Orange County Grand Jury

2008-2009

11 reports

Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Closed-Circuit Color Television Cameras Over 400 Closed-Circuit Color Television Cameras (CCTV) were installed throughout the eight courthouses. The cameras were placed at all public entrances, public hallways, entrances to elevators and stairwells and public filing windows. Cameras were also installed in detention areas that cover all inmate entrances, cells, corridors, stairwells and custody entrances into courtrooms. All cameras, both public and detention, are monitored by on-duty Sheriff's staff and are recorded on digital video recorders (DVRs). The images are maintained on the DVRs for approximately six months.
R2: Transfer Personnel Management Functions: The Board of Supervisors should transfer the personnel management functions of P/G to the OCHR. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The Human Resources Department worked with the County Executive Office to identify options available to the Board related to the personnel management functions of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) department. Transfer of personnel management functions will be dependent on the option(s) selected by the Board of Supervisors regarding the structure of the PA/PG functions. The County Executive Office will provide further analysis to the Board of Supervisors in the FY 2009-10 First Quarter Budget Report to be heard by the Board of Supervisors in November 2009. Current Status: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable or is not warranted. The Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on December 15, 2009 to consider rescinding Ordinance 07-008 and returning the Public Guardian (PG) to an appointed position, reporting to the CEO. The motion to approve the staff recommendations of rescinding the ordinance and revising the PA/PG organization failed. As such, transfer of the personnel management functions of the PA/PG is not warranted, and those functions will remain with the PA/PG department.
R3: Detailed Examination of Staffing and Finances: The Board of Supervisors direct that a detailed examination of staffing and finances at Orangewood Children's Home be conducted by both the Social Services Agency and the county financial oversight staff. Original Response: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Social Services Agency, in coordination with the County Executive Office, is already reviewing staffing levels and finances and will include identified changes in the FY 09-10 Budget. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. Social Services Agency's (SSA) review of staffing levels at Orangewood Children's Home (to be renamed Orangewood Children and Family Center per Agenda Item #33 approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 26, 2010) during the FY 2009-10 Budget and Quarterly Budget Report process resulted in deletion of 20 Group Counselor positions effective July 1, 2009 and one Office Technician effective November 24, 2009. An additional reduction of 7 support positions became effective January 2010. SSA, in coordination with the County Executive Office, continues to monitor the staffing levels and finances of Orangewood Children and Family Center. Report: Guardian of Last Resort Released: May 6, 2009
R4: Personnel Record Review: The County Internal Audit Department should conduct an in-depth review of OCHR personnel records to determine if additional instances of questionable pension practices exist in agencies other than the PA/PG office. The audit report and any resulting County responses will be forwarded to the Grand Jury for information. Original Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The County Internal Audit Department included such a review in the 2009-10 Audit Plan approved by the Audit Oversight Committee on May 27, 2009. The Board of Supervisors and the County Internal Audit Department anticipates completing the review by December 31, 2009. The Orange County Human Resources Department will work with the Internal Audit Department on this matter. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. The County Internal Audit Department opened audit number 2913, completed field work, and issued a draft report on January 25, 2010. The final report is expected to be issued by April 2010.
R7: Separate PA and PG: The Board of Supervisors should complete a comprehensive independent review of Public Administrator/Public Guardian. Based on the results of this review and the Grand Jury report, they should reconsider whether separating the PA/PG from the Health Care Agency and turning it into a separate stand- alone County department has been cost and performance improvement effective. If not, the Board of Supervisors should return Public Guardian to the HCA or another County department. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The County Budget Office, Legislative Affairs, and the Human Resources Department continue to work to identify options available to the Board related to the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) department. Such options might include: Repeal Ordinance 07-008 designating the Public Administrator the ex officio Public Guardian allowing for separation of the Administrator and Guardian functions Separate Public Guardian (PG) from Public Administrator (PA) and place PG • back with the Health Care Agency (HCA) under CEO oversight Comparison of how other neighboring counties organize the PA/PG function • The County Executive Office will provide further analysis to the Board of Supervisors in the FY 2009-10 First Quarter Budget Report to be heard by the Board of Supervisors in November 2009. HCA will work with the Board and CEO as directed. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. A comprehensive review of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) was completed by the County Executive Office staff and, on December 12, 2009, the Board of Supervisors considered Agenda Item #59, the first reading of "An Ordinance of the County of Orange, California Repealing Ordinance No. 07-008, Which Designated the Public Administrator as the Ex Officio Public Guardian." The motion to approve rescinding the ordinance as recommended failed. The Public Administrator remains as the ex officio Public Guardian (PG) and the PG function remains with the PA/PG department. The Board of Supervisors directed that the CEO bring back the issue of separation of functions during the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Budget discussions to be held in June 2010.
R8: Consider Moving PA Function: When the term of the current PA expires in two years, the Board of Supervisors should consider moving the Public Administrator function into the same department that administers Public Guardian activities. This action should be coordinated with the recommendation identified in R.7 to eliminate any logistic or redundancy problems. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The County Executive Office will provide further analysis to the Board of Supervisors in the FY 2009-10 First Quarter Budget Report to be heard by the Board of Supervisors in November 2009. CEO Legislative Affairs has researched the option of placement of an initiative on the next available ballot to make the PA position appointed rather than elected. If an initiative is placed on the ballot and voters in the County approve the PA as an appointed position, the Board of Supervisors would determine the placement of the PA function. Current Status: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable or is not warranted. Because the Public Administrator remains an elective, not an appointive, office, it is not warranted for the Board of Supervisors to consider moving the PA function into another department. Report: Orange County Investments: The Need for Stronger Oversight Released: June 9, 2009
R11: between the TAC and the TOC to discuss the safety and quality of the investment pools, the current investing climate and any issues previously raised with the Treasurer's Office. (F-12) Original Response: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. A meeting between the TAC and the TOC will be held prior to December 31, 2009. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. The TOC held a joint meeting with the TAC on December 28, 2009. Treasurer's reports from July 2009 through September 2009 were received and discussed. In addition, discussion was held regarding the purpose of the TAC and the relationship between the TAC and the TOC. Condition of Orange County Jails Report: Released: June 18, 2009
Findings & Recommendations 14 findings
F1: Deputy Sheriffs and police officers receive insufficient training on how to evaluate and handle the mentally ill in the field.
F2: Deputy Sheriffs and police officers receive insufficient training regarding Laura's Law.
F3: Orange County's Centralized Assessment Team is inadequate in that it takes too long for them to respond to the scene to assist police officers in their evaluations of the mentally ill.
