, Los Angeles, CA, April 5, 2002 13. “1st Annual Report”, Orange County Children’s Services Coordination Committee, Santa Ana, CA, June 2002 14. “Annual Report”, Orangewood Children’s Home, Orange, CA, 2005 15. Safehaven website, Fort Wayne, Indiana 16. RAISE Foundation documents, Irvine, CA 17. Project Cuddle documents, Costa Mesa, CA 18. Educational Code § 51933 19. Coroner Division Report of Child Deaths 2003, 2004 , 2005 20. Minutes, Orange County Juvenile Justice Committee, September 21, 2005 and October 5, 2005
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
State of California Report to the Legislature on the Safe Surrender Baby Law, 2000, 2003, 2005
Additional Recommendations
19
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
“Safely Surrendered Law”, State of California, SB 1386, 2001
R2:
“Amend Sunset Clause of Safe Surrender”, State of California, SB 116, 2005
R3:
“Authorized Inclusion of Safe Surrender Instruction in California Schools’ Health Curriculum, Grades 7-12,” State of California, SB 2817, 2002
R4:
OC Grand Jury reports for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003
R5:
SSA Report to Board of Supervisors – Findings and Recommendations 2001-2002, 2002-2003
R7:
“Safe Surrender Babies in California”, State of California, Social Services, May 14, 2003
R8:
Acknowledgement The Grand Jury commends the ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY and MUNICIPAL FIRE FIGHTERS for their assistance in expanding the number of safe drop-off sites in OC from 33 to 170 and their commitment to caring for these infants and their mothers.
R9:
Appendix 9.1 Selected References
R10:
“Infant Surrender FAQ’s”, Orange County Fire Authority, 2005
R11:
News Release, Orange County Fire Authority, January 27, 2005
R12:
Safe Haven For Abandoned Babies Task Force, Los Angeles Children’s Planning Council, Los Angeles, CA, April 5, 2002
R13:
“1st Annual Report”, Orange County Children’s Services Coordination Committee, Santa Ana, CA, June 2002
R14:
“Annual Report”, Orangewood Children’s Home, Orange, CA, 2005
R15:
Safehaven website, Fort Wayne, Indiana
R16:
RAISE Foundation documents, Irvine, CA
R17:
Project Cuddle documents, Costa Mesa, CA
R18:
Educational Code § 51933
R19:
Coroner Division Report of Child Deaths 2003, 2004 , 2005
R20:
Minutes, Orange County Juvenile Justice Committee, September 21, 2005 and October 5, 2005
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Summary The day-to-day business of county-operated, adult detention facilities in Orange County, under the Acronyms in this Report management of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD), requires multiple programs to EMS Emergency Medical provide reasonable inmate care. Services - “911” An area reviewed by the Grand Jury was the OCSD’s IMS Institutional Medical care of inmates in Superior Court Justice Center Services holding cell facilities as related to reasonableness and timeliness of responses in emergency medical LVN Licensed Vocational situations. Based on our review, the 2005-2006 Orange Nurse County Grand Jury concluded that responses to MD Medical Doctor emergency medical needs were timely and reasonable. (Physician) NP Nurse Practitioner 2. Introduction and Purpose of the Study OCSD Orange County The OCSD is responsible to ensure inmates are Sheriff’s Department transported safely and in a timely manner Monday through Friday from the jail sites to all Justice Center RN Registered Nurse holding cell facilities in order to make court appearances. Deputy sheriffs are responsible for the care and safety of the inmates while being transported to and from the jails and courthouses and also while housed in the holding cell facilities awaiting court appearances. This study reviewed the timeliness and reasonableness of emergency medical care response to inmates maintained in holding cell facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Annual Local Detention Facility Health Inspection Reports, County of Orange Health Care Agency 2005 (as required by Section 101045 of the California Health and Safety Code
F3:
Method of Study In regard to Justice Center holding cell facilities, the Grand Jury: • Examined policy and procedure manuals • Analyzed inmate Medical Aid Reports • Interviewed OCSD personnel responsible for emergency medical care . Background 4.1 Jail Sites There are three jail locations, but five separate facilities in the Orange County detention facilities system. The Men’s Jail, the Women’s Jail and the Intake and Release Center are housed in the Central Jail Complex in Santa Ana. The James A. Musick facility is at the edge of Irvine near the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. Theo Lacy Jail is across the street from the Block of Orange. The OCSD also operates two holding cell facilities in the contract cities of San Clemente and Laguna Niguel. 4.2 Institutional Medical Services (IMS) IMS is the Health Care Agency organization that works within the county jails. IMS staff is responsible for medical, dental, nursing, pharmaceutical and behavioral services for all inmates in the county’s adult detention facilities. IMS staff includes: • Physicians (MDs)/Nurse Practitioners (NPs) • Dentists • Registered Nurses (RNs)/Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) • Pharmacists 4.3 Justice Center Holding Cell Facilities The OCSD oversees the transporting of inmates as they leave the adult jail facilities before dawn and fan out to the five Superior Court Justice Centers throughout Orange County. They are transported in secured buses and vans to the various courthouses and then into holding cell facilities while waiting to appear before a judge. It is an intricate process to get all the inmates to the right courthouses at the right times. This job of transporting the inmates repeats itself again in the early evening as the inmates return to the jails. During this entire process, from leaving until returning to their assigned jail, total care of the inmate populations, including any emergency medical care, is the responsibility of deputy sheriffs. Emergency Medical Care in Holding Cell Facilities 5. Observations and Discussion 5.1 Number of Holding cell facilities Inmates The following table shows the total number of inmates processed through holding cell facilities in the five Justice Centers over the past two years. Number of Inmates Justice Center Processed 2004 2005 Central 50,235 50,255 Laguna Niguel 9,320 8,968 North 36,002 34,873 West 24,631 26,587 Harbor 11,746 12,183 Totals 131,934 132,866 As these numbers indicate, more than 500 inmates are transported every week day for court appearances at the Justice Centers. 5.2 Justice Centers Because holding facility characteristics vary by location, the Grand Jury selected the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana as an unique example. At this Justice Center, inmates seldom are seen outside of a courtroom because they are brought there via a labyrinth of sub-basements, tunnels, elevators, and holding cell facilities in the interior of the high-rise courthouse. There are holding cell facilities on several floors near courtrooms. 5.2.1 Care of Inmates Individuals taken into custody by the court or law enforcement all receive a medical evaluation when they are booked in the jails. Inmates sent to holding cell facilities from the jails have been medically cleared and appropriate medications, if necessary, sent with them. The deputy sheriffs interact with IMS to check inmate medical history should the need arise as a result of an emergency. Deputy sheriffs serve as the first line of care in medical emergencies within the holding cell facility, during vehicular transportation, and in courtroom settings. During our visits, the Grand Jury was told of some heroic, life-saving actions by some of the deputies reacting to unforeseen medical emergencies with inmates in their care. The deputies are trained in First Aid, Coronary Pulmonary Resuscitation, use of an Automatic Electronic Defibrillator, and other life-saving procedures. It is an important part of their training to be ready to respond to medical emergencies. If deputy sheriffs make the determination that the required medical need/care is beyond the scope of their training/ability, deputies dial “911” to call paramedics .2.2 Emergency Response Times The Grand Jury study reviewed the emergency care procedures and Medical Aid Reports for inmates in for years 2004 and 2005. The numbers of reports reviewed for each Center were: Superior Court Number of Medical Aid Reports Reviewed Justice Center 2004 2005 Total Central 10 11 21 Laguna Niguel 12 5 17 North 28 24 52 West 15 8 23 Harbor 12 5 17 Total 77 53 130 Based on the Reports provided, the Grand Jury concluded deputy sheriffs responded reasonably to medical emergencies. Given that timeliness is critical in responding to emergency medical needs, the Grand Jury also concluded that the deputies’ response times were reasonable. The Grand Jury study also reviewed the Emergency Medical System’s (EMS) records of response time to “911” calls from holding cell facilities for 2004 and 2005. The Grand Jury found these response times were also reasonable. 