Orange County Grand Jury
2012-2013
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 (17)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
The sum of uncollected child support ordered in 2011/12 ($70,360,647) plus the accumulated arrears going back many years total over $1.3 billion40. Uncollected dollars of this magnitude scream for attention
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
CSS should recommend orders that offer the father lower current support so he can afford payment towards arrears.43 (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
F2:
The two most salient statistics that lead to payment of support as ordered are: 1. Orders that demand more than 20% of a father’s income tend not to be paid. 2. Orders that grant fathers significant custody/visitation with their children tend to yield payment as ordered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
CSS should recommend orders that offer the father lower current support so he can afford payment towards arrears.43 (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
F3:
California Family Code § 4055 dictates what percent of a father’s income he must pay based primarily on his time share with his child(ren) and the parents’ respective incomes. The time share and the amount of income attributed to each parent is a matter of judicial discretion.41 California Family Code charges CSS to set and collect child support. There is no provision for advocating for factors which will yield pragmatic orders; that is orders that will maximize income for the mothers and compliance by the fathers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
CSS should recommend orders that offer the father lower current support so he can afford payment towards arrears.43 (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R8:
If the partnership with UCI fails as recommended in R7 above, a research department must be established by the Correctional Programs Unit to perform the statistical analysis as outlined in R7 above. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F11)
F4:
Fathers routinely accept orders granting them about 20% time share with their children.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
CSS should recommend orders that offer the father lower current support so he can afford payment towards arrears.43 (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
As appropriate, CSS should seek an order as appropriate for both parents and the child(ren) to complete counseling. (A caveat to this recommendation is that a 42 CSS is not specifically authorized to advocate what orders should be. This is foolish considering CSS must inject some logical time share and incomes for the parents to determine child support. In fact, parents come to CSS ignorant of anything but their fear. Mother is fearful she will not get enough money to support herself and the children. Father, if he has the courage to meet with CSS at all, fears he will not have enough to live on after paying support. CSS knows that orders for more than 20% of father’s income will likely drive him underground and he will pay nothing at all. Father’s disappearance not only denies Mother of support, it deprives the children of a father. In total Mother should receive more actual support payment than she would otherwise. Father’s benefit is the opportunity to ultimately rid himself of the burden of arrears. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion “counseling order” should not delay an immediate support order.) The cost of such counseling should be paid by the parties if they can afford it or with lag money if possible or from Orange County MHSA funds. (F4, F5, F10, F11, F12)
R8:
If the partnership with UCI fails as recommended in R7 above, a research department must be established by the Correctional Programs Unit to perform the statistical analysis as outlined in R7 above. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F11)
F5:
Reasons for fathers’ acceptance of minimal time shares with their child(ren) are many and beyond the scope of this study; however, from anecdotal stories from the parenting programs referenced in this study, some reasons are: 1. Lack of appreciation of their own worth as fathers, 40 Orange County Child Support Services provided records back to 2000 when the arrears were reported to be $1.095 billion to the present. Income is based upon three factors: “actual earnings” (a pay stub for example); “earning capacity” which will charge an individual with the ability to work even though he/she may not be working at the time; and, “life style”, which for example credits an individual with income when enjoying “free” rent. Each of these three means of determining income can lead to different interpretations of actual income. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion 2. Perception they have no time to care for their children in spite of the fact that the mothers miraculously care for their children with utilization of the very same 24 hours per day, 3. Fear of the responsibility and “know how” of parenting, 4. Often parenting is not seen as “macho”, 5. Reluctance and outright refusal by mothers to permit fathers to have contact with “their” children due to: a. Animosity toward the men who got them pregnant, b. Animosity toward the men who have ignored their children to date, c. Animosity toward the men who scorned them (“…hell hath no fury…”), d. distrust of a father’s capability to care for the child (they never saw “Three Men and a Baby”), e. Animosity over differing and/or conflicting parenting styles and issues.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
CSS should recommend orders that offer the father lower current support so he can afford payment towards arrears.43 (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
As appropriate, CSS should seek an order as appropriate for both parents and the child(ren) to complete counseling. (A caveat to this recommendation is that a 42 CSS is not specifically authorized to advocate what orders should be. This is foolish considering CSS must inject some logical time share and incomes for the parents to determine child support. In fact, parents come to CSS ignorant of anything but their fear. Mother is fearful she will not get enough money to support herself and the children. Father, if he has the courage to meet with CSS at all, fears he will not have enough to live on after paying support. CSS knows that orders for more than 20% of father’s income will likely drive him underground and he will pay nothing at all. Father’s disappearance not only denies Mother of support, it deprives the children of a father. In total Mother should receive more actual support payment than she would otherwise. Father’s benefit is the opportunity to ultimately rid himself of the burden of arrears. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion “counseling order” should not delay an immediate support order.) The cost of such counseling should be paid by the parties if they can afford it or with lag money if possible or from Orange County MHSA funds. (F4, F5, F10, F11, F12)
R8:
If the partnership with UCI fails as recommended in R7 above, a research department must be established by the Correctional Programs Unit to perform the statistical analysis as outlined in R7 above. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F11)
F6:
Orders for support that are more than 20% of a father’s income will likely result in less actual support paid. An order for $400 for a man earning $2,000 is likely to yield an actual payment of $400. An order for $600 for a man earning $2,000 is likely to yield no payment at all. Even if CSS is able to enforce collection, the cost to collect the extra $200 will likely be equal to or greater than the $200. Fathers tend to take the attitude that if they are to be delinquent for a penny they might as well be delinquent for a dollar.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
CSS should recommend orders that offer the father lower current support so he can afford payment towards arrears.43 (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R8:
If the partnership with UCI fails as recommended in R7 above, a research department must be established by the Correctional Programs Unit to perform the statistical analysis as outlined in R7 above. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F11)
F7:
Fathers who significantly participate in parenting their child(ren) pay the most child support. Aside from the actual support order, they can also be counted on to pay for the children’s extracurricular activities and luxury items.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
CSS should recommend orders that offer the father lower current support so he can afford payment towards arrears.43 (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R7:
Financial administration services shall place the resale items, currently located in the Commissary Clothing and Personal Supplies account 600, into a more suitable account. (F7) COMMENDATION The Grand Jury would like to thank the many sworn and professional staff that met with the Grand Jury during the preparation of this report. The professional attitude and hard work the Grand Jury observed was greatly appreciated. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Detention Facilities: Part I - Adult Jails Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F8:
Payment or non-payment of child support is only symptomatic of a much greater parenting issue. Children raised without paternal parenting fall prey to a plethora of social ills ranging from dropping out of high school to criminal incarceration. Every child growing up without a father is not doomed; but, statistics show a hugely disproportionate number of children without paternal care suffer very serious human and social ills.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Sheriff’s Department must demand and gain positive commitment and cooperation from its entire staff for rehabilitation. (F8) REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (4) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Jail Rehabilitation Programs, Are They Effective??? (5) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (6) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F9:
Counseling men who have ignored their children can, and has, turned them into devoted fathers as evidenced by the success of the now defunct Fatherhood 101 program.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
As appropriate, CSS should seek orders that mandate the father have counseling or attend an educational program. The word “Appropriate” in the prior sentence acknowledges the courts ultimate jurisdiction as to which fathers would benefit. Upon completion of such counseling, father time with the child(ren) should be increased resulting in affordable child support. The cost should be paid with lag money if possible and from Orange County MHSA funds if beyond the father’s ability to pay. (F9, F10, F11, F12)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17) CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is 44 . Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F10:
Hispanics constitute over one third of the population of Orange County. This increasing demographic deserves sympathetic attention to their unique 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion conditions, including among other things: language, culture, and economic status.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
As appropriate, CSS should seek orders that mandate the father have counseling or attend an educational program. The word “Appropriate” in the prior sentence acknowledges the courts ultimate jurisdiction as to which fathers would benefit. Upon completion of such counseling, father time with the child(ren) should be increased resulting in affordable child support. The cost should be paid with lag money if possible and from Orange County MHSA funds if beyond the father’s ability to pay. (F9, F10, F11, F12)
R4:
As appropriate, CSS should seek an order as appropriate for both parents and the child(ren) to complete counseling. (A caveat to this recommendation is that a 42 CSS is not specifically authorized to advocate what orders should be. This is foolish considering CSS must inject some logical time share and incomes for the parents to determine child support. In fact, parents come to CSS ignorant of anything but their fear. Mother is fearful she will not get enough money to support herself and the children. Father, if he has the courage to meet with CSS at all, fears he will not have enough to live on after paying support. CSS knows that orders for more than 20% of father’s income will likely drive him underground and he will pay nothing at all. Father’s disappearance not only denies Mother of support, it deprives the children of a father. In total Mother should receive more actual support payment than she would otherwise. Father’s benefit is the opportunity to ultimately rid himself of the burden of arrears. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion “counseling order” should not delay an immediate support order.) The cost of such counseling should be paid by the parties if they can afford it or with lag money if possible or from Orange County MHSA funds. (F4, F5, F10, F11, F12)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17) CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is 44 . Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F11:
Counseling the adult female, the adult male and the children of their union has and can have the following positive effects: 1. The counseling creates understanding and empathy between the adults for their respective roles as mothers and fathers. This is no small thing. It decreases the animosity and outright hatred between the adults that so often bleeds onto the children. 2. The understanding and empathy in turn results in a. better compliance with support orders and b. better compliance with custody/visitation exchanges and happier, less stressed children.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3:
As appropriate, CSS should seek orders that mandate the father have counseling or attend an educational program. The word “Appropriate” in the prior sentence acknowledges the courts ultimate jurisdiction as to which fathers would benefit. Upon completion of such counseling, father time with the child(ren) should be increased resulting in affordable child support. The cost should be paid with lag money if possible and from Orange County MHSA funds if beyond the father’s ability to pay. (F9, F10, F11, F12)
R4:
As appropriate, CSS should seek an order as appropriate for both parents and the child(ren) to complete counseling. (A caveat to this recommendation is that a 42 CSS is not specifically authorized to advocate what orders should be. This is foolish considering CSS must inject some logical time share and incomes for the parents to determine child support. In fact, parents come to CSS ignorant of anything but their fear. Mother is fearful she will not get enough money to support herself and the children. Father, if he has the courage to meet with CSS at all, fears he will not have enough to live on after paying support. CSS knows that orders for more than 20% of father’s income will likely drive him underground and he will pay nothing at all. Father’s disappearance not only denies Mother of support, it deprives the children of a father. In total Mother should receive more actual support payment than she would otherwise. Father’s benefit is the opportunity to ultimately rid himself of the burden of arrears. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion “counseling order” should not delay an immediate support order.) The cost of such counseling should be paid by the parties if they can afford it or with lag money if possible or from Orange County MHSA funds. (F4, F5, F10, F11, F12)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17) CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is 44 . Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
R8:
If the partnership with UCI fails as recommended in R7 above, a research department must be established by the Correctional Programs Unit to perform the statistical analysis as outlined in R7 above. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F11)
F12:
The law, California Family Code §§ 3190 – 3191 gives the court the authority to order counseling at its discretion and there exists the means to pay for the counseling for parents and children, specifically: 1. The parents themselves can pay, 2. Lag money can be used to pay, 3. Orange County MHSA (Prop 63) has discretionary money for counseling.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3:
As appropriate, CSS should seek orders that mandate the father have counseling or attend an educational program. The word “Appropriate” in the prior sentence acknowledges the courts ultimate jurisdiction as to which fathers would benefit. Upon completion of such counseling, father time with the child(ren) should be increased resulting in affordable child support. The cost should be paid with lag money if possible and from Orange County MHSA funds if beyond the father’s ability to pay. (F9, F10, F11, F12)
R4:
As appropriate, CSS should seek an order as appropriate for both parents and the child(ren) to complete counseling. (A caveat to this recommendation is that a 42 CSS is not specifically authorized to advocate what orders should be. This is foolish considering CSS must inject some logical time share and incomes for the parents to determine child support. In fact, parents come to CSS ignorant of anything but their fear. Mother is fearful she will not get enough money to support herself and the children. Father, if he has the courage to meet with CSS at all, fears he will not have enough to live on after paying support. CSS knows that orders for more than 20% of father’s income will likely drive him underground and he will pay nothing at all. Father’s disappearance not only denies Mother of support, it deprives the children of a father. In total Mother should receive more actual support payment than she would otherwise. Father’s benefit is the opportunity to ultimately rid himself of the burden of arrears. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion “counseling order” should not delay an immediate support order.) The cost of such counseling should be paid by the parties if they can afford it or with lag money if possible or from Orange County MHSA funds. (F4, F5, F10, F11, F12)
R5:
CSS should form a Parenting Commission composed of following: 1. At least one representative from CSS. 2. One member from Court Services – Mediation. 3. One attorney from the Family Law Section of the Orange County Bar, 4. One attorney from Legal Aid. 5. At least one representative from a participating counseling program. 6. One family oriented social worker. 7. One attorney from the Hispanic Section of the Orange County Bar. 8. One representative from Orange County MHSA. The Commission should do, among other things: 1. Collect money and/or seek commitments from Orange County MHSA. Make the money available to mothers, fathers and children if ordered by the court to get counseling. 2. Monitor counseling programs to determine their effectiveness. 3. Work with other groups that might promote justice between separated mothers and fathers to protect children from the potential devastation of growing up without a father.44 4. Promote orders in the family law arena that will likely yield compliance and maximum contact with both parents. Child Support Services should initiate the creation of this commission utilizing part of its County Contribution ($350,000 in 2011/2012). Future costs should also be borne by CSS. (F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17) CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is 44 . Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F13:
Ignoring paternal parenting is too expensive to allow it to continue. The many hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid child support and the social failings result in both an incalculable loss in human potential and the financial cost of incarcerating society’s failures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
CSS should form a Parenting Commission composed of following: 1. At least one representative from CSS. 2. One member from Court Services – Mediation. 3. One attorney from the Family Law Section of the Orange County Bar, 4. One attorney from Legal Aid. 5. At least one representative from a participating counseling program. 6. One family oriented social worker. 7. One attorney from the Hispanic Section of the Orange County Bar. 8. One representative from Orange County MHSA. The Commission should do, among other things: 1. Collect money and/or seek commitments from Orange County MHSA. Make the money available to mothers, fathers and children if ordered by the court to get counseling. 2. Monitor counseling programs to determine their effectiveness. 3. Work with other groups that might promote justice between separated mothers and fathers to protect children from the potential devastation of growing up without a father.44 4. Promote orders in the family law arena that will likely yield compliance and maximum contact with both parents. Child Support Services should initiate the creation of this commission utilizing part of its County Contribution ($350,000 in 2011/2012). Future costs should also be borne by CSS. (F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17) CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is 44 . Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F14:
CSS had a $350,000 net county contribution in 2011/2012.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
CSS should form a Parenting Commission composed of following: 1. At least one representative from CSS. 2. One member from Court Services – Mediation. 3. One attorney from the Family Law Section of the Orange County Bar, 4. One attorney from Legal Aid. 5. At least one representative from a participating counseling program. 6. One family oriented social worker. 7. One attorney from the Hispanic Section of the Orange County Bar. 8. One representative from Orange County MHSA. The Commission should do, among other things: 1. Collect money and/or seek commitments from Orange County MHSA. Make the money available to mothers, fathers and children if ordered by the court to get counseling. 2. Monitor counseling programs to determine their effectiveness. 3. Work with other groups that might promote justice between separated mothers and fathers to protect children from the potential devastation of growing up without a father.44 4. Promote orders in the family law arena that will likely yield compliance and maximum contact with both parents. Child Support Services should initiate the creation of this commission utilizing part of its County Contribution ($350,000 in 2011/2012). Future costs should also be borne by CSS. (F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17) CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is 44 . Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F15:
Orange County MHSA (Proposition 63) is obligated to use 20% of its budget for programs for prevention and intervention, and of that Orange County has committed that 75% is to be used for the County’s youth.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
CSS should form a Parenting Commission composed of following: 1. At least one representative from CSS. 2. One member from Court Services – Mediation. 3. One attorney from the Family Law Section of the Orange County Bar, 4. One attorney from Legal Aid. 5. At least one representative from a participating counseling program. 6. One family oriented social worker. 7. One attorney from the Hispanic Section of the Orange County Bar. 8. One representative from Orange County MHSA. The Commission should do, among other things: 1. Collect money and/or seek commitments from Orange County MHSA. Make the money available to mothers, fathers and children if ordered by the court to get counseling. 2. Monitor counseling programs to determine their effectiveness. 3. Work with other groups that might promote justice between separated mothers and fathers to protect children from the potential devastation of growing up without a father.44 4. Promote orders in the family law arena that will likely yield compliance and maximum contact with both parents. Child Support Services should initiate the creation of this commission utilizing part of its County Contribution ($350,000 in 2011/2012). Future costs should also be borne by CSS. (F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17) CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is 44 . Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F16:
Promotion of mental wellness includes, among other things, support of programs that prevent youth suicides, youth runaways, unwanted teenage pregnancy, behavioral disorders, juvenile delinquency and high school drop outs. Children of divorced and separated families are recognized as high risk for such behaviors.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
CSS should form a Parenting Commission composed of following: 1. At least one representative from CSS. 2. One member from Court Services – Mediation. 3. One attorney from the Family Law Section of the Orange County Bar, 4. One attorney from Legal Aid. 5. At least one representative from a participating counseling program. 6. One family oriented social worker. 7. One attorney from the Hispanic Section of the Orange County Bar. 8. One representative from Orange County MHSA. The Commission should do, among other things: 1. Collect money and/or seek commitments from Orange County MHSA. Make the money available to mothers, fathers and children if ordered by the court to get counseling. 2. Monitor counseling programs to determine their effectiveness. 3. Work with other groups that might promote justice between separated mothers and fathers to protect children from the potential devastation of growing up without a father.44 4. Promote orders in the family law arena that will likely yield compliance and maximum contact with both parents. Child Support Services should initiate the creation of this commission utilizing part of its County Contribution ($350,000 in 2011/2012). Future costs should also be borne by CSS. (F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17) CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is 44 . Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F17:
The existence of Orange County Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), which reviews juvenile detention, provides precedence for the creation of a parenting commission. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
CSS should form a Parenting Commission composed of following: 1. At least one representative from CSS. 2. One member from Court Services – Mediation. 3. One attorney from the Family Law Section of the Orange County Bar, 4. One attorney from Legal Aid. 5. At least one representative from a participating counseling program. 6. One family oriented social worker. 7. One attorney from the Hispanic Section of the Orange County Bar. 8. One representative from Orange County MHSA. The Commission should do, among other things: 1. Collect money and/or seek commitments from Orange County MHSA. Make the money available to mothers, fathers and children if ordered by the court to get counseling. 2. Monitor counseling programs to determine their effectiveness. 3. Work with other groups that might promote justice between separated mothers and fathers to protect children from the potential devastation of growing up without a father.44 4. Promote orders in the family law arena that will likely yield compliance and maximum contact with both parents. Child Support Services should initiate the creation of this commission utilizing part of its County Contribution ($350,000 in 2011/2012). Future costs should also be borne by CSS. (F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. (F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17) CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is 44 . Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury “Best Interest of the Child” Lost Child Support Costs 1.3 Billion (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Orange County Child Support Services is to recommend support orders that will most likely result in payment. Any proposed order in excess of 20% of the father’s income should be viewed as unlikely to be collectable. This study acknowledges CSS’s role per California Family Code § 17000 as an extension of federal law limiting it to the collection of support.42 Again, this study recommends CSS actively aid parents in seeking orders that will most likely result in payment – not just printed numbers on paper orders. (F1, F2, F3, F4,
R10:
On October 1, the mother and the father both show up at court. The court requests the mediation report which doesn’t exist because neither the mother nor the father had an attorney to tell them about mediation11. The Family Law Court continues the case to November 1 so the parents can go to mediation on October 15.