F4: Orange County's mental illness triage system is inadequate in that there are no field screening protocols that would allow medical clearance in the field by law enforcement personnel or paramedics.
F5: Orange County's mental illness triage system is inadequate in that the police agencies either do not have a triage desk to advise and assist officers in the field or do not have psychiatric crisis mobile response teams at their disposal.
F6: Orange County's Psychiatric Evaluation and Response Team clinicians are insufficient in number to meet the needs of police agencies in Orange County.
F7: Orange County's Evaluation and Treatment Services facility is inadequate in that its capacity is insufficient to permit police officers to take all the mentally ill to it and drop them off at the facility, instead of transporting the patient to a hospital emergency room.
F8: Orange County's Evaluation and Treatment Service facility is inadequate in that the County does not permit medical triage or medical clearance in the field, and therefore directs police officers to obtain medical screening for even minor health conditions that could easily be treated at the facility.
F9: Orange County's Evaluation and Treatment Service facility is inadequate in that it directs police officers to take the mentally ill who may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs to a hospital emergency room rather than to a psychiatric emergency facility.
F10: Orange County's crisis intervention system is inadequate in that there is only one Evaluation and Treatment Service facility for the entire County. The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency
F11: The County's crisis intervention system is inadequate in that it does not provide strategically located, stand-alone, drop-off psychiatric emergency stabilization facilities with medical treatment capability at convenient locations throughout the County.
F12: The County's crisis intervention system is inadequate in that there is no real-time, empty-bed registry to enable officers and clinicians in the field to determine bed- availability at the Evaluation and Treatment Service facility and at designated hospitals.
F13: The County's crisis intervention system is inadequate in that there is no 5150, case management, and conservatorship database in place to assist officers and clinicians in the field to triage the mentally ill who do not qualify for a 5150 hold.
F14: The Health Care Agency has not established benchmarks and a complete performance-measurement system with which to track the success and cost effectiveness of Laura's law, as directed by the Board of Supervisors in May 2014. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled "The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency," the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 14 recommendations:
Additional Recommendations 15

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All law enforcement officers should receive at least 40 hours of comprehensive Crisis Intervention Training on how to handle and evaluate the mentally ill in the field with periodic refresher training. (F.1.)
R2: All law enforcement officers should receive mandatory and specific training regarding Laura's Law. (F.2.)
R3: Orange County's Centralized Assessment Team's response time should be improved significantly with a goal of eventually reducing its maximum response time to less than 20 minutes. (F.3.)
R4: The Orange County Health Care Agency should adopt field screening protocols to allow (a) medical clearance in the field by law enforcement personnel and/or paramedics; and (b) transport by paramedics rather than police officers. (F.4.)
R5: All law enforcement agencies should either have a psychiatric triage desk to advise and assist officers in the field or a psychiatric crisis mobile response team. (F.5.) The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency
R6: The Orange County Psychiatric Evaluation and Response Team staff should be increased significantly so that an embedded clinician can be placed with each law enforcement agency and can provide service 24/7 if requested. (F.6.) Orange County's Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities should be
R7: expanded to easily accommodate all 5150 walk-ins and all 5150s dropped off by police, paramedic, or ambulance. (F.7.)
R8: Orange County Evaluation and Treatment Services should acquire the capability of conducting limited medical screening for minor health problems and cease from directing police officers to obtain medical screening for 5150s with minor health conditions that could easily be treated at Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities. (F.8.)
R9: Orange County's Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities should acquire the capability of handling 5150s who may have ingested alcohol or drugs, but who are not under the influence to such an extent that it inhibits stabilization or requires medical clearance at a hospital. (F.9.)
R10: The Orange County Health Care Agency's crisis intervention system should be expanded so as to provide a minimum of four Psychiatric Emergency Service facilities—one in South County, one in Central County, one in West County, and one in North County. (F.10.)
R11: The County's Health Care Agency should provide strategically located, stand- alone, drop-off psychiatric emergency stabilization facilities with medical treatment capability at convenient locations throughout the County. (F.11.)
R12: The County's Health Care Agency should provide a real-time, empty-bed registry to enable officers and clinicians in the field to determine immediately and accurately the current bed availability at Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities and at designated hospitals. (F.12.)
R13: The County's Health Care Agency should create and maintain a 5150, case management, and conservatorship database in place to assist officers and clinicians in the field to triage the mentally ill in the field who do not qualify for a 5150 hold, but who may qualify for Laura's Law. (F.13.)
R14: The Health Care Agency should establish benchmarks and a complete performance-measurement system with which to track the success and cost effectiveness of Laura's law, as directed by the Board of Supervisors in May 2014.
R20: Tustin Westminster The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: For purposes of Subdivision (1) The recommendation body of the public agency (b) of Section 933, as to each has been implemented, with when applicable. This grand jury finding, the respond- a summary regarding the timeframe shall not exceed ing person or entity shall indi- implemented action. six months from the date cate one of the following: (2) The recommendation of publication of the grand (1) The respondent agrees has not yet been imple- jury report. with the finding. mented, but will be imple- (4) The recommendation (2) The respondent dis- mented in the future, with a will not be implemented agrees wholly or partially timeframe for implementa- because it is not warranted with the finding, in which tion. or is not reasonable, with an case the response shall (3) The recommendation explanation therefore. specify the portion of the requires further analysis,
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: For purposes of subdivision timeframe for the matter to sible responses to the findings and (b) of Section 933, as to each be prepared for discussion recommendations contained in the grand jury recommendation, by the officer or head of the report. The specific sections are as the responding person or entity agency or department being follows: shall report one of the following investigated or reviewed, §933.05 actions: including the governing
F2: Some board members District, Municipal Water District should be used only in are conducting their profes- of Orange County and Orange exceptional circumstances. sional practices with mem- County Water District. (F.5) ber agencies and use their elected positions to promote Recommendations R.5: Each water district their competitiveness. should promulgate rules In accordance with Califor- requiring each director to
F3: Codes of ethics among nia Penal Code Sections 933 and inform the other board mem- districts are quite varied. 933.05, each recommendation will bers of any other offices Some are very comprehen- be responded to by the government including seats on boards of sive and some do not exist entity to which it is addressed. The member agencies that he or other than to reference state responses are to be submitted to she holds. (F.6) laws. the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings, the R.5a: Water Districts
F4: Water board meetings 2008-2009 Orange County Grand should consult their legal are frequently scheduled for Jury makes the following recom- counsel to advise them times that discourage public mendations: whether there exists an attendance.