5.3 IMS During a visit to the Central Jail Complex, the Grand Jury reviewed IMS procedures, and obtained the following information about the services provided: Treatment of inmates reported in a year: • Medical screening assessments 64,589 • Sick call visits (medical and/or dental) 180,776 • Behavioral assessments 10,615 Triage of inmates: • All medical inmates are seen immediately, or within two hours by a MD/NP, or the inmate is placed on next-day “MD sick call” • All mental health inmates are seen by IMS Mental Health staff before being placed in a cell or other assigned area (“housing”) • Mini x-rays to rule out tuberculosis are performed before housing of inmates Emergency Medical Care in Holding Cell Facilities Medical housing of inmates (infirmary): • Critical care – beds for 18 males and 15 females, with 24 hours direct observation by RNs • General care - 205 medical beds without direct observation • MD/NP on site or on call 24/7 • Pharmacy available seven days a week • Deputy sheriffs referrals are seen immediately • All inmates are seen within 24 hours of the staff receiving a written request from an inmate • Inmates housed in the Infirmary are seen daily by a MD Dispensaries: • Staffed with RNs and LVNs 24/7 • MD/NP sick call daily • Dental clinic Monday – Friday • RN sick call daily • Diabetic care daily • HIV/STD testing and treatment • Dispensing of medication and treatment - 24 hours a day/twice a day 6. Findings In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings: 6.1 Holding cell emergency medical care response: Based on Grand Jury observation and review of Orange County Sheriff’s Department information, deputy sheriffs appeared trained, experienced, and dedicated to providing timely and reasonable emergency medical responses for inmates in the Justice Center holding cell facilities. Response to Finding 6.1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Orange County Grand Jury Report, 2004-2005, The State of Orange County Jails
F7:
Recommendations In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings, the 2005- 2006 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: .1 Continue holding cell emergency medical care practices: Because reasonable practices, procedures and training are in place, the OCSD should continue to maintain and sustain this performance level when dealing with emergency medical care for inmates. (Finding 6.1.) Response to Recommendation 7.1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Orange County Sheriff’s Department Medical Aid Reports for Superior Court Holding Cells, 2004 and 2005
F8:
Acknowledgement The Grand Jury commends the dedication of deputy sheriffs working in the Superior Court Justice Centers’ holding cell facilities/jails and of the Institutional Medical Services staff working within the jail facilities of Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Acknowledgement The Grand Jury commends the dedication of deputy sheriffs working in the Superior Court Justice Centers’ holding cell facilities/jails and of the Institutional Medical Services staff working within the jail facilities of Orange County.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Orange County Sheriff’s Department Court Operations Detention Manual, January 2005
R4:
Biennial Inspection, pursuant to Penal Code §6031, 2005 Adult Title 15 Regulations
R5:
Institutional Health Services
R6:
County of Orange Health Care Agency 2005 Business Plan
R9:
References/Resources
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Summary The older population (age 60 and over) in Orange Acronyms in this Report County is estimated to increase by 64 percent by the year 2020. Baby boomers will certainly impact the population AAA Area Agency on of long-term care facilities. For the immediate future, the Aging 75 plus age group will probably be an even greater ACIS Adult Care influence. As we prepare for this tidal wave of older Information System citizens some call an “age Tsunami”, we must rethink retirement and old age and take steps to ensure that BOS Orange County Orange County’s senior citizens experience a high Board of Supervisors quality of life. As society redefines aging policy, we CDA California Dept. of must consider the rights of residents of long-term care Aging facilities. CDBG Community The Orange County Office on Aging (OOA) Long-Term Development Block Care Ombudsman Program is the only federal and state Grant mandated program to advocate for the 30,000 Orange COA Council on Aging - County residents in 1,000 nursing and assisted living Orange County facilities for the elderly. Ombudsmen work to resolve problems and concerns of individual residents by DHS-L&C California Dept. of creating a presence through regular unannounced visits, Health Services, monitoring conditions and care, and providing a voice Licensing and for those unable to speak for themselves. Ombudsmen Certification receive and investigate an average of 3,000 complaints OAA Federal Older per year; these run the gamut of issues from complaints Americans Act about cold food to alleged sexual abuse. The Ombudsman Program is the mandated reporting agency OOA Orange County for any suspected abuse that occurs in licensed long-term Office of Aging care facilities. Based on review of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, the Orange County Grand Jury determined that: 1.1 There will be a noticeable increase in the 75 plus age group in the near future and the 60 plus population is expected to increase by almost two-thirds in Orange County over the next fifteen years. This will increase the need for more long-term care facilities and an expansion of the OOA Ombudsman Program. .2 The Ombudsman Program, managed by the Council on Aging-Orange County (COA), provides a critical service to older and dependent adults in Orange County. The OOA has fiscal and administrative oversight over the Ombudsman Program. Unfortunately, the general public is not fully aware of the Ombudsman Program and its mission. 1.3 Additional public and private funding will be required to expand the number of Ombudsmen to ensure an increased presence in long-term care facilities to meet future needs. 1.4 Successful Ombudsman volunteer recruitment and retention will be improved by increased volunteer recognition. 1.5 Ombudsmen are a key factor in receiving and investigating reports of suspected cases of abuse or neglect. 1.6 Complaints of abuse and neglect in nursing homes filed by Long-Term Care Ombudsmen are not being investigated in a timely manner by appropriate agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
2005-2006 background information and materials provided by the COA
F2:
Introduction and Purpose of the Study The purposes of the study were to determine if the OOA Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program is: • Effectively providing services • Promoting and facilitating the optimal environment for residents of long-term care facilities • Preserving the residents’ rights to self determination and dignity • Adequately preparing for the expected large increase in the Orange County aging population 3. Method of Study To determine if Orange County residents in long-term care facilities are helped to maintain or improve their quality of life, the Orange County Grand Jury: • Made unannounced visits with Ombudsmen to a number of licensed long-term care facilities for the elderly in Orange County • Interviewed employees from the OOA and COA • Reviewed documents and materials listed in Section 8.2, “References” The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 4. Background 4.1 Federal and State Origins The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program began in 1972 and was established in all states under the Federal Older Americans Act (OAA). Under Public Law 89-73 and Section 307 (a)(12)(B) of OAA, Ombudsmen have the right to enter appropriate facilities unannounced in order to fulfill the responsibilities imposed upon them by law. If anyone interferes with their lawful actions, they may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000. The Ombudsman Program was established in California by Assembly Bill 2997. The California State Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Aging (CDA) administers the statewide Ombudsman Program through 33 Planning and Service Areas located throughout the state. The state agency established procedures for appropriate access by the Ombudsman to long-term care facilities and patient’s records. 4.2 The Local Beginning The Orange County Housing and Community Services Department’s OOA administers the Ombudsman Program. Since 1976, the Orange County Ombudsman Program has been managed by the COA by contract with the OOA and funded with federal, state, local, and private financial support. OOA promotes the program through referrals at their call center, providing information about the program when outreach is done via health fairs, low income food distribution sites, low income housing sites and community events, radio broadcasts, a website, local print media methods, county libraries, senior centers, and hospitals. The COA, a private non-governmental agency, was founded in 1973 by a group of skilled professionals, civic leaders and committed citizens who recognized a need to define and address community concerns regarding aging. Their first accomplishment was to form the Orange County Area Agency on Aging (AAA) as mandated by the OAA. The COA is dedicated to promoting adult empowerment, abuse prevention, and advocacy for the rights and dignity of those experiencing health and aging challenges. 