R11:
The parents attend mediation to no avail. They cannot agree on custody.
R12:
On November 1, the mother and the father argue their cases before the judge. The Family Law Court makes a ruling that the father has 40% custody of the children.
R13:
On November 10, the couple returns to CSS with the Family Law Court order in hand. Neither parent is satisfied with CSS’ proposed child support order. A 40% custody time share to the father yields guideline support of $311 per month (See
R14:
On Jan 3, Child Support Court makes an order for $311 (See Exhibit C). If this was a misery to read, consider the 10 months of torture visited on these parents held captive to the California system of wielding the law in the CSS/Child 11 All family law cases involving custody must be heard by Court Services Mediation prior to presentation of before the court. It is the court’s attempt to help parents settle matters on their own terms rather than those dictated from the judge. FC § 3170 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody Support Court arena under the auspices of AB1058. THIS IS NOT JUSTICE! Attorneys at CSS feel confident that given the authority to council mothers and fathers regarding child custody, they would be successful in resolving a very significant percentage of the 15,000 cases resigned to the courts – both the Child Support Court and the Family Law Court. Steps 5 through 14 above could often be eliminated. This would reduce judiciary costs significantly. Whether the state would allow the County to keep the savings is another issue. The federal government does not intend to torture mothers and fathers nor exacerbate the cost of making child support orders. U.S.C. 666(d) specifically exempts the state from procedures which are not effective and efficient in the enforcement of state guidelines for child support12 In most cases, the weight and inertia of the system defeats the appeal for justice by the parents and children concerned. Faced with the option of (1) accepting an arbitrary custody arrangement so as to establish a support order or (2) going through a tortuous process, most parents surrender to a custody arrangement having little to do with either parents’ desires or the best interest of the child.13 From the perspective of getting the fiber though the cotton gin, the current system works. The magnitude of the finances and emotions of parents in the throes of eking out a child custody and support arrangement is a major life changing event – an event that CSS gives due respect. CSS scheduled over 17,000 court appearances for over 9,000 families over the past 12 months. Of those, over 11,000 were initial filings; and, 6,000 were continuances. This action was expensive. To put this in other terms, there are about 250 court days available a year. Seventeen thousand court calls divided by 250 days means the court has to address about 68 cases a day. That means at least one court room, one judge, a couple of clerks, a bailiff, a CSS attorney and her support staff are needed. To be conservative, the study assumes the parties are all self-represented (i.e. they have no attorneys). It would be nearly impossible to put an actual price tag on this action; but, CSS indicated that avoidance of these court filings to any degree would be a significant savings to both the CSS and the Child Support Court. Giving CSS the ability to recommend child custody as opposed to court action would help tremendously. This is not to infer for a moment that parents could not avail themselves to the courts if unhappy with CSS recommendations.14 12 This is to state 42 U.S.C. 666(d) in positive terms rather than the double negative of the code. To most people, a court appearance is akin to meeting with the inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. This is not meant as hyperbole, but the reality of the quest for justice in the family law arena. Court filing statistics provided by Orange County Department of Child Support Services. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody Limitations of Child Support Services and Child Support Courts CSS was created by California Family Code § 17202: “The department [CSS] is hereby designated the single organizational unit whose duty it shall be to administer the Title IV-D state plan for securing child and spousal support, medical support, and determining paternity…”15 Before the creation of CSS, collection of child support was left to the Orange County District Attorney. All child support action had to be dragged through the Superior Court system. CSS, created as an agency in the executive branch of state government, was granted powers to act independently of the court system in much the same way as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS can calculate tax liabilities including interest and penalties and use its power to lien and levy personal accounts to collect its due. Likewise, CSS is empowered to calculate child support, and interest and take whatever steps are necessary to enforce the court’s order and collect the money. CSS orders are subject to judicial review by a parent before the Child Support Court in a similar manner as a taxpayer has the right to be heard by the Tax Court if he/she feels an order is unjust. In accordance with FC § 17208: “[CSS] shall reduce the cost of and increase the speed and efficiency of, child support enforcement operations. It is the intent of the Legislature to operate child support enforcement program through [the county CSS]…” Child Support Court was created by California Family Code 4252(b)(2)(a): “Commencing July 1, 1997, each superior court shall provide sufficient commissioners to hear Title IV-D child support cases filed by the local child support agency… pursuant to Section 17400, for an order to establish, modify, or enforce child support…” Title IV-D refers to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.16 The purpose of IV-D is to stop the bleeding of welfare costs used to support single mothers and children. Support of needy mothers was created under a welfare program known as Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). It was created by Congress in 1935 and continued until 1996 when Congress replaced it with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).17 Title IV-D’s intent is to place financial responsibility for these needy mothers and children on the men who fathered the children. The federal law put the burden of enforcing collection on the states.18 To finance the costs of establishing a 15 CSS limits collection of spousal support to cases where spousal support is integrated with child support into “family support.” Family Code § 4501. A family support order is enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as a child support order. Title 42, Public Health and Welfare 17 The difference between AFDC and TANF is beyond the bounds of this report. Though claimed to be a horse of a different color, it is still a horse. 18 42 U.S.C. 666(a) 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody child support collection program (CSS and the Child Support Court), the federal government reimbursed 66% of the states’ expenses, provided the state pays the remaining 34%.19 Although the federal government has a financial interest in replacing TANF costs with parent-paid child support, it has no interest in financing the states’ family law courts neither does the federal government have any constitutional jurisdiction to meddle in family affairs of the citizens of the states. It is therefore understandable that the federal government limits its support to the collection of child support and leaves all other family law issues to the states. Orange County would stand to lose many millions of dollars of federal support20 if the federal government interpreted County CSS and/or the Child Support Court action on child custody outside the specific guidelines of 42 U.S.C. 654, 655 and 666 which defines the County’s authority to make support orders. Fortunately 42 U.S.C 666(a)(10) and 42 U.S.C. 666(d) do authorize determination of child custody in connection with support orders. A Reasonable Interpretation of Title IV-D This Grand Jury, and some legal minds in the County interpret federal law as permitting custody and visitation orders as a necessary part of making support orders. U.S.C. 666(a)(10) states in a redacted version: “(a) …each State must have in effect laws requiring the following procedures… (10) Review and adjustment of support orders upon request… of either parent…taking into account the best interest of the child involved – (I) review and adjust the order …pursuant to section 667(a)…” 42 U.S.C. 667(a) mandates such a review of child support be in accordance with state guidelines (California FC §§ 4050 through, 4057) which in turn mandate the inclusion of child custody percentages between parents. U.S.C. 666(d) exempts the state from, “the use of any procedure or procedures…[which]… will not increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the state child support enforcement program…” This begs to be interpreted such that the “effectiveness and efficiency” of collecting child support is absolutely dependent upon the simultaneous determination and ordering of child custody when making child support orders. Nowhere in Title IV-D can this Grand Jury find language that denies CSS from advocating child custody. On the contrary, 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(10), 42 U.S.C. 667(a) coupled with 42 U.S.C. 666(d) is explicit in directing CSS to follow state guidelines in 19 42 U.S.C. 655(a) 20 The federal government contributed over $55 million to support CSS in fiscal year 2011/2012. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody making child support orders. California Family Code § 4055 specifically mandates consideration of child custody in child support calculation: “(a) The …guideline for determining child support orders is…[among other factors]: (D)…approximate percentage of time that the high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children…” These four codes (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(10), 42 U.S.C. 666(d) & 42 U.S.C. 667(a) and California FC § 4055), tied together by reference for total adherence of the law, mandate CSS consider child custody in order to advocate child support orders. The Solution – New Legislation CSS needs legislative authority specifically empowering it to mediate child custody orders. With such authority, it could openly and intelligently present its orders to the Child Support Court for adjudication as necessary. The Child Support Court is to CSS as Tax Court is to the IRS. California FC § 4250(b) states in pertinent part: “(b)…it is the intent of the legislature to: (1) provide for commissioners to hear child support cases being enforced by the local child support agency [CSS].” In sequence, California FC § 4251 states: “(b)…All actions or proceedings filed by the local child support agency [CSS] in a support action or proceeding in which enforcement services are being provided pursuant to 17400 for an order to establish, modify (emphasis added) or enforce child …support…shall be referred for hearing to a child support commissioner…” It follows that if CSS were specifically granted the authority to advocate for child custody, Child Support Court must rule on child custody. As a matter of fact, CSS advocates for custody orders daily. First it utilizes the judicial council form FL-150 (Income and Expense Declaration).21 On , item 16, each parent is required to declare how much time he or she cares for the children (see Exhibit A). Second, California Department of Child Support Services sponsors a web site with a link to calculate child support. On the second page of the calculator is the question, “time with parent 1( %)”22 “Time with parent” is a custody issue. Pretending that custody is not 21 AB 1058 advocated the Judicial Council prepare simple forms to determine child support. FL-150 was thus developed. The web site can be reached through Google, “California Department of Child Support Services” then link to “Calculate Child Support” 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody currently being considered by CSS and Child Support Court is ridiculous and serves no one. As a matter of federal law, as a matter of fact, and as a matter of practicality, custody is already on the table. Here in Orange County, Custody is the elephant in the room. The call for custody/visitation mediation and orders by CSS is not a mere local whisper. The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement out of Washington D.C. is prompting states to empower their child support agencies to aid parents in visitation and custody issues. On April 15, 2013, Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement advanced the Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative in the Administration’s FY 2014 Budget. Among other things, the initiative proposes that: [All states] establish access and visitation (emphasis added) responsibilities in all initial child support orders, just as custody arrangements are typically settled at the same time divorces are finalized. Federal resources are [to be] made available to states that choose to include parenting time responsibilities (emphasis added) in initial child support orders beginning in FY 2014 and all states are required to include parenting time responsibilities in all new child support orders beginning in FY 2019.23 Prompting Orange County to seek state legislation to empower CSS to include custody and visitation in its proposed orders is all but insignificant. The Federal Government, from whom millions of dollars pass to the compliant states, will almost certainly be mandating such changes as a contingency for the continued flow of those millions. The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement’s rationale for including visitation and custody in CSS orders is that fathers who participate in the lives of their children pay support more consistently than those fathers who don’t. This is the same conclusion heralded by the Orange County 2012-2013 Grand Jury study titled “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” Lost Child Support Cost $1.3 Billion.24 Both this report and the Grand Jury’s study, “Best Interest of the Child…” were motivated by the leadership of CSS. That CSS leadership and the federal government are in such agreement bodes well for the future of financing the County’s youth as well as including paternal (do we dare say “love”) in the formula. In any event, California Family Code § 17400(a)(d)(g) must be amended as shown below in pertinent part: 23 Office of Child Support Enforcement, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/child-support-and- fatherhood-initiative-in-the-administrations-fy-2014 24 http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2012_2013_reports/BestInterestofChild021513.pdf 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody FAMILY CODE Section 17400 (a) Each county shall maintain a local child support agency, as specified in Section 17304, that shall have the responsibility for promptly and effectively establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations, including medical support, enforcing spousal support orders established by a court of competent jurisdiction, and determining paternity in the case of a child born out of wedlock. The local child support agency must determine the percentage of time each parent or pertinent party has custody of the children in order to determine child support in accordance with state guidelines beginning with Family Code section 4050. … (d) (1) The Judicial Council, in consultation with the department and representatives of the California Family Support Council, the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, and a legal services organization providing representation on child support matters, shall develop simplified summons, complaint, and answer forms for any action for support brought pursuant to this section or Section 17404 including a declaration as to the percentage of time the declarant has custody of the pertinent children. The Judicial Council may combine the summons and complaint in a single form. (2) The simplified complaint form shall provide notice of the amount of child support that is sought pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Article 2 (commencing with Section 4050) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 9 based upon the income or income history of the support obligor and the percent of time the obligor has custody of the child(ren) as known to the local child support agency. If the support obligor's income or income history is unknown to the local child support agency, the complaint shall inform the support obligor that income shall be presumed to be the amount of the minimum wage, at 40 hours per week, established by the Industrial Welfare Commission pursuant to Section 1182.11 of the Labor Code unless information concerning the support obligor's income is provided to the court. If the support obligor's custody time with the child(ren) is unknown to the local child support agency, the obligor’s time share shall be deemed zero. … (3) (A) The simplified answer form shall be written in simple English and shall permit a defendant to answer and raise defenses by checking applicable boxes. The answer form shall include instructions for completion of the form and instructions for proper filing of the answer. (B) The answer form shall be accompanied by a blank income and expense declaration or simplified financial statement and instructions on how to complete the financial forms. Both of these shall include space for the defendant to declare what percent of the children’s time they are in his/her custody. … (g) (1) In any action to establish a child support order brought by the local child support agency in the performance of duties under this section, the local child support agency may make a motion for an order effective during the pendency of that action, for the custody, support, maintenance, and education of the child or children that are the subject of the action. This order shall be referred to as an order for temporary support. This order has the same force and effect as a like or similar order under this code…. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody Making New Law Proposing, drafting and ultimately gaining passage of any legislation is not within the Grand Jury’s purview; however, the entity which would most profit from such legislation would be CSS. The Grand Jury’s proposed language to amend FC § 17400 are roughly drafted. This Grand Jury opines that there are fine legal minds within Orange County CSS as well as other counties that might refine the proposed language.