F5: An unusually high form Act of 1974 and Gov- holds multiple offices at the percentage of water board ernment Code section 1090, same time. (F.6) directors were originally ap- the water districts should pointed, not elected to their
F6: Some board members boards of directors to formal- to exceed three terms of hold multiple elected posi- ly disclose to their organiza- service. (F.7) tions that under certain tions any contracts they are circumstances could create pursuing or have attained Responses to Recommendations an appearance of a conflict with member agencies. The
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: In addition to the laws incompatibility of offices set forth in the Political Re- when a board member
F7: There are no time limits (F.1, F.2) County Water District, Mesa Con- for how long individuals can solidated Water District, Moulton serve on any water district R.2. Each water district Niguel Water District, Santa board in Orange County. should develop a specific Margarita Water District, Ser- code of ethics, hold train- Responses to Finding F.1 rano Water District, South Coast ing sessions and monitor its through F.7 are required from the Water District, Trabuco Canyon enforcement. (F.3) Boards of Directors of the East Water District, Yorba Linda Water Orange County Water District, El R.3: Water board meetings District, Municipal Water District Toro Water District, Irvine Ranch need to be scheduled at of Orange County and Orange Water District, Laguna Beach times that would generate County Water District. County Water District, Mesa Con- maximum public attendance. solidated Water District, Moulton (F.4) Niguel Water District, Santa Required Responses finding that is disputed and with an explanation and the shall include an explanation scope and parameters of The California Penal Code of the reasons therefore. an analysis or study, and a specifies the required permis- 2. For purposes of subdivision timeframe for the matter to sible responses to the findings and (b) of Section 933, as to each be prepared for discussion recommendations contained in the grand jury recommendation, by the officer or head of the report. The specific sections are as the responding person or entity agency or department being follows: shall report one of the following investigated or reviewed, §933.05 actions: including the governing 1. For purposes of Subdivision (1) The recommendation body of the public agency (b) of Section 933, as to each has been implemented, with when applicable. This grand jury finding, the respond- a summary regarding the timeframe shall not exceed ing person or entity shall indi- implemented action. six months from the date cate one of the following: (2) The recommendation of publication of the grand (1) The respondent agrees has not yet been imple- jury report. with the finding. mented, but will be imple- (4) The recommendation (2) The respondent dis- mented in the future, with a will not be implemented agrees wholly or partially timeframe for implementa- because it is not warranted with the finding, in which tion. or is not reasonable, with an case the response shall (3) The recommendation explanation therefore. specify the portion of the requires further analysis,
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Water districts should promulgate rules requiring position. adopt self-imposed term professionals seated on their limits for their members, not
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F2005: As of May 2009, the annualized hourly wages for those in the management category is $1,156,002, an increase of 118.2% over the last four years. In the past six months, PA/PG management salaries have increased by $133,174 on an annualized basis. SF.2: In the Agenda Staff Report 05-000743 document, the Board of Supervisors separated the PA/ PG from the Health Care Agency. In Ordinance No. 07-008, the Board of Supervisors designated the PA ex officio PG. SF.3: Since the April 9, 2009, interview, the PA/PG has continued to create permanent Administrative Manager III positions over the objec2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
Page 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R2005: As of May 2009, the whereby the Board of Super- been added to the manage- annualized hourly wages for visors designated the PA as ment ranks and one Chief those in the management ex officio PG, in order that Deputy position has been category is $1,156,002, an the PA would no longer oper- created. increase of 118.2% over ate as ex-officio PG. (F.2) the last four years. In the SF.7: In 2005, the County past six months, PA/PG SR.1(a): The Board of Su- Internal Auditor recommend- management salaries have pervisors should report on ed a new software system increased by $133,174 on the feasibility and legality of for the PA/PG. It missed an annualized basis. converting the Public Ad- several self-imposed imple- ministrator to an appointed mentation deadlines includ- SF.2: In the Agenda Staff rather than elected office. ing June, 2008, and will miss Report 05-000743 docu- The PA salary should be ad- the deadline of July, 2009. ment, the Board of Super- justed to that which existed The current management visors separated the PA/ prior to the approval of Ordi- staff has been unable to PG from the Health Care nance No. 07-008 combining implement a new computer Agency. In Ordinance No. the PA and PG. (F.2) software system in a timely 07-008, the Board of Super- visors designated the PA ex and reasonable period. SR.2: Subsequent to R-1(a), officio PG. the P/A and the P/G should Responses to Findings F.2 be combined and placed through F.7are required from the SF.3: Since the April 9, 2009, under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors. Responses interview, the PA/PG has County Executive office as to Findings F.1 through F. 6 is re- continued to create perma- opposed to having each quested from the County Executive nent Administrative Manager operate as a stand-alone office. Responses F.1, F.3 through III positions over the objec- department. (F.2) 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury SR.3: The Board of Super- Responses to Recommenda- 2. For purposes of subdivi- visors should determine tions R.1, through R.7are required sion (b) of Section 933, as to each whether two permanent from the Board of Supervisors. grand jury recommendation, the Administrative Management Responses to Recommendations responding person or entity shall III positions are warranted R.2 through R. 6 are requested report one of the following ac- and if not, eliminate the posi- from the County Executive office. tions: tions. (F.3) Response to recommendation R.7 (1) The recommendation is requested from County Execu- has been implemented, with a SR.4: OCHR should be tive office – Information Technol- summary regarding the imple- given approval authority in ogy. mented action. instances wherein County (2) The recommendation departments deviate from Required Responses has not yet been implemented, standard personnel prac- but will be implemented in the The California Penal Code tices. (F.3, F.4, F.5, F.6) future, with a timeframe for specifies the required permis- implementation. SR.5: OCHR should be sible responses to the findings and (3) The recommendation re- given oversight authority re- recommendations contained in the quires further analysis, with an garding management hiring report. The specific sections are explanation and the scope and and promotions in the PA/ quoted below: parameters of an analysis or PG. (F,3, F.4, F.5, F.6) §933.05 study, and a timeframe for the
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: For purposes of Subdivi- SR.6: The County Execu- matter to be prepared for dis- sion (b) of Section 933, as to each tive office should determine cussion by the officer or head grand jury finding, the responding whether two Chief Deputy of the agency or department person or entity shall indicate one positions are warranted and being investigated or reviewed, of the following: if not, eliminate one Chief including the governing body (1) The respondent agrees Deputy position. (F.6) of the public agency when ap- with the finding. plicable. This timeframe shall (2) The respondent dis- SR.7: The County Executive not exceed six months from the agrees wholly or partially with Office – Information Technol- date of publication of the grand the finding, in which case ogy should assume respon- jury report. the response shall specify the sibility for implementation (4) The recommenda- portion of the finding that is and oversight of the new tion will not be implemented disputed and shall include an software system and report because it is not warranted or is explanation of the reasons to the County Administrator not reasonable, with an expla- therefore. on a regular basis. (F.7) nation therefore.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The Orange County Crime Lab and the Or- est number of DNA profiles and having the ange County District Attorney’s DNA unit largest number of DNA cold hits than any perform DNA collection services, which are other California crime lab. similar yet different: OCCL collects forensic Responses to Findings F.1, F.2, and F.3 are re- DNA from crime scenes and obtains felony quired from the Orange County District Attorney. suspect DNA samples, which can be upload- Responses to Finding F.4 are required from the ed into the national database (CODIS) and Board of Supervisors, Sheriff-Coroner, District the state database (SDIS); the OCDA col- Attorney, and requested from County Executive lects voluntary samples from low-level drug Officer. possession felony suspects and nonviolent misdemeanor suspects; those samples are not 6. RECOMMENDATIONS eligible for uploading into state or national databases. Based on its investigation of “DNA: Whose Is It,