4.3 Orange County’s Projected Senior Statistics: The Coming “Age Tsunami” People are living longer, able to stay active, and remaining in their own homes, hence moving into facilities later in life. According to OOA, Orange County’s 838,000 baby boomers will begin turning 60 in 2006. Baby boomers are defined as those individuals born between 1946 and 1964. Although there may not be an explosion of baby boomers to facilities in this decade, it will happen and, in the meanwhile, there will still be an increase of adults 75 and older. 2020 Increase US Aged 60+ 49,712,000 75,487,000 52 % California Aged 60+ 5,507,167 8,742,297 59% OC Aged 60+ 437,972 719,038 64 % OC Aged 70+ 218,495 332,636 52 % OC Aged 75+ 145,333 195,185 34 % OC Aged 85+ 38,964 48,981 26 % OC = Orange County The extent of population aging is even more dramatic when looking at OOA data by ethnic groups: Projected Aging Population Population Type 2006 2020 Increase OC White Aged 60+ 305,593 403,519 32 % OC Asian Aged 60+ 64,505 145,967 126% OC Hispanic Aged 60+ 56,946 142,824 151% OC Other Aged 60+ 10,928 26,728 145% 4.4 OOA Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 4.4.1 Purpose The purpose of the Ombudsman Program is to investigate and resolve complaints made by or on behalf of residents living in nursing and residential care homes and to provide advocacy and mediation to ensure that resident rights and quality of life are maintained or improved. See Exhibit 8.1.1 for Ombudsman Qualifications. 4.4.2 Staffing According to the COA, the Ombudsman Program has 20 part-time and three full- time staff. These 23 paid staff members average 10-30 hours per week and their office experiences a very low turnover rate. The Program also uses volunteers, primarily retired senior citizens, who are all part-time and volunteer an average of 15-20 hours per month. The current volunteer staff level of 38 is significantly less than previous levels that have varied from 64 in 2001 through 51 in 2005. Each volunteer averages 11.6 facilities which are assigned to them. Some cover two or three large facilities and some cover 18-20 small facilities. The paid staff members cover an average of about 20 facilities. The assignments are usually The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program based on geographic location and Orange County’s 78 nursing homes are visited weekly. The majority of assisted living facilities are visited monthly. (See section 4.6.1 for definitions.) 4.4.3 Why is an Ombudsman Necessary? Older, dependent adults living in long-term care facilities face some unavoidable limitations when they have to leave their own homes. Privacy and independence may be curtailed by the need for care and assistance. These limitations do not mean that they also give up their fundamental human rights of self determination and dignity. They continue to have the right to be heard and taken seriously, and the right to express their own wishes and have them respected. Residents of long-term care facilities sometimes feel ignored or intimidated if they have a concern that goes unresolved. In truth, most caregivers do not intend to cause harm. In more serious cases, the Ombudsman will report violations to state licensing agencies that may result in fines, suspension of license, citations, and/or monetary penalties, if substantiated. An Ombudsman is charged with helping residents live as they wish. The expressed wish of the resident, however, may not be in agreement with what a family member or facility director thinks is best. In that case, the Ombudsman works to mediate a resolution that honors the expressed wish of the resident. The Ombudsman is dedicated to working with facilities in order to improve and enhance the quality of life of the residents. The Ombudsman can be instrumental in increasing the effectiveness of all facilities. 4.4.4 How Can An Ombudsman Help? Families are often relieved to know that help is available and that they can learn to become effective advocates themselves for their loved ones. Ombudsmen can empower residents and their families. For the residents of long-term care facilities and their families, getting to know the Ombudsman can provide the security of having a caring advocate available even when a family member is not present, or a resident is afraid of repercussions if he or she complains about a problem, as all complaints are confidential. Ombudsmen are trained advocates, educated in the needs, rights, and issues of residents living in nursing and residential care facilities. They are well-versed in local and state regulations governing long-term care facilities to assist residents and families in asserting their rights. A certified Ombudsman will: • Mediate concerns and complaints • Make unannounced regular visits to licensed long-term care facilities • Provide unbiased placement information and referrals in nursing facilities • Develop professional relationships with facility personnel The Ombudsman Program helps educate families and the community on issues of long-term care and assists the public in making informed decisions in selecting a residential care facility through the Adult Care Information System (ACIS). The public may view ACIS summaries, based on the visits of the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing, which enforces regulations, identifies deficiencies and imposes civil penalties on residential facilities. 4.4.5 How to Contact an Ombudsman All licensed skilled nursing facilities and residential care facilities for the elderly are required by law to prominently display the Ombudsman poster listing contact numbers and services. The contact numbers are (714) 479-0107 or (800) 300-6222. There is no waiting list or fee for services. Emergency calls are referred to appropriate resources for immediate action 24 hours a day. All the facilities we visited had the Ombudsman poster prominently displayed. 4.4.6 Monitoring Tool for Ombudsman Program The California Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs adhere to six core elements established in June 2000 by the California Ombudsman Strategic Action Task Force. Those core elements are: • Receive, investigate, and resolve complaints • Ensure a regular presence in long-term care facilities • Address patterns of poor practice • Maximize community awareness and involvement • Influence public policy • Ensure effective program administration Based on state and federal regulations, the OOA evaluates these core elements using a monitoring tool that assesses the Ombudsman Program’s management, fiscal and administrative support, data, core elements, self assessments, Ombudsman responsibilities, community impact, complaint management, and community education advocacy. Also included in the administrative and program assessment are performance standards, staffing and organization standards, emergency preparedness practices, facility standards, legal status of contractor, subcontracting, quality of services, and targeting requirements. The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 4.5 Ombudsman Funding The CDA allocates funding by specific programs and funding categories. The OOA also receives county general fund monies to comply with mandated federal and state match requirements. For FY 2005-2006, the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program is funded through the following sources as shown in the table below: TYPE FEDERAL STATE COA TOTAL EFFORT TITLE IIIB (1) $42,698 $335,362 $378,060 TITLE VIIA (1) 107,281 16,980 124,261 INITIATIVE (2) 95,561 95,561 CITIES: (3) Anaheim $17,500 17,500 Fountain Valley 6,000 6,000 Fullerton 18,000 18,000 Mission Viejo 8,000 8,000 Community Services 8,200 8,200 Awards (4) DONATIONS 1,500 1,500 PROGRAM FEES 996 996 TOTALS $149,979 $447,903 $60,196 $658,078 (1) OAA Long-Term Care Ombudsman Service (2) State of California Long-Term Care Initiative (3) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) (4) Laguna Niguel, Newport Beach, San Clemente Of the 34 Orange County cities, seven are making grants or awards to the Program. Donations and Program fees are minimal. 4.6 Facilities 4.6.1 Facility Licensing and Definitions There are approximately 78 skilled/convalescent nursing homes and 800 to 900 assisted living facilities in Orange County (for a listing, by city and community, provided by the COA, see Exhibit 8.1.2). Most of these facilities are six-bed, board and care, as opposed to the larger facilities that have anywhere between 30 to 300+ beds. For residents of any age who need on- years old site nursing care Non medical care, but in some Medical care instances, limited health care services Provides room and board, plus 24-hour Provides room and board, plus nursing care care and supervision * Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (Assisted Living Facility) are licensed by the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing ** Licensed by the California Department of Health Services, Licensing and Certification 4.6.2 Facility Complaints, Cases, and Resolutions A complaint is defined as a concern brought to, or initiated by, the Ombudsman for investigation and action by or on behalf of one or more residents of a long-term care facility relating to health, safety, welfare, or rights as a resident. One or more complaints constitute a case. A case is defined as an inquiry brought to, or initiated by, the Ombudsman on behalf of a resident or a group of residents, involving one or more complaints or problems which requires opening a case file and includes Ombudsman investigation, fact-gathering, setting of objectives, and/or strategy to resolve, and follow-up. A complaint is considered resolved when addressed to the satisfaction of the resident or complainant. See Exhibit 8.1.3 for a Flowchart of the Complaint Process. A summary of the 2,913 complaints filed in Orange County during the fiscal year 2004-2005 showed the following disposition: 2,570 (88%) were either resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant, partially resolved, needed no action, referred to another agency, or were withdrawn. Only 12% were not resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant, needed legislative action to resolve, or the report of the final disposition has not been obtained. 4.7 Nursing Home Laws and Resident Rights Nursing home residents have important rights under both federal and state law. Nursing home laws require that they educate their residents on their rights and assist them in exercising these rights. If a nursing home fails to comply with federal resident rights, it can lose its Medicare or Medicaid certification and funding. The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program The following is a listing of rights as outlined in the Federal Nursing Home Reform Law that was part of the 1987 Social Security Act. This law was enacted in order to "… promote and protect the rights of each resident.” (cid:131) Accommodation of Needs (cid:131) Notice of Rights and Services (cid:131) Activities (cid:131) Participation in Resident Groups (cid:131) Access and Visitation Rights (cid:131) Participation in Other Activities (cid:131) Admission Policy (cid:131) Protection of Funds (cid:131) Dignity (cid:131) Personal Property (cid:131) Exercise of Rights (cid:131) Restraints (cid:131) Equal Access to Quality Care (cid:131) Right of Privacy (cid:131) Environment (cid:131) Self-Administered Drugs (cid:131) Freedom of Choice (cid:131) Social Services (cid:131) Grievances (cid:131) Staff Treatment (cid:131) Quality of Life (cid:131) Telephone (cid:131) Mail (cid:131) Transfer and Discharge (cid:131) Married Couples in Same Room (cid:131) Work (cid:131) Notice of Bed-Hold Policy The Federal Nursing Home Quality Protection Act was enacted in 2001. The Act: • Provides more stringent safeguards from institutional elderly abuse and subpar nursing home care • Provides better quality of care • Provides for increased funding, mandatory nursing staffing levels, tougher sanctions, increased public disclosure, background checks, and greater protection • Came about at the urging of consumer and elder advocates, media pressure, and government concerns 5. Observations and Discussion 5.1 Visits The Grand Jury participated in ride-alongs with Ombudsmen, during which members: • Visited a number of skilled nursing facilities in Orange County • Conducted interviews with a variety of residents to determine their satisfaction with the Ombudsman Program • Determined that most of the residents appeared pleased and supportive of the Program. .2 Monitoring Results and Critical Success Factors OOA conducted annual monitoring site visits and published reports for FY 2004-05 and FY 2003-04. OOA reported that for Fiscal Year 2004-2005, the Ombudsman Program made over 10,000 visits to facilities, attended almost 800 resident council meetings, received over 2,900 complaints, and investigated over 500 suspected abuse complaints. The Ombudsman Program was found to be in compliance in all areas reviewed. Both reports complimented the Ombudsman staff and volunteers for their outstanding service. The OOA notes that the Ombudsman Program is extremely important and provides a critical service to older adults in Orange County. 5.3 Annual Goals and Actual Service Levels The FY 2004-2005 OOA goals were: • To provide 2,100 hours for providing information and technical support to residents, families, and the public about long-term care services. The actual service level provided was 1,170 hours. • To make 5,050 contacts to maintain an ongoing presence in long-term care facilities. The actual service level was 10, 069 contacts. • To investigate and resolve complaints by 4,700 annual unduplicated individuals, representing the interests of residents before government agencies and witnessing advance health care directives and property transfers for more than $100. The actual service level was 3,531 annual unduplicated individuals. The Grand Jury believes there is a need for more Ombudsmen and for increased public awareness by the OOA. Some OOA and COA strategies to increase public awareness are to: a) partner with AARP to highlight the Ombudsman Program via newsletters, emails, and at various events and venues; b) conduct presentations and partner with faith-based community organizations to increase awareness and support of the Ombudsman Program; c) partner with hospitals, medical offices and other stakeholders in the health care community to distribute brochures and flyers about the Ombudsman Program to ensure that important materials are available to care providers and receivers; and d) work with members of the media to utilize press releases and secure free public service announcements. 5.4 Board of Supervisors (BOS) Funding Issues For FY 2005-2006 the BOS is providing $965,762 from the general funds for match and overmatch funding to the OOA for a variety of programs. In accordance with the BOS Strategic Financial Plan, the general fund support to the OOA has been reduced by $131,500 per year over the last four years. As a result, the OOA does not have the ability to allocate additional general fund dollars to support the Ombudsman Program. Finally, the OOA receives $2,800,000 per year in Measure H Tobacco Settlement Revenue. These The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program funds have been specifically allocated by the BOS for the administration of a highly successful non-emergency medical transportation program for seniors. The OOA does not have the discretion to supplement the Ombudsman Program with these funds. 5.5 Volunteer Recognition Volunteers are the backbone of the Ombudsman Program. As a result, successful volunteer recruitment and retention is critical to the success of the Program. Recognition encourages retention and provides incentive for those considering volunteering as well as informing the community about what the volunteer does. The COA hosts volunteer recognition events and is extremely interested in having its Ombudsmen volunteers and staff honored in a public forum. Options that could be considered by the BOS include presenting resolutions and/or proclamations to outstanding volunteers quarterly during an official BOS meeting and at the COA Volunteer Recognition Luncheon, recognizing volunteers at the OOA Senior Citizen Advisory Council meetings, and honoring volunteers at the OOA quarterly provider meetings. 5.6 Possible Legislative Issue There is now a discussion at the state level to change the law so that the Ombudsman Program would be removed as the mandated reporting agency for receiving and investigating reports about suspected cases of neglect or abuse in licensed long-term care facilities. Supporters of the change point out that these requirements are an unfunded state mandate and their proposal is to rely on other agencies to detect neglect or abuse during their inspections of long-term care facilities. Opponents of the proposed change, including Orange County’s Ombudsman Program, believe Ombudsmen are key to receiving reports of suspected cases of abuse since they visit long-term care facilities far more often than state officials and under current law are provided a legislative shield from legal retaliation. 5.7 Enforcing Mandates According to a 2005 report from the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, nursing home residents still suffer from daily neglect, abuse, and violation of their basic rights. Hundreds of nursing homes routinely violate minimum staffing requirements, creating a severe threat to residents’ health and safety. The report points out that the budget of the DHS-L&C has been cut to the point where enforcement is negligible. Cases are not responded to on a timely basis, if they are responded to at all. Current law requires the DHS-L&C to make an on-site inspection or investigation within ten working days of the receipt of the case and to make a final determination as a result of the inspection or investigation within ninety days of the receipt of the case. percent of the most serious cases were resolved within the 90 day mandate, based on data provided by the COA, as shown in the table below. ORANGE COUNTY CASES TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION, 2004-2005 SOURCE: COUNCIL ON AGING DATA Number Percent of Total of Cases Cases TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES 54 100% RESPONSE LESS THAN 90 DAYS 13 24% RESPONSE GREATER THAN 90 DAYS 18 33% NO RESPONSE TO DATE (180 DAYS+) 23 43% TOTAL NO. OF CITATIONS GIVEN 17 31% 6. Findings In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings: 6.1 Elderly Population Increasing: There will be a noticeable increase in the 75 plus age group in the near future and the 60 plus population is expected to increase by two- thirds in Orange County over the next fifteen years. This will increase the need for more long-term care facilities and therefore, an expansion of the OOA Ombudsman Program. 6.2 Effective Program Lacks Public Awareness: The Ombudsman Program is extremely important, successful, and provides a critical service to older and dependent adults in Orange County. Unfortunately, the general public is not fully aware of the Ombudsman Program and its mission. 6.3 Funding Support: The demand for the Ombudsman Program will continue to grow as the older adult population in Orange County increases by two-thirds over the next fifteen years. As a result, additional funding support will be needed to ensure an increased presence of Ombudsmen in long-term care facilities. 6.4 Volunteer Recognition: Successful Ombudsman volunteer recruitment and retention will be improved by increased volunteer recognition. The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 6.5 Elder Abuse Reporting: Legislation is being considered to remove the requirement that the Ombudsman Program receive and investigate reports of suspected cases of abuse or neglect. 6.6 Complaints Not Being Responded To Timely: Complaints of abuse and neglect in nursing homes filed by Long-Term Care Ombudsmen are not being investigated in a timely manner by appropriate agencies. Responses to Findings 6.1 through 6.6 are requested from the Orange County Housing and Community Services Department, Office on Aging. Responses to Findings 6.4 through 6.6 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 background information and materials provided by the OOA
F7:
Recommendations In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings, the 2005- 2006 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: 7.1 Make Adequate Preparations: The OOA should take steps to expand the Long- Term Care Ombudsman Program to accommodate the expected increase in the elderly population with a resulting increase in the number of long-term care facilities and residents. (See Finding 6.1) 7.2 Continue Monitoring/Evaluation and Increase Public Awareness: The OOA should continue its annual monitoring site visits and reports to ensure adherence to the core elements of the program. The OOA should implement planned strategies to increase public awareness (See Finding 6.2) 7.3 Additional Funding Support: The OOA should consider requiring the COA to seek additional funding support for the Ombudsman Program from corporate sponsors, individual donors, fundraising efforts, foundations and other governmental agencies. (See Finding 6.3) 7.4 Additional Funding Support: The Orange County BOS should consider allocating additional funding to the Ombudsman Program. (See Finding 6.3) 7.5 Volunteer Ombudsman Recognition: The BOS should participate in the recognition of volunteer Ombudsmen at public forums such as during official board meetings, Senior Citizen Advisory meetings, etc. (See Finding 6.4). .6 Retain Elder Abuse Reporting Role: The BOS should lobby state legislators about the continued need for the Ombudsman Program to receive and investigate reports of suspected cases of abuse or neglect in long-term care facilities. (See Finding 6.5) 7.7 Request Enforcement of Mandates: The BOS should lobby state legislators and officials about the importance of investigating complaints filed by Long-Term Care Ombudsmen in a timely manner by appropriate agencies. (See Finding 6.6) Responses to Recommendations 7.1 through 7.3 are requested from the Orange County Housing and Community Services Department, Office on Aging. Responses to Recommendations 7.4 through 7.7 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
“Penalty”, California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 9732
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
“Definitions Specific To Title VII of the OAA”, (Allotments for Vulnerable Elder Rights Protection Activities), OOA 2004-2005 Area Plan
R4:
“State Annual Ombudsman Report to the Administration on Aging”, COA, 2004- 2005 The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
R5:
“Notice of Right of Access to Long-Term Care Facilities by Ombudsman and Penalty for Willful Interference”, Federal Public Law 89-73,OAA, Section 307 (a)(12)(B)
R6:
“Right of Entry”, California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 9722 (a)
R8:
Appendix 8.1 Exhibits 8.1.1 Ombudsman Qualifications (Source: Council on Aging Information) What are the What are the What Makes a Good What Education is Offered for the Training Prerequisites to Ombudsman Great? Ombudsmen Program? Requirements and Become a Certified Time Ombudsman? Commitments? (cid:131) Be at least 18 years (cid:131) Sensitivity to the human (cid:131) Read the training (cid:131) Two Ombudsman certification training old (cid:131) Have not worked situation as related to the manual sessions are offered every year, one each in aging process the spring and fall. Classes meet Tuesday in a long-term care (cid:131) Work a minimum of and Thursday for six sessions over a three- facility in the past (cid:131) Tactfulness in public contact 20 hours week period, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in 12 months participating in site (cid:131) Complete and (cid:131) Objectivity and impartiality visits the COA office. s a u p b p m lic i a t t a i n on packet i a n n d d o r c e u p m or e ti n n t g in i g n , c d id is e c n u c s e s ing (cid:131) Pay $35 fee for (cid:131) The state requires that each Ombudsman receive 12 hours of additional training (cid:131) Call and schedule (cid:131) Ability and willingness to printed materials — annually to remain certified. This an appointment for scholarships follow complaints to requirement is met by attendance at the an interview available upon conclusion monthly regional meetings and two (cid:131) Pass a criminal request Ombudsman Day training sessions each records check (cid:131) Ability to maintain strict (cid:131) Pass a TB test year. (cid:131) Have a valid client confidentiality California driver’s (cid:131) Ability to submit monthly (cid:131) Participate in 10-20 (cid:131) Ombudsmen also participate in ongoing license, proof of hours of internship community education on topics such as: documentation of activities auto insurance, and reliable and complaints in a concise (cid:131) Complete the 36 (cid:131) Elder Abuse manner hour State Certified transportation (cid:131) Confidentiality Long-Term Care (cid:131) Ability and willingness to Ombudsman (cid:131) Aging and Resident’s Rights make presentations to Training various groups (cid:131) Placement Options (cid:131) Submit to a live scan (cid:131) Advance Health Care Directives fingerprinting and (cid:131) Ombudsmen attend health and
R9:
“Nursing Home Companion, a User Friendly Guide to California’s Nursing Home Laws and Practices”, Bet Tzedek Legal Services with the assistance of the National Senior Citizens Law Center, 2003
R10:
“How to Get Care from a Residential Care Facility, an Easy-to-Use Guide to the Laws and Practices of California’s Residential Care Facilities”, Bet Tzedek Legal Services with the assistance of the National Senior Citizens Law Center, 2002
R11:
“The California Patients’ Rights Protection Act”, 1985
R12:
“The Federal Nursing Home Reform Law”, 1987 Social Security Act
R13:
“The Federal Nursing Home Quality Protection Act”, 2001
R14:
“OOA Monitoring and Site Visit Reports”, for FY 2004-2005 and FY 2003-2004
R15:
“Interference with Actions of Office”, California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 1.8, Article 3, Section 8040
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Summary Some Acronyms in this Report The need for sharing selected criminal justice information using more advanced technologies has CMS Case Management System been a goal of Orange County criminal justice JPA Joint Power Agreement agencies for at least seven years. Criminal justice (Authority) information is collected by agencies such as city police departments, the Orange County Sheriff’s MOA Memorandum of Agreement Department (OCSD), the Superior Court, the OCILJ Orange County Integrated Probation Department, the District Attorney, and the Law & Justice Public Defender. OCSD Orange County Sheriff’s This information is typically found in each agency’s Department unique data base with sharing among agencies RMS Record Management System limited in the past to telephone or fax. The following is an example of how such information sharing could be used: A city patrol officer receives information from an informant that escapees from another county are at an address in a different Orange County city. In a matter of seconds, the officer verifies through a county-wide information sharing system that one of the escapees lives at that address. Officers from the second city are dispatched and all escapees are captured. The Grand Jury conducted a study to determine the agencies’ current participation in criminal justice information sharing and found that: 1.1 Beginning in 2005, the Superior Court and police departments in Anaheim, Brea, Garden Grove, Irvine, Newport Beach and Orange began sharing their criminal justice information which is also used by other Orange County cities, all via the Internet-based product, COPLINK®, selected by the Orange County Integrated Law and Justice (OCILJ) Steering Committee. 1.2 County agencies, including the OCSD, do not share their criminal justice information with COPLINK®, do not use the Court and city criminal justice information available via COPLINK® , and apparently have few, if any, firm plans to implement the system. 1.3 County agencies were originally included in a 2002 proposed Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County; however, because of non-participation, the county agencies have not been included as member agencies in the currently proposed JPA whose stated . Introduction and Purpose of the Study In 1999, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by Orange County criminal justice agencies established the OCILJ Steering Committee. These agencies agreed to facilitate sharing of each other’s data. A 2001 Strategic Plan, sponsored by the Steering Committee, recommended several desirable solutions, including the sharing of Record Management System (RMS) and Case Management System (CMS) data. In 2004, COPLINK® was selected as the tool to facilitate this RMS/CMS information sharing. RMS/CMS sharing is expected to improve safety of the public and law enforcement officers because of the immediate availability of critical information. Based on indications that several issues had impacted implementation of the OCILJ Strategic Plan, the purpose of this study is to determine the status of these cooperative efforts, to identify the issues involved, and to search for answers that would accelerate the RMS/CMS information sharing project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Orange County Law & Justice System Memorandum of Agreement, Orange County Chiefs’ & Sheriff’s Association, August 3, 1999
F3:
Method of Study The study methodology consists of determining the status of Strategic Plan solutions, including the RMS/CMS project, and determining the operational status of COPLINK® and its adoption by Orange County criminal justice agencies. The study methodology was to: • Review the OCILJ Strategic Plan • Conduct interviews with OCILJ participants • Research the existing COPLINK® network • Review RMS sharing by the OCSD • Review CMS sharing by the Probation Department and the District Attorney’s Office • As a baseline, review another California county’s approach to sharing of criminal justice agencies’ data • Develop observations, findings and recommendations based on analysis of the collected information City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? 4. Background In 1999, an OCILJ System MOA was entered into by all 21 city police departments, the Orange County City Manager’s Association, Orange County Superior Court, and six county agencies, including OCSD, Probation Department, District Attorney’s Office, County Executive Office, Marshal’s Department, and Public Defender’s Office. The MOA stated that these agencies “… agree to work cooperatively to establish a seamless integrated system of information technology and services that maximizes the standardization of data and communications technology among the primary community of interest: law enforcement, district attorneys, state-funded courts and state funded adult and youth corrections. In addition, the parties agree to work in a variety of ways to facilitate sharing each other’s data in an effort to improve the effectiveness of their respective agency and collectively, the entire Orange County Criminal Justice System.” 4.1 OCILJ Strategic Plan In 2001, Deloitte Consulting LLP published the OCILJ Strategic Plan to provide an information infrastructure connecting Orange County criminal justice agencies with the stated goal being “…to improve the access to information across agencies as well as to enhance both individual and agency mission performance.” To meet this goal, the Strategic Plan identified ten solutions. Although the Grand Jury reviewed the current status of OCILJ projects associated with each proposed solution, the study focused on the RMS/CMS information sharing project because it is critical to the success of OCILJ. (See Appendix 9.1 for a description and status of each solution/project.) 4.2 RMS/CMS Information Sharing Project Criminal justice information is currently maintained on more than two dozen disparate databases. RMS data is maintained on law enforcement agency systems and CMS data is maintained on systems by agencies such as Superior Court, Probation Department, and District Attorney. Historically, the primary process for sharing this RMS/CMS data from one agency to another has been through the telephone or fax. The RMS/CMS project involves making selected data available via the Internet to agencies within the OCILJ network for use by authorized investigators and patrol officers. Examples of data regularly collected by law enforcement agencies include, but are not limited to, field interviews, contacts, citations, and incident reports. Another component of this project is to implement RMS/CMS information analysis tools to support criminal investigations in an accelerated manner. Major benefits will be increased safety for the public and law enforcement officers, more effective and efficient handling of criminal investigations, and reduced cost. “Records Management System Data Sharing Solution - Request for Proposal”, the RMS/CMS Information Sharing project was intended to be implemented in two phases: 4.2.1 Phase 1 This initial phase was to enable the sharing of Superior Court citation data, three to seven police RMS systems, and the OCSD RMS. Search and analysis tools would be acquired and deployed to allow for the flexible export of data as well as analysis within the provided toolsets. 4.2.2 Phase 2 This phase was less well-defined but at a high level involved the incorporation of the remaining police department RMS systems and, potentially, portions of Probation Department and District Attorney CMS systems. It was expected that approximately 17 additional systems would be integrated ultimately in Phase 2. As several of the agencies involved in this phase were implementing or considering implementation of a new RMS or CMS system, this phase was expected to be long term. 4.3 Administrative Change In 2003, at the request of the Orange County Chiefs’ & Sheriff’s Association, the administrative oversight of OCILJ grant monies, originally obtained by the OCSD, was transferred from the County of Orange to the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach, through the Chief of the Newport Beach Police Department, had consistently been at the forefront of OCILJ efforts. 4.4 COPLINK® In response to a 2004 Request for Proposal for a system to share RMS/CMS data, nine proposals/bids were submitted. The City of Newport Beach and the OCILJ Steering Committee, on behalf of Orange County criminal justice agencies, selected the COPLINK® product. COPLINK® relies on a data base that receives, sorts, consolidates, indexes, and stores data from the disparate data sources maintained by criminal justice agencies. COPLINK® also permits a user to perform analysis of the data contained in the COPLINK® database to discover hidden relationships and co- occurrences. This analysis is necessary to ensure that patrol officers and investigators are not inundated with extensive amounts of data. The COPLINK® website includes many applicable media articles from which the Grand Jury selected the following samples to demonstrate possible COPLINK® usage: • “While officials say crime analysts in various police departments already communicate well, the computer program does it faster and puts together bits of details that might have been overlooked, network experts say … City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? COPLINK has clients in more than 130 jurisdictions across the nation.” (Denver Post 12/30/05) • “The Tucson Police Department uses COPLINK as its integrating computer program. Officers who need to follow leads for a suspect, vehicle, or address use COPLINK, which performs searches even when officers have limited suspect information.” (Police Chief Magazine 12/05/05) • “Data integrity is also a big issue. With COPLINK, data continues to reside and be updated at its existing source. No data is ever entered into the system directly. Automatic trigger refresh mechanisms ensure that if new data is added or old data is deleted from the existing source, it is automatically reflected in COPLINK. This makes the data more trust worthy.” (Homeland Science & Technology 12/04) • “Called ‘COPLINK’, the program sifts through tens of millions of police records, from 911 calls to homicide investigations, to deliver a short list of potential leads in just seconds. The same kind of searching currently takes hours or even days of a detective's time -- when it is possible at all.” (The Boston Globe 7/17/03) 4.5 San Diego County Information Sharing In 1981, San Diego County initiated the Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) as a Joint Powers Agency to share information among criminal justice agencies throughout the two California counties that border Mexico: San Diego and Imperial. Notable aspects of ARJIS include: • In 2001, three of the 9/11 terrorists were in ARJIS but there was no federal access. Today ARJIS has evolved into a criminal justice network used by 71 local, state, and federal agencies in San Diego and Imperial Counties. More than 11,000 authorized users generate more than 35,000 transactions daily. • In 2004, COPLINK® was added to ARJIS as one of two investigative systems. COPLINK® was the first system implemented by ARJIS that was compliant with FBI National Crime Information Center 2000, which is a nationwide information system dedicated to serving and supporting criminal justice agencies -- local, state, and federal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Letter from Orange County City Manager’s Association supporting the concept of Joint Powers Authority governance model, June 19, 2002
F5:
Observations and Discussion 5.1 OCILJ Strategic Plan Implementation The status of the 10 solutions suggested in the 2001 OCILJ Strategic Plan is shown in Chart 5.1. (See Appendix 9.1 for a brief description and more detailed status of each solution/project.) .1 - Strategic Plan Implementation Status (January 2006) Implemented Not fully 5 implemented 3 Not yet started 2 Note: Two of the projects that were implemented are currently not in service due to system changes; however, they will be returned to service. 5.2 COPLINK® Implementation Status 5.2.1 Phase 1 On July 18, 2005, COPLINK® became operational and currently the databases of six city police departments (Anaheim, Brea, Garden Grove, Irvine, Newport Beach, and Orange) and the Orange County Superior Court are the source of selected data extracted to this system. Six other police departments (Buena Park, Cypress, Fullerton, Placentia, Tustin, and Westminster) use available COPLINK® data but do not yet share their respective departmental data. The COPLINK® System Use Policy has been signed by Police Chiefs from all 21 city police departments and by the Superior Court. 5.2.2 Phase 2 Buena Park, Fullerton, Placentia, and Westminster are conducting tests to enable data sharing. The West Covina Police Department is working to ensure compatibility between COPLINK® and their West Covina Services Group’s database that includes RMS information for Cypress, Fountain Valley, La Habra, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Laguna Beach, Seal Beach and Tustin. Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and the Probation Department are working to prepare for eventual compatibility with COPLINK®. 5.3 County Non-Participation in COPLINK® The Probation Department has taken positive actions to eventually use COPLINK®; ( however, other County agencies, including the OCSD representing 12 contract cities and unincorporated areas), have elected not to participate. Several issues were City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? suggested to the Grand Jury. The most significant of these issues and the Grand Jury evaluations follow: 5.3.1 Governance County Issue: The County Executive Office (CEO) and the OCSD preferred that OCILJ be governed using a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) rather than a JPA. Grand Jury evaluation: • The selection of the JPA governance model was based, at least in part, on the opinions from non-county sources (with experience in criminal justice integration) that a governance model must be formalized to avoid the impact of periodic changes in factors such as personnel, leadership, and funding. • No county agencies have formally endorsed the JPA governance model. • The proposed JPA that included county agency participation has been stalled since being removed from the Board of Supervisors’ agenda for December 10, 2002. • The Orange County Chiefs’ & Sheriff’s Association, the OCILJ Steering Committee, and the Orange County City Managers’ Association have endorsed the JPA governance model. Santa Ana adopted the 2002 proposed JPA, and, as of February 9, 2006, four cities had signed the currently proposed JPA that does not include county agencies. • There is a sense of urgency because of concerns about funding for maintenance and support of OCILJ systems. These concerns arise because of a lack of governance. 5.3.2 Cost Estimates County Issue 1: Estimates of what COPLINK®-related costs would be and how they might possibly be allocated to the criminal justice agencies within Orange County were not available. Grand Jury evaluation: On October 21, 2005, Deloitte Consulting LLP provided a preliminary operating budget, including allocation estimates dependent on participation or non-participation by county criminal justice agencies. County Issue 2: The OCSD would have to pass COPLINK®-related costs to the contract cities and the cities would be reluctant to see fee increases. Grand Jury evaluation: • The preliminary budget provided by Deloitte Consulting LLP estimates an annual cost for 2006-2010 participation of the 12 contract cities and unincorporated areas policed by the OCSD. The maximum annual total % of the OCSD’s 2004/2005 total budget of more than $500 million and 5% of the information technology budget. • In a comparison study of information technology costs for Sheriff’s Departments in the Counties of Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside, MTG Management Consultants LLC made the following findings/conclusions: o Only a “very few” information technology costs for providing county-wide law enforcement and criminal justice information are passed to independent city agencies. o The OCSD’s cost allocation approach to these city agencies was consistent with the other Sheriff’s Departments. County Issue 3: During interviews, preference was expressed that city managers, rather than city police department representatives, should sign the COPLINK® System Use Policy to reduce the possibility of future budget commitment issues. Grand Jury evaluation: The Orange County City Managers’ Association has two voting members on the OCILJ Steering Committee through which signatures were obtained. 5.3.3 Legal County Issue 1: County Counsel’s office and the OCSD expressed concerns that COPLINK® did not meet California Department of Justice (DOJ) requirements for the sharing of criminal history data (criminal history data is a specific type of criminal justice information). Grand Jury evaluation: • The OCILJ Steering Committee has no plan to access criminal history data via COPLINK®. • County agency criminal justice information extracted for COPLINK® access is controlled by the respective agencies - i.e., criminal history data would not be included in the extracted data. • In San Diego County, an ARJIS “privacy attorney” and Privacy Impact Assessments are used to address issues that arise about access to criminal history data. Because the need for criminal history data was identified as a low priority by investigators, COPLINK® as used in ARJIS does not access criminal history data. • Inquiry was made as to whether OCSD index information, intended for extraction to COPLINK®, constituted Summary Criminal History based on California DOJ standards. A state Deputy Attorney General City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? informally agreed with the initial DOJ assessment that the index information would not meet the state Penal Code definition of Summary Criminal History. County Issue 2: In a memorandum, the County Counsel’s office made recommendations concerning signing a contract to provide criminal history and contact information to COPLINK®. They also expressed concerns about the COPLINK® System Use Policy. Grand Jury evaluation: A proposed County contract with COPLINK® was not made available for review, however, the Grand Jury did review the signed October 4, 2005 COPLINK® System Use Policy which addresses concerns expressed by the County Counsel’s office. 5.3.4 Audit Trails County Issue: California has regulatory requirements related to the sharing of criminal history data. The requirements include the “need to know” prior to gaining access and the use/retention of audit trails, and COPLINK® does not meet these requirements. Grand Jury evaluation: Because criminal history data is not in COPLINK®, this is a non-issue. If criminal history data were eventually authorized for extraction to COPLINK®, the “need to know” requirement would be the same as for current processes using telephone or fax except that the COPLINK® audit trail would provide a stronger control than is currently available using telephone or fax. In addition, the COPLINK® System Use Policy addresses audit trail retention requirements. 5.4 Status Summary The status, as of February 2006, of Orange County government entities as related to topics within this report is summarized in a table titled “Status Summary” (see Appendix 9.3). The following is a brief description of the table’s column headings: • Government Entity - Includes the 34 Orange County cities of which 21 have city police departments; the unincorporated area of the county; county criminal justice agencies; and the Superior Court • Signed OCILJ - An “X” indicates a government entity that signed the 1999 Orange County Law & Justice System MOA • JPA Status - Indicates whether an entity: o has “adopted” (signed) at least one of the proposed JPAs o has “scheduled” a date for City Council consideration o is “working” to establish a schedule to consider adoption of the JPA cities which contract with the OCSD for law enforcement services • Signed COPLINK® Policy - An “X” indicates an entity that has signed the RMS/CMS Information Sharing COPLINK® System Use Policy, dated October 4, 2005 • COPLINK® Implementation: Indicates if an entity is: o “sharing” by extracting data to include in COPLINK® o “using” (accessing) available COPLINK® data, but not yet sharing data o “testing” the extraction process to enable data sharing o “integrating” to provide compatibility between COPLINK® and the entity’s RMS database which is processed by the West Covina Services Group of the West Covina Police Department o “working” to prepare for eventual compatibility with COPLINK® 5.5 General Observation This study suggests that the county issues given for not approving the JPA governance model and not participating in the OCILJ-sponsored RMS/CMS sharing have been addressed and that county agencies such as the OCSD, the CEO, and the County Counsel’s office should review and reconsider the OCILJ effort to enact a JPA and to share RMS/CMS data via the Internet-based product selected by the OCILJ Steering Committee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Records Management System Data Sharing Solution - Request for Proposal, Release 3, City of Newport Beach, August 30, 2004
F6:
Findings In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings: 6.1 County agencies have not signed an Integrated Law & Justice Joint Powers Agreement: The County Executive Office and the OCSD have not supported a JPA model for governing the Integrated Law & Justice effort within Orange County. 6.2 County criminal justice agencies do not participate in sharing and using critical criminal justice information: Although information made available through COPLINK® would enhance the safety of the public and law City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? enforcement officers, the OCSD, the Probation Department, and the District Attorney are not currently sharing or using information via COPLINK®. Responses to Findings 6.1 and 6.2 are required from the Board of Supervisors and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Response to Finding 6.2 is required from the District Attorney. Responses to Findings 6.1 and 6.2 are requested from the CEO. Response to Finding 6.2 is requested from the Probation Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
“RMS Information Sharing Project – Evaluation Report” – Release 1, Orange County Integrated Law & Justice, December 06, 2004 (nine proposals were evaluated)
F7:
Recommendations In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings, the 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: 7.1 County inclusion in a JPA: The County Executive Office and the OCSD should reconsider and revisit the issue of becoming listed members of a JPA for Integrated Law & Justice by the second quarter 2006. (See Finding 6.1.) 7.2 County participation in COPLINK®: The OCSD, the Probation Department, and the District Attorney should determine whether the concerns given for not participating in COPLINK® still exist and if not, reconsider their participation in COPLINK® by the fourth quarter, 2006. (See Finding 6.2.) Responses to Recommendations 7.1 and 7.2 are required from the Board of Supervisors and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Response to Recommendation 7.2 is required from the District Attorney. Responses to Recommendations 7.1 and 7.2 are requested from the CEO. Response to Recommendation 7.2 is requested from the Probation Department. . Acknowledgements The Grand Jury acknowledges the criminal justice information sharing efforts of the OCILJ Steering Committee, and especially the initiative shown in the sharing of RMS/CMS data. The Grand Jury also acknowledges the efforts of the City of Newport Beach for demonstrated support of the OCILJ and the efforts of the Probation Department to eventually participate using COPLINK®. The Grand Jury also thanks the agencies that participated in this study for their support and open attitudes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
City Council Staff Report “Approval of Contract with Knowledge Computing Corporation to Purchase Data Sharing Solution”, City of Newport Beach, January 11, 2005
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Orange County Integrated Law & Justice Strategic Plan, Deloitte Consulting LLP, February 6, 2001
R4:
Proposed Joint Powers Agreement for Integrated Law & Justice Agency for Orange County, 2002
R8:
Acknowledgements The Grand Jury acknowledges the criminal justice information sharing efforts of the OCILJ Steering Committee, and especially the initiative shown in the sharing of RMS/CMS data. The Grand Jury also acknowledges the efforts of the City of Newport Beach for demonstrated support of the OCILJ and the efforts of the Probation Department to eventually participate using COPLINK®. The Grand Jury also thanks the agencies that participated in this study for their support and open attitudes.
R9:
Appendix 9.1 Brief Description and Status of Each Strategic Solution The Implementation Plan section of the 2001 OCILJ Strategic Plan prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP identified the following 10 solutions: # Solution Description Status (January 2006) 1 Governance & Establishing an efficient, streamlined Not fully implemented (details documented in Support governing structure to make project this study report) decisions, manage integration efforts and ongoing operations, and to determine the information technology support approach 2 Subpoena Delivery of subpoenas to law • Computer Deductions, Inc. completed the enforcement personnel required to first version of the Automated Subpoena make a court appearance at a Processing Application specified date and time and a • California Highway Patrol added as a law confirmation that the individual is enforcement agency to join the Automated aware of the schedule Subpoena Processing Application program 3 Disposition Following case adjudication by • Project completed; however, no longer in Court, related documentation is service because of changes to a county system generated and distributed to • OCILJ Steering Committee expects authorized agencies COPLINK® to include disposition information no later than second quarter 2006 4 Sharing Ability of one criminal justice agency Not fully implemented (details documented in RMS/CMS Data to access another’s relevant this study report) information (see this study report for more details) 5 Case Filing Involves the primary information • Project combined with Case Number Index exchange points of law enforcement • Although implementation not yet started, or the Probation Department to the OCILJ Steering Committee plans this as the District Attorney and the District next major project with Request for Proposal Attorney to the Courts being released in mid-2006 City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? 9.1 Brief Description and Status of Each Strategic Solution (continued) # Solution) Description Status (January 2006) 6 Case Number Creating an index which cross- • Project combined with Case Filing Index
R10:
“Orange County Sheriff’s Department Information Technology Cost Study”, MTG Management Consultants, June 7, 2005
R11:
Memorandum “COPLINK® System Use Policy”, Orange County Counsel, June 20, 2005 (Attorney/Client Privilege waived)
R12:
Letter from Law & Justice Committee, signed by 21 city Police Chiefs, the Superior Court, and the District Attorney, to Orange County City Manager’s Association requesting support for implementation of the JPA, August 22, 2005
R13:
RMS/CMS Information Sharing, COPLINK® System Use Policy, Orange County Integrated Law & Justice Steering Committee, October 4, 2005
R14:
City Council Staff Report “Proposed Joint Powers Authority - Integrated Law and Justice Agency”, City of Newport Beach, November 22, 2005 (includes Proposed Joint Powers Agreement for Integrated Law & Justice Agency for Orange County)
R15:
COPLINK® web-site, as of 01/06/06
R16:
Presentation “Extracts from 2001 Strategic Planning and Other Work to Date”, Deloitte Consulting LLP, January 2006
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F6:
4). Original Response: This
* 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.