R15:
Regional Occupation Program (ROP) -. opportunities to work in the community with businesses such as: carpentry, landscape, culinary arts, business technology, etc.
R16:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Assessment Recovery, Relapse, Preventative Treatment – evaluation of particular drug abuse and factors that influence such 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Detention Facilities Part II: How Do We Know If We Are Taking Care Of Our At-Risk Juveniles? abuse. Urinalysis as scientific evidence assessment of drugs in the body. Use of strategies by a drug counselor to aid in recovery and avoidance of relapse. Elements in this program to prevent drug abuse in the first jplace.
R17:
Thinking for a Change (T4C) – evidence-based program with twenty-five lessons on how to make better life decisions. It is designed to prepare youth to re-enter and transition back into the community. Other therapy is tied to these lessons such as; remedial education, rehabilitative treatment, substance abuse therapy, anger management, and job skills.
R18:
The Youthful Transition Intervention Program (YTIP) - integrated services for incarcerated youth as they transition out of confinement and re-establish themselves in their home, school, community by offering services to reduce drug and alcohol abuse, decrease recidivism and delinquent behavior and prevent sexually transmitted diseases. They help youth increase job skills and assist parents to stay involved with their youth. This federally funded program was suspended in 2012 as the federal grant expired. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Jail Rehabilitation Programs -- Are They Effective??? 2012-2013 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Jail Rehabilitation Programs, Are They Effective??? SUMMARY The 2012-2013 Orange County Grand Jury conducted an inspection of the Inmate Correctional Programs Unit, which provides opportunities for inmates to participate in rehabilitative programs while incarcerated in all five of the adult detention facilities in Orange County. These facilities are: (1) Intake Release Center, (2) Men’s Central Jail, (3) Women’s Central Jail, (4) Theo Lacy, and (5) James Musick. The Correctional Programs Unit was created in compliance with the California Penal Code, California Board of Corrections Titles 15 & 24 and related case law, to minimize the number of inmates who recommit crimes after release. Current programs and resources include educational classes such as General Education Development (GED), English as a Second Language (ESL), vocational educational training (sewing, carpentry, welding, and food services), and “life skills” classes, such as, Parenting and Job Development. Other programs for personal improvement include: programs focusing on substance abuse recovery, domestic violence, anger management, religious and inspirational programs, general and law library services targeted re-entry services, and Canines Offering Life Lessons and Rewards (COLLAR). All are designed to maximize the chances of an inmate’s successful transition into the community upon release. A number of new programs such as, Parent/Child Visiting, In Custody Transition, and Warehouse Worker Training are being considered. The Sheriff’s Department has expressed concern over the increase in jail population due to passage of AB109. AB109 transfers responsibility from the state to the county for incarcerating low security risk inmates. Limiting the jail population to the space available has brought the issue of recidivism to the forefront. Although current management is providing many programs intended to rehabilitate, at a cost of about $5 million per year, their effectiveness in reducing recidivism is absolutely unknown due to the lack of a system to compile measurable data and a clear definition of recidivism. Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) Correctional Programs management and the criminology and sociology programs at the University of California at Irvine (UCI) have initiated conversations whereby the two entities could eventually work together to create a scientific statistical analysis of the Correctional Programs’ efforts. REASON FOR STUDY Spending “about” $5 million per year on Correctional Programs without any evidence that this money has rehabilitated a single inmate is unacceptable. It is hopeful at best and wasteful at worst. This study demands accountability for efforts and money directed towards reducing recidivism. The Correctional Programs Unit was created in compliance with the California Penal Code, California Board of Corrections Titles 15 & 24 and related case law, to 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Jail Rehabilitation Programs, Are They Effective??? minimize the number of inmates who recommit crimes after release. The effectiveness of these programs is of vital concern from a financial and human perspective. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The 2012-2013 Grand Jury engaged in the following activities: Visited all the facilities. Interviewed the managers and the supervisors of the facilities by phone. Reviewed listing of current programs. Examined successful programs in other counties and state prisons. Reviewed limited financial records as provided by Correctional Programs.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There is no central authority responsible for water policy in Orange County. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Water Sustainability: Who Cares?
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
MWDOC and OCWD should continue their role in coordinating water planning. (F1, F2)
F2:
MWDOC and OCWD in conjunction with the local water districts and city water departments are doing a comprehensive job of coordinating water planning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
MWDOC and OCWD should continue their role in coordinating water planning. (F1, F2)
F3:
Water use efficiency has helped ease the use of imported water.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
MWDOC shall find additional ways of promoting water use efficiency. (F3)
F4:
Desalination is a possible future source of water.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Desalination must be included in any discussion of future water sources for Orange County. (F4)
F5:
The Groundwater Replenishment process is having a favorable impact on relieving the dependency on imported water.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Groundwater Replenishment project shall continue looking for additional ways in which its water can be used. (F5) 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Water Sustainability: Who Cares?