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Keep the Crime Lab’s database and the OCDA pays to Bode Technology Group, District Attorney’s database separate until Inc. Possible duplication of operating ex- an audit can be conducted of the District penses cannot be determined at this time Attorney’s DNA unit. At this time, there because cost analysis information has not appears to be no duplication of equipment been provided by the OCDA’s office. and/or expenses involved with having two
F2: The OCCL and the OCDA each serves a Orange County Crime Lab’s or the District Attor- different crime/criminal classification and ney’s?” the 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury the OCCL could not analyze the OCDA’s makes the following recommendations: samples for the same contracted price
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County Internal Auditor should con- November 2009, the database has had three duct an annual cost analysis as to what it independent hits and confirmed two previ- would cost for the Orange County Crime ously identified suspects. Lab to analyze the DNA samples collected
F3: After nearly a decade (starting with the DNA databases since they serve very dif- Innocent Review Panel), the OCDA’s low- ferent populations of the criminal justice level, non-violent crimes DNA database is system. just beginning to realize its potential. Since
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Annually review the costs associated with responsibility to a temporary shared manage- collection, analysis, and uploading DNA ment structure, known as the Cooperating profiles in the Orange County District Department Head Structure, composed of Attorney’s database with a view toward the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and the instituting or raising fees from individuals, County CEO. Despite the unsettled man- cities, or any others who request access to the database. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury
F4: Because of political unrest in the Sheriff’s by the Orange County District Attorney Department in 2007-08, the management that are now being sent to Bode Technology structure of the Orange County Crime Group, Inc. of Virginia. Lab changed from being solely the Sheriff’s
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The County of Orange Internal Audit (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. Department should review the District (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or Attorney’s DNA unit to determine the actual partially with the finding, in which case costs associated with this specialized unit, in- the response shall specify the portion of the cluding the collection and processing of the finding that is disputed and shall include an DNA samples, and the operation and main- explanation of the reasons therefor. tenance of the database, including updating (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section of the software. 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: The management of the Orange County responding person or entity shall report one of the Crime Lab should revert to its prior status following actions: under the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. (1) The recommendation has been imple- Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, and mented, with a summary regarding the
R7: REQUIRED RESPONSES agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of The California Penal Code specifies the required the public agency when applicable. This permissible responses to the findings and recom- timeframe shall not exceed six months from mendations contained in this report. The specific the date of publication of the grand jury sections are quoted below: report. California Penal Code §933.05: (4) The recommendation will not be imple- “(a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section mented because it is not warranted or is not 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding reasonable, with an explanation therefor.” person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F2: The most effective oration’s Gang Intervention used as a model program way to prevent children and Prevention Program for other cities and school from joining gangs in most so that it can be exported districts throughout Orange cases is to work with parents to other cities and school County. of young children to teach districts throughout Orange them to spot the danger F.9: Businesses in Orange County. signs for gang activity and County benefit greatly from
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Provide funding to aid to help them develop effec- gang prevention and inter- in the reproduction of the tive strategies to keep their vention through decreased Pio Pico materials for export children from joining gangs. graffiti and crime. to other school districts and F.: The most effective time Responses to Findings F.1 and cities in areas of Orange to begin gang prevention ef- F.4 through F.9 are required from County with heavy gang forts is when children are in the Board of Supervisors and the activity and to provide fund- elementary school. Mayor of Santa Ana. ing for coordination of this effort to export materials and F.: The most effective Responses to Findings F.1 technology. gang prevention and in- through F.6 are required from the tervention programs are District Attorney’s Office. R.: Keep the GRIP pro- done by a collaboration of Responses to Findings F.1 gram growing by seeing government agencies and through F.5 and F.7 are requested that funding is available to private organizations and it from the Probation Department. provide stable leadership for is important for governmen- the program. Responses to Findings F.1 through tal entities to support such
F4: and F.8 are required from the R.: Provide funding for collaborations. Orange County Superintendent of an experienced profes- F.: Stable leadership of Schools and requested from the sional who can coordinate the GRIP program has been School Superintendents of Garden fund raising efforts to enlist an important factor within Grove Unified School District, Orange County businesses the District Attorney’s Of- Orange Unified School District, in supporting gang preven- fice and will contribute to its Santa Ana Unified School District, tion programs through cash rapid growth. Tustin Unified School District, 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury donations or donation of Unified School District, Orange parameters of an analysis or services/products. Unified School District, Santa Ana study, and a timeframe for the Unified School District, Tustin matter to be prepared for dis- R.: Recommend that Unified School District, Anaheim cussion by the officer or head school districts with high City School District and Buena of the agency or department numbers of at-risk children Park School District. being investigated or reviewed, join forces and exchange including the governing body information on how to begin Required Responses of the public agency when ap- gang prevention and inter- plicable. This timeframe shall vention programs, how to The California Penal Code specifies not exceed six months from the expand existing programs by the required permissible responses date of publication of the grand working cooperatively, and to the findings and recommenda- jury report. how to export proven prac- tions contained in the report. The tices to other districts that specific sections are quoted below: (4) The recommendation will would benefit from them. not be implemented because §933.05 it is not warranted or is not R.: Recognize and reward 1. For purposes of Subdivision (b) reasonable, with an explanation the cost effectiveness of of Section 933, as to each grand therefore. the Probation Department’s jury finding, the responding person efforts to prevent children or entity shall indicate one of the References from joining gangs by not following: making short-sighted budget 1. Aos, Steve, Roxanne Lieb, (1) The respondent agrees with cuts that would disable such Jim Mayfield, Mama Miller, the finding. programs. and Annie Pennucci. (2004) (2) The respondent disagrees Benefits and Costs of Preven- Responses to Recommendations wholly or partially with the tion and Early Intervention Pro-
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: through R.6 are required from finding, in which case the re- grams for Youth. Washington the Board of Supervisors. sponse shall specify the portion State Institute for Public Policy, of the finding that is disputed Olympia, WA. Responses to Recommendations and shall include an explana-
R3: is required from the District will be implemented in the Changing Lives; Delinquency Attorney’s Office future, with a timeframe for Prevention as Crime Control Response to Recommendation implementation. Policy. University of Chicago
R5: are required from the Orange Press. (3) The recommendation re- County Superintendent of Schools quires further analysis, with an and requested from the School explanation and the scope and Superintendents of Garden Grove Page 0 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: The California Penal matter to be prepared for dis- Sheriff-Coroner. Code gives the Sheriff the cussion by the officer or head power to establish both a of the agency or department Required Responses policy and an application being investigated or reviewed, process for the issuance of The California Penal Code including the governing body concealed weapons per- specifies the required permis- of the public agency when ap- mits/licenses. This includes sible responses to the findings and plicable. This timeframe shall the power to revoke prior recommendations contained in the not exceed six months from the licenses/permits not issued report. The specific sections are date of publication of the grand in conformity with the code. quoted below: jury report. §933.05 The recommendation will not be Response to Finding 1 is 1. For purposes of Subdivision implemented because it is not war- required from the Board of Su- (b) of Section 933, as to each grand ranted or is not reasonable, with an pervisors and the Orange County jury finding, the responding person explanation therefore. Sheriff-Coroner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Allow the Sheriff to (b) of Section 933, as to each grand ing the issuance of CCW permits jury recommendation, the respond- continue her legally permis- is a waste of county resources and ing person or entity shall report one sible actions in establish- these efforts could be redirected of the following actions: ing a CCW license permit toward more vital issues facing the policy and the adherence (1) The recommendation has citizens of Orange County. to an application process. been implemented, with a This includes the possible summary regarding the imple- Findings revocation of permits issued mented action. In accordance with Califor- by the prior Sheriff and the (2) The recommendation has nia Penal Code Sections 933 and review of each applicant to not yet been implemented, but 933.05, each finding will be re- insure compliance with the will be implemented in the sponded to by the government mandates of the penal code future, with a timeframe for entity to which it is addressed. The as to "good cause", training, implementation. responses are to be submitted to good moral character and (3) The recommendation re- the Presiding Judge of the Supe- residency. quires further analysis, with an rior Court. The 2008-2009 Orange explanation and the scope and
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: For purposes of subdivision menting corrective actions involv- R.1: Allow the Sheriff to (b) of Section 933, as to each grand ing the issuance of CCW permits jury recommendation, the respond- continue her legally permis- is a waste of county resources and ing person or entity shall report one sible actions in establish- these efforts could be redirected of the following actions: ing a CCW license permit toward more vital issues facing the policy and the adherence (1) The recommendation has citizens of Orange County. to an application process. been implemented, with a This includes the possible summary regarding the imple-
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The Orangewood Chil- Children’s Home caused by the dren’s Home can continue to lot splitting. Responses to Recommendation deliver the services necessary
F2: The Orangewood Chil- cer. Responses to F.1 through F.3 Recommendation R.2 are required dren’s Home operation could 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury from the Board of Supervisors, and (2) The respondent disagrees the future, with a timeframe requested from the Probation De- wholly or partially with the for implementation. partment and the Chief Executive finding, in which case the (3) The recommendation Officer. Responses to Recommenda- response shall specify the requires further analysis, with tion R.3 are required from the Board portion of the finding that is an explanation and the scope of Supervisors, and requested from disputed and shall include an and parameters of an analysis the Social Services Agency, and the explanation of the reasons or study, and a timeframe for Chief Executive Officer. therefore. the matter to be prepared for Required Responses 2. For purposes of subdivision discussion by the officer or (b) of Section 933, as to each head of the agency or de- The California Penal Code speci- grand jury recommendation, partment being investigated fies the required permissible respons- the responding person or entity or reviewed, including the es to the findings and recommenda- shall report one of the follow- governing body of the public tions contained in the report. The ing actions: agency when applicable. This specific sections are quoted below: (1) The recommendation timeframe shall not exceed §933.05 has been implemented, with six months from the date of 1. For purposes of Subdivision a summary regarding the publication of the grand jury (b) of Section 933, as to each implemented action. report. grand jury finding, the respond- (2) The recommendation has (4) The recommendation will ing person or entity shall indicate not yet been implemented, not be implemented because one of the following: but will be implemented in it is not warranted or is not (1) The respondent agrees with reasonable, with an explana- the finding. tion therefore. Page 0 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
F4: The Probation Department benefactors will also recognize the Presiding Judge of the Superior has an immediate need for that a high percentage of the WIC Court. Based on the findings, the expanded facilities for Juvenile §600 delinquent children of Orange 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Hall, the Youth Leadership County also have backgrounds that Jury makes the following recom- Academy, and the Youth Guid- include abuse and neglect and that mendations: ance Center. these children are also, in spite
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Study the feasibility of of the mistakes they have made, F.5: The Probation Depart- allowing the Probation Depart- worthy of help. We hope that the ment programs such as regular ment to use up to one-half of generous contributors, past and cur- schooling, counseling and job the Orangewood Children’s rent, might refocus their charitable training have been shown to be Home property currently be- giving and include the crying needs effective. ing used by the Department of of Probation Department programs Social Services. Study to be as well as the soon-to-open Tustin F.6: Additional facilities will completed within six months. Family Campus. allow the Probation Depart- ment more capability to deliver R.2: The Probation Depart- Findings services. ment to consider developing the transferred property for use by IIn accordance with Califor-
F7: A reduction in the facili- Juvenile Hall and/or the Youth nia Penal Code sections 933 and ties and excess staffing of the Leadership Academy and/or the 933.05, each finding will be re- Orangewood Children’s Home Youth Guidance Center. sponded to by the government will save substantial dollars entity to which it is addressed. The without compromising its care R.3: The Board of Supervisors responses are to be submitted to for abused, abandoned, and direct that a detailed examina- the Presiding Judge of the Supe- neglected children. tion of staffing and finances at rior Court. The 2008-2009 Orange Orangewood Children’s Home County Grand Jury has arrived at F.8: The new Tustin Family be conducted by both the Social the following findings: Center can accommodate ser- Services Agency and the county vice reductions at Orangewood financial oversight staff.
Findings & Recommendations 13 findings
F2: Holding cells could is to review it with the employee independent civilian review of the eventually present unsafe unions. OCSD. The stated purpose is to working conditions for Sheriff The Crout & Sida (C&S) report monitor, assist, oversee, and advise personnel because needed noted previously performed a the OCSD in the investigation of upgrades and maintenance comprehensive staffing assessment the following: are being delayed. of the jails and concluded each had 1. Review selected internal and “staffing shortages that significantly citizen complaints alleging that
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: For purposes of subdivision will be implemented in the future, ing body of the public agency (b) of Section 933, as to each grand with a timeframe for implementa- when applicable. This timeframe jury recommendation, the respond- tion. shall not exceed six months from ing person or entity shall report one (3) The recommendation the date of publication of the of the following actions: requires further analysis, with an grand jury report. (1) The recommendation has explanation and the scope and pa- (4)The recommendation will been implemented, with a sum- rameters of an analysis or study, not be implemented because it is mary regarding the implemented and a timeframe for the matter to not warranted or is not reason- action. be prepared for discussion by the able, with an explanation there- officer or head of the agency or fore. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
F3: The jail system is oper- impact the ability of the OCSD peace and custodial officers ating within its capabilities to safely operate and manage the committed certain actions, or and therefore overcrowding county jail system.” This conclu- inactions, in the performance of is not currently an issue. sion validated the principal cause their duties. of the overtime identified in the 2. Review selected incidents of F.4: Recently completed jail performance audit noted above, that death or serious injury occur- needs assessment reports is, staff vacancies. C&S recom- ring to persons while in cus- predict a significant popula- mended that an additional 455 tody. tion increase in minimum custody personnel were needed to The mission of the OIR is to and medium-security in- insure the safety and security of strengthen the response of the mates. the County jail system. Since the OCSD to critical incidents and
F5: Without a Musick majority of the additional positions allegations of officer misconduct, medium-security capacity recommended by C&S pertain to as well as to increase the public’s expansion, early release of CJX (253 new positions) the Grand confidence in those responses, by inmates may be the only op- Jury reviewed the specific points providing full-time civilian over- tion available to avoid OCSD (some that have been implemented sight. jail overcrowding. and others that are subject to further It is too early to measure the ef- study) for achieving efficiencies at fectiveness of the OIR. The Execu-
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The OCSD and the security and medical rea- Sheriff-Coroner Board of Supervisors should sons. (F.6) Responses to Recommenda- pursue discussions with the
F6: Early release of in- that facility by the redeployment tive Director indicates that he has mates through the use of of staff to unfilled positions, thus received full cooperation from the alternates-to-incarceration reducing overtime. The OCSD has Sheriff and her staff. After nine programs (e.g. Community already begun the process of de- months the OIR recently issued its Work Program (CWP) have veloping the specifications for the first report, and as of the time of avoided gross overcrowding selection and training of SSO’s to this writing the Grand Jury has not within OCSD jails. fill vacant positions within the jails. had the opportunity to review it. Based on this review the Grand F.7: Today’s inmate profile Findings Jury believes CJX will make a is made up of more serious significant contribution towards In accordance with Califor- and mentally ill offenders achieving the $3 million in over- nia Penal Code Sections 933 and who require greater segre- time savings identified in the audit. 933.05, each finding will be re- gation thus reducing bed sponded to by the government space. I. Office of Independent entity to which it is addressed. The Review F.8: Re-entry and post-re- responses are to be submitted to lease programs have re- The Office of Independent Re- the Presiding Judge of the Supe- duced inmate recidivism but view (OIR) was created to address rior Court. The 2008-2009 Orange there exists little quantitative alleged problems of law enforce- County Grand Jury has arrived at information and analysis to ment misconduct. After a thor- the following findings: support such a conclusion. ough examination of the identified F.1: Both the OCSD and problems within the Department, CEO Risk Management per- the Board of Supervisors authorized form risk management activi- 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: In order to achieve cost Required Responses (F.17) savings, CCTV should be The California Penal Code placed in all city jails where R.12a: Statistics and data specifies the required permis- feasible to be utilized for all should be quantified and sible responses to the findings and court appearances where analyzed to measure the recommendations contained in the inmates do not have to be success of the CWP. (F.14, report. The specific sections are personally present. (F.9) F.15) quoted below:
F9: The Board of Supervi- F.16: When inmates are Responses to Findings F.1 sors has not authorized the interviewed at the IRC medi- through F.18 and F.20 are re- Musick expansion project cal screening area there is quired from the Orange County and there is no alterna- no privacy provided and this Sheriff-Coroner tive proposal. Video visita- could result in reluctance Response to Finding F.1 is tions and arraignment were to reveal relevant personal requested from the County Execu- features of the expansion information. tive Officer project. Responses to Findings F.9,
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: Volunteers are critical to R.14: The OIR should sub- lier for the preparation of the the success of the Inmate mit a written progress report Musick expansion design/ Services Division/Inmate on a quarterly basis as con- construction documents. Re-Entry Unit and the OCSD tractually required. (F.19) The estimated cost is $9.2 should continue supporting million. These documents
F10: Even with an immedi- fied by wristband or module the Board of Supervisors ate Musick expansion go- card. Other than color, the Responses to Finding F.16 and ahead in 2009, new beds to only information on the card
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: While being booked ing loop at Theo Lacy. (F.20) debate, litigation and project at the IRC medical screen- delay. (F.3, F.4, F.5, F.7, F.9, Responses to Recommendations ing area, privacy should be
F11: OCSD provides many nia Penal Code Sections 933 and correctional programs to jail F.18: An audit report issued 933.05, each recommendation will inmates aimed at easing in October, 2008, concluded be responded to by the government re-entry into the community. that the previous administra- entity to which it is addressed. The The re-entry programs utilize tion mismanaged the use of responses are to be submitted to volunteers and have proven overtime in the OCSD, and the Presiding Judge of the Superior to be successful in assisting lacked clear policy guide- Court. Based on the findings, the inmates and their families. lines and protocols for man- 2008-2009 Orange County Grand aging it. OCSD has taken Jury makes the following recom-
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: Bar codes on wrist- tions R.3, R.4, R.6 and R.15 are State and local communities bands should include book- required from the Orange County regarding the Musick expan- ing number, photo, medical Board of Supervisors sion to resolve any outstand- needs and special issues, Response to Recommendation ing issues and objections. which would allow greater R.14 is requested from the Office (F.3, F.4, F.7, F.9, F.10, F.13) control, accountability and of Independent Review
F12: Programs to address steps to remedy the situa- mendations: and solve the projected tion and this has resulted R.1: The OCSD should inmate population growth for in reduced costs, however, provide CEO Risk Manage- the period between now and as of the time of this report, ment with Captains’ logs on when expansion of Musick a new policy has yet to be a daily basis. (F.1) is completed have not been approved. defined. R.2: A detailed study should
F13: The only location for Board of Supervisors. It was whether risk management jail expansion in Orange created to provide indepen- activities for OCSD claims County is the Musick facility. dent oversight regarding and lawsuits would be better incidents and allegations and more efficiently per-
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: The OCSD should (2)The respondent disagrees alternatives to incarceration finalize the draft overtime wholly or partially with the find- should be developed, fund- policy, resolve any outstand- ing, in which case the response ed and implemented and ing issues with the employee shall specify the portion of the existing programs expanded unions, and approve the finding that is disputed and shall 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury include an explanation of the (2) The recommendation has department being investigated or reasons therefore. not yet been implemented, but reviewed, including the govern- 2. For purposes of subdivision will be implemented in the future, ing body of the public agency (b) of Section 933, as to each grand with a timeframe for implementa- when applicable. This timeframe jury recommendation, the respond- tion. shall not exceed six months from ing person or entity shall report one (3) The recommendation the date of publication of the of the following actions: requires further analysis, with an grand jury report. (1) The recommendation has explanation and the scope and pa- (4)The recommendation will been implemented, with a sum- rameters of an analysis or study, not be implemented because it is mary regarding the implemented and a timeframe for the matter to not warranted or is not reason- action. be prepared for discussion by the able, with an explanation there- officer or head of the agency or fore. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
F14: The CWP is effective of law enforcement mis- formed in OCSD. (F.1) for inmates who are not a conduct. The overall effec- threat to society and can be- R.3: The OCSD and the tiveness of this additional come productive members Board of Supervisors should oversight organization has of the community. pursue with the AOC needed yet to be determined. facility upgrades and mainte-
F17: An inmate is identi-
F19: The OIR reports to the be conducted to determine
F20: The booking/receiving nance to avoid future safety have not been analyzed in loop at Theo Lacy is out- issues at courthouse holding order to quantify the success dated, inadequate and inef- facilities. (F.2) and savings achieved by the ficient for the handling of the CWP. increased inmate population. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury
Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: Funding should be to meet inmate population new overtime policy as soon authorized for immediate growth. (F.6, F.10, F.12) as possible. (F.18) expenditure in 2010 or ear-
R7: Develop a way to R.12b: In order to increase §933.05 calculate recidivism rates savings, the OCSD should 1. For purposes of Subdivision to adequately measure the identify ways to expand (b) of Section 933, as to each grand effectiveness of re-entry the CWP for minimum-risk jury finding, the responding person and post-release programs inmates who are currently or entity shall indicate one of the provided by Inmate Services not participating in the following: Division. (F.8) program. (F.14, F.15) (1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
R8: Programs that provide
R15: A study should be con- the recruitment of these key can be used to address the ducted to reconfigure and contributors. (F.11) concerns of the surrounding remodel the booking/receiv- communities, avoid future
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The 2008 General Election (VCCs), the VTC from which the Election Security had a record turnout by mail and trucks departed and collected the pre- at the polling places. Election night security was cinct equipment from the VCCs, and provided by a volunteer force of 65 those deputies who provided internal F.2: The County was well pre- OC Sheriff Department reserve of- and perimeter security at the VTC. pared to handle the voter turnout ficers and four professional service Reserve personnel also provided and handled it well. responders. The Orange County briefings to their people specifying
F2: The recommendation has not tions contained in the report. The yet been implemented, but In accordance with Califor- specific sections are quoted below: will be implemented in the nia Penal Code Sections 933 and §933.05 For purposes of Subdi- future, with a timeframe for 933.05, each recommendation will vision (b) of Section 933, as to each implementation. be responded to by the government grand jury finding, the responding
F3: The County was adequately Sheriffs Department (OCSD) Re- their duties and responsibilities. prepared to handle the contin- serve Bureau has been providing The reserve deputies deployed gencies which occurred on Elec- election security to the Registrar of in the field were in constant contact tion Day and handled it well. Voters Department for at least 28 with the OCSD command center by
F4: Security at the Voter Talley years. These personnel provided a radio. They reported their departures Center and at the Vote Collection variety of services including internal from the garage, their arrivals and Centers was without incident. and perimeter security of the Vote departures from the VCCs, and their Tally Center (VTC). Here 20 reserve departures from the ballot collection F.5: The Registrar’s lessons- officers were posted at key locations centers as well as the numbers of bal- learned activities following the to limit access only to authorized lot boxes they were transporting and election were appropriate to im- personnel. Special security was pro- their arrival at the VTC. More impor- prove future election processes. vided to the computer room where tantly, they immediately reported any Responses to all Findings are only six Registrar employees were unplanned incidents that arose while requested from the Registrar of allowed access. enroute to or deployed at the vote Voters. Another 48 reserve officers per- collection centers. Responses to all Findings are formed driver escort, thus providing Deploying this all-volunteer force required from the Board of Supervi- a chain of custody to the integrity of provided a large cost savings to the sors. the ballots and precinct equipment Orange County taxpayers. It is esti- Responses to all Findings are from the time they were delivered mated that, compared to deploying requested from the County Execu- to the ballot collection centers until regular OCSD deputies on an over- tive Officer. A Response to Finding F4 is Required Responses 1. The recommendation has required from the Orange County been implemented, with The California Penal Code speci- Sheriff. a summary regarding the fies the required permissible respons- implemented action. Recommendations es to the findings and recommenda- 2. The recommendation has not tions contained in the report. The yet been implemented, but In accordance with Califor- specific sections are quoted below: will be implemented in the nia Penal Code Sections 933 and §933.05 For purposes of Subdi- future, with a timeframe for 933.05, each recommendation will vision (b) of Section 933, as to each implementation. be responded to by the government grand jury finding, the responding 3. The recommendation re- entity to which it is addressed. The person or entity shall indicate one of quires further analysis, with responses are to be submitted to the following: an explanation and the scope the Presiding Judge of the Superior 1. The respondent agrees with and parameters of an analysis Court. Based on the findings, the the finding. or study, and a timeframe for 2008-2009 Orange County Grand 2. The respondent disagrees the matter to be prepared for Jury makes the following recommen- wholly or partially with the discussion by the officer or dation: finding, in which case the head of the agency or de-
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Registrar of Voters response shall specify the partment being investigated is urged to maintain the posi- portion of the finding that is or reviewed, including the tive efforts acknowledged in the disputed and shall include an governing body of the public report and pursue his estab- explanation of the reasons agency when applicable. This lished strategies to continue to therefore. exact outstanding performance timeframe shall not exceed For purposes of subdivision (b) from his organization and deliver six months from the date of of Section 933, as to each grand jury excellent service to the public. publication of the grand jury recommendation, the responding report. Response to Recommendation 1 person or entity shall report one of 4. The recommendation will is requested from the Registrar of the following actions: not be implemented because Voters. it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explana- tion therefore.
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The management of PA/PG
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Personal papers are invento- stacked against the East wall. for administering cases in ried and placed in the personal Place items to be kept into the which the Public Guardian has papers section of the PA/PG lidded boxes. Use the smallest been given medical powers un- warehouse. size appropriate. Put the items der Probate Code Section 2355.
F2: Personnel practices at PA/ b and c, add deputies to help trative cost reductions. The ad- PG have used temporary pro- reduce caseload. ministrative costs have actually motions and selective exclusion increased without any apparent R.2: The Board of Supervisors criteria to circumvent standard improvement in decedent estate should transfer the personnel hiring procedures. processing or conservatee management functions of PA/
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: is required from the Board of development, trials and conver- reports to senior management Supervisors and requested from sion to the replacement for required action. County Executive Office/Orange system. County Human Resources Depart-
F3: The current ePAGES care. The agency has made PG to the OCHR. computer program is no longer ineffective decisions that have
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The assigned Deputy re- please leave them there). Inven- lic Guardian. moves all papers necessary to tory sorted papers on property POLICY: the administration of the estate inventory sheet as “sorted per- Letters of conservatorship and throws away all junk mail, sonal papers”. Indicating how or orders of conservatorship advertisements, etc. 2008-2009 Orange County Grand Jury issued to the public Guardian Determines if conservatee is/ mended by Supervisor before may give the Public Guard- is not adherent of a religion authorizing intrusive procedure. ian authority to give medical whose tenets and practices re- REFERENCE: County Counsel consent. Those cases that do lay on prayer alone for healing opinion 91-236 give the Public Guardian au- If yes, contact accredited Probate Code Sections 2355 and thority to give medical consent practitioner of that religion. If 2356 include the authority to consent not, contact treating doctor and OC WASTE AND RECYCLING to intrusive medical procedure request doctor’s declaration in without additional Court ap- writing that treatment is neces- (FORMERLY: COUNTY OF proval when recommended by sary. ORANGE INTEGRATED medical professional. Court After review of doctor’s decla- WASTE MANAGEMENT DE- approval should be requested, ration and conference with case PARTMENT) however, in those cases where worker to obtain additional Disposal Procedures for House- you receive conflicting medi- information, may concur with hold Generated “Sharps” Waste cal advice and cannot make a treatment and authorize proce-
F5: Public Administrator/Pub- be responded to by the government has become top heavy which lic Guardian policies and proce- entity to which it is addressed. The complicates communication dures are outdated, confusing responses are to be submitted to with employees, increases costs and are not being adhered to as the Presiding Judge of the Superior and lowers morale and depart- written making it difficult to ef- Court. Based on the findings, the ment performance. fectively implement the PA/PG 2008-2009 Orange County Grand a) The Administrative stated mission. Jury makes the following recom- Services section consists of mendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: In accordance with the Heirs’ SCRIPTION DRUGS, SHARPS INVENTORIES OF PERSONAL wishes, or after 60 days has AND CONTAMINATED ITEMS PROPERTY elapsed the assigned Deputy PROCEDURE:
F6: The lack of business three managers and two non-
F7: Management practices Level III positions within the trative Services department. used since the separation of PA/PG are unwarranted due the Public Guardian from the
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: The County Internal Audit Guardian. Based on the results from the Board of Supervisors and Department should conduct of this review and the Grand requested from the County Execu- an in-depth review of OCHR Jury report, they should recon- tive Office and the Orange County personnel records to determine sider whether separating the Health Care Agency. if additional instances of ques- PA/PG from the Health Care tionable pension practices exist Required Responses Agency and turning it into a in agencies other than the PA/ separate stand-alone County The California Penal Code PG office. The audit report and department has been cost and specifies the required permis- any resulting County responses performance improvement sible responses to the findings and will be forwarded to the Grand effective. If not, the Board recommendations contained in the Jury for information. of Supervisors should return report. The specific sections are Public Guardian to the HCA or
R8: When the term of the cur- developed. Appropriate train- (b) of Section 933, as to each rent PA expires in two years, ing based on these documents grand jury finding, the respond- the Board of Supervisors should be given and that action ing person or entity shall indi- should consider moving the documented. cate one of the following: Public Administrator function (1) The respondent agrees into the same department that
R10: During the inventory all sends a memo to personal prop- 3. Property Services Staff will items listed on the inventory erty Services advising whether count and list the number of sheet are tagged or labeled with to ship, destroy or release to a unopened and opened syringes the identifying number on the specified agent. on the inventory sheet in the Property Inventory Sheet and 6. A deputy assigned to a Public presence of the witness. The the identifying code letters. The Guardian case will not release estimated value will be NV- importance of accurate tagging Personal Paper to heirs or No Value. Unopened syringes can not be over emphasized as other family members during are left in their packages and they are used to trace the chain the lifetime of the case, unless placed in a standard inven- of custody from the decedent/ written and informed consent is tory box. Opened syringes are conservatee’s residence to the obtained from the conservatee placed in a sharps container. If warehouse and ultimately to and only if there is no will de- the sharps container becomes buyers and heirs. tailing disposition of personal full, a plastic soda bottle or Policy and Procedure 4.6 property. similar appropriate container MAINTAINING WAREHOUSE Policy and Procedure 4.10 will be used to temporarily store the sharps. Sharps will be AND IMPOUND SECURITY ACCESS/USE OF PA/PG PA- removed form the temporary PRACTICE PERS ROOM, BUILDING “B” container and put in a designat- To establish a uniform proce- (Remember this Policy has ed sharps container upon return dure for access and security been deleted according to the note to the warehouse. of the PA/PG warehouse and attached to it directing the reader Policy and Procedure No.8.9 impound area. to 4.6) PA papers are to the right, PG PUBLIC GUARDIAN AUTHOR- Policy and Procedure No. 4.8 papers are to the left. Unsorted ITY IN INTRUSIVE MEDICAL DISPOSITION OF PERSONAL papers are on the racks labeled PROCEDURE PAPERS “unsorted PA papers”. Empty PURPOSE: PROCEDURE: boxes for sorting into are To establish a uniform policy

* 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.