F6:
Only a few water districts in Orange County use tiered pricing for water conservation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
MWDOC shall continue providing data to the water districts and city water departments encouraging tiered pricing to assist with water conservation. (F6)
F7:
Cadiz, while a controversial water supply and storage project, is a possible future source of water.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Water districts in South Orange County shall consider the Cadiz Project in any discussion on sustainability of water in the southern part of the county. (F7)
F8:
Bay Delta Project is critical to ensure the continual flow of imported water into Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
All the Orange County Water Districts shall support legislation for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to ensure sustainability of imported water to Orange County. (F8)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There is a lack of written policies, procedures, and guidelines relating to EEO laws and employee complaints in the County Human Resource Services Department. The County Human Resource Services Department is currently 2Albert Schweitzer 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury The Culture Of Harassment: Change On The Horizon personnel constrained due to its efforts in its re-centralization and should look to other ways to produce their policies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Human Resource Services Department shall prepare and publish policies, procedures, and guidelines related to all employee complaints and how they are investigated. Special attention, or separate policies, should be published for complaints related to discrimination and harassment to ensure they meet the Employer Responsibilities outlined in state and federal statute. If 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury The Culture Of Harassment: Change On The Horizon necessary, the County Human Resource Services Department should utilize the services of outside companies specializing in human resource matters. The Human Resource Services Department should develop, approve, and publish the policies and procedures within six months. The Board of Supervisors should support this effort with adequate funding. (F1)
F2:
The training of County employees on matters of discrimination and harassment is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All County employees and elected County officials shall undergo training on discrimination and harassment. At a minimum, all employees classified as supervisors and above should receive in-person training every two years, as well as have access to on-line training. The Board of Supervisors, and any other elected County officials, should participate in the in-person training at a minimum of once every two years. The Board of Supervisors should support this effort with adequate funding. (F2)
F3:
The training of Human Resource Services personnel is not consistent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Human Resource Services Department should develop specific training schedules for all of its personnel to ensure consistency in addressing County employee issues. The training should be ongoing and include both internal and external sources. Additional and specific training should be given to those in charge of investigating complaints. (F3)
F4:
Mandated qualifications for the position of Supervisor or Manager in the Human Resource Services Department lack the job specific requirement for human resource schooling, certifications, or equivalent experience.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County Human Resource Services Department shall re-write the job qualifications for any position of supervisor and above in the Human Resource Services Department to include mandatory certification, schooling, or equivalent experience in the human resource field. (F4)
F5:
Written policies, procedures, and guidelines for the referral of possible criminal conduct to law enforcement agencies do not exist.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Human Resource Services Department, with input from County Counsel shall draft policies, procedures, and guidelines for all agencies and departments on handling the reporting of potential criminal conduct by County employees. (F5)
F6:
Currently there is no way for an employee to contact the EEO Access Office with anonymity. If an employee wants to make a complaint and not reveal their name the only County mechanism to do so is the “fraud hotline” which may be confusing to employees who wish to report discrimination or harassment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Human Resource Services Department should install a confidential communication source for employees who want to file complaints relating to discrimination or harassment with anonymity. The system should include multiple access paths such as mail, phone, fax, or email. Notification of this new County service should be accompanied by a vigorous email campaign and announcements by senior County management in meetings and their communications to their staff. Posters identifying how an employee can file a confidential complaint should be permanently posted in appropriate locations. The Board of Supervisors should support this effort with adequate funding. (F6)
F7:
The County did not initiate an outreach to the victims who had experienced sexual harassment over the last few years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with the office of the CEO, the Human Resource Services Department, and with input on legal perspectives from County Counsel, shall initiate a formal outreach program for persons who have experienced discrimination or sexual harassment. The outreach should include counseling, if wanted, and an assessment of possible retaliation against any of the victims. (F7) 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury The Culture Of Harassment: Change On The Horizon
F8:
Other than re-issuing a yearly statement on the County policy regarding discrimination and harassment, County elected officials and executive management have undertaken no pro-active measures to address and change the County culture that allowed the tolerance of inappropriate behavior that was present for years. This culture continues and needs leadership to change.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Board of Supervisors and the Office of the CEO will define and implement a series of steps to affirm their leadership in achieving a harassment free workplace: (F8) a. Refresh the current board resolution so that it contains clear complaint handling protocols. b. Evaluate whether a policy on office relationships is appropriate for the County especially when it concerns managers and subordinates. c. Display a more pro-active voice, more than once a year, on delivering the message that having a harassment free environment is important. d. Evaluate hiring/training discrimination and harassment contact officers. e. Discontinue negative comments on anonymous complaints. f. Personally attend different County department meetings that provide opportunities to express the County commitment to a harassment free workplace.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Public officials are stewards of the public trust and maintain it by placing the civic interest ahead of their own. Even the appearance of impropriety damages public faith in government. Citizens expect its officials to conduct business in a lawful and ethical manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors creates a Blue Ribbon Commission to study ethics programs in California and around the nation. The Commission shall recommend an ethics reform program and oversight authority to the Board of Supervisors within 12 months. (F1, F3, F6, F7)
F2:
The unparalleled development of Orange County from an agrarian to world-class economy in the post-World War II era led to the creation of a “power elite” of land 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County developers and public officials. The influence of “development dollars” in the form of contributions to public officials resulted in a series of public corruption cases over a forty-year period. Other ethics scandals involved the abuse of power.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors shall select Blue Ribbon Commission members based upon their knowledge of government ethics, ability to conduct research and desire to make positive change to Orange County government. Their selection should represent a cross-section of Orange County’s population and be free of political influence. Commission applicants should be vetted and randomly selected from an approved pool of candidates. (F2, F7)
F3:
Orange County reacted to the 1994 bankruptcy scandal by creating a patchwork of oversight offices to audit financial, performance and professional standards. These offices have varying levels of independence, jurisdiction and legislative support. They need to be accountable as well.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors creates a Blue Ribbon Commission to study ethics programs in California and around the nation. The Commission shall recommend an ethics reform program and oversight authority to the Board of Supervisors within 12 months. (F1, F3, F6, F7)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors shall require that ethics reform recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission address the following in their report: (F3, F4, F5, F7) 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County A. Goals a. The enhancement of public trust in government. b. The prevention of unethical conduct. B. Legislation The oversight authority has the power to review and recommend County ordinances related to ethics, including but not limited to: Conflicts of Interest, Preferential Treatment, Recusals, Gifts, Confidential Information, Misuse of Government Property, Patronage, Nepotism, Transparency, Procurement, Campaign Financing, Lobbying and Post-Employment of Government Officials. C. Advice and Training a. The oversight authority shall provide formal and informal ethics advice to public officials and employees. b. The oversight authority shall plan, develop, implement and facilitate regular ethics training for public officials and employees -- at all levels of Orange County government. D. Whistleblower Hotline a. The oversight authority shall create, maintain, monitor and publicize a hotline for citizens and County employees alike to report real or suspected unethical conduct. E. Enforcement a. The oversight authority shall ensure compliance through the use of administrative settlements and published annual reports that are available on their website. F. Independence and Jurisdiction a. The oversight body shall have the following powers: i. Be free to act without political interference. ii. Have jurisdiction over each County department, agency, commission, and board and joint powers authority – regardless of whether the head of such a body is elected or appointed. iii. Have ethics-related jurisdiction over the elected leadership of the County. G. The oversight body must have the authority to enforce compliance through the use of warning letters, administrative settlements and the issuance of annual public reports. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F4:
Unethical behavior at the local government level is not something that “simply fixes itself.” The County needs an independent Ethics Program that provides training, advice and guidance to public officials and private persons seeking to do business with government.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors shall require that ethics reform recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission address the following in their report: (F3, F4, F5, F7) 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County A. Goals a. The enhancement of public trust in government. b. The prevention of unethical conduct. B. Legislation The oversight authority has the power to review and recommend County ordinances related to ethics, including but not limited to: Conflicts of Interest, Preferential Treatment, Recusals, Gifts, Confidential Information, Misuse of Government Property, Patronage, Nepotism, Transparency, Procurement, Campaign Financing, Lobbying and Post-Employment of Government Officials. C. Advice and Training a. The oversight authority shall provide formal and informal ethics advice to public officials and employees. b. The oversight authority shall plan, develop, implement and facilitate regular ethics training for public officials and employees -- at all levels of Orange County government. D. Whistleblower Hotline a. The oversight authority shall create, maintain, monitor and publicize a hotline for citizens and County employees alike to report real or suspected unethical conduct. E. Enforcement a. The oversight authority shall ensure compliance through the use of administrative settlements and published annual reports that are available on their website. F. Independence and Jurisdiction a. The oversight body shall have the following powers: i. Be free to act without political interference. ii. Have jurisdiction over each County department, agency, commission, and board and joint powers authority – regardless of whether the head of such a body is elected or appointed. iii. Have ethics-related jurisdiction over the elected leadership of the County. G. The oversight body must have the authority to enforce compliance through the use of warning letters, administrative settlements and the issuance of annual public reports. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
R4:
The County Human Resource Services Department shall re-write the job qualifications for any position of supervisor and above in the Human Resource Services Department to include mandatory certification, schooling, or equivalent experience in the human resource field. (F4)
F5:
Citizens need a clearinghouse to voice complaints about actual and perceived incidents of corruption and unethical behavior by public officials.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors shall require that ethics reform recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission address the following in their report: (F3, F4, F5, F7) 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County A. Goals a. The enhancement of public trust in government. b. The prevention of unethical conduct. B. Legislation The oversight authority has the power to review and recommend County ordinances related to ethics, including but not limited to: Conflicts of Interest, Preferential Treatment, Recusals, Gifts, Confidential Information, Misuse of Government Property, Patronage, Nepotism, Transparency, Procurement, Campaign Financing, Lobbying and Post-Employment of Government Officials. C. Advice and Training a. The oversight authority shall provide formal and informal ethics advice to public officials and employees. b. The oversight authority shall plan, develop, implement and facilitate regular ethics training for public officials and employees -- at all levels of Orange County government. D. Whistleblower Hotline a. The oversight authority shall create, maintain, monitor and publicize a hotline for citizens and County employees alike to report real or suspected unethical conduct. E. Enforcement a. The oversight authority shall ensure compliance through the use of administrative settlements and published annual reports that are available on their website. F. Independence and Jurisdiction a. The oversight body shall have the following powers: i. Be free to act without political interference. ii. Have jurisdiction over each County department, agency, commission, and board and joint powers authority – regardless of whether the head of such a body is elected or appointed. iii. Have ethics-related jurisdiction over the elected leadership of the County. G. The oversight body must have the authority to enforce compliance through the use of warning letters, administrative settlements and the issuance of annual public reports. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
R5:
The Human Resource Services Department, with input from County Counsel shall draft policies, procedures, and guidelines for all agencies and departments on handling the reporting of potential criminal conduct by County employees. (F5)
F6:
In California, the Cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland have ethics commissions that address similar ethics issues.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors creates a Blue Ribbon Commission to study ethics programs in California and around the nation. The Commission shall recommend an ethics reform program and oversight authority to the Board of Supervisors within 12 months. (F1, F3, F6, F7)
R6:
The Human Resource Services Department should install a confidential communication source for employees who want to file complaints relating to discrimination or harassment with anonymity. The system should include multiple access paths such as mail, phone, fax, or email. Notification of this new County service should be accompanied by a vigorous email campaign and announcements by senior County management in meetings and their communications to their staff. Posters identifying how an employee can file a confidential complaint should be permanently posted in appropriate locations. The Board of Supervisors should support this effort with adequate funding. (F6)
F7:
Orange County lacks effective ethics oversight of its public officials.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors creates a Blue Ribbon Commission to study ethics programs in California and around the nation. The Commission shall recommend an ethics reform program and oversight authority to the Board of Supervisors within 12 months. (F1, F3, F6, F7)
R2:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors shall select Blue Ribbon Commission members based upon their knowledge of government ethics, ability to conduct research and desire to make positive change to Orange County government. Their selection should represent a cross-section of Orange County’s population and be free of political influence. Commission applicants should be vetted and randomly selected from an approved pool of candidates. (F2, F7)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors shall require that ethics reform recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission address the following in their report: (F3, F4, F5, F7) 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County A. Goals a. The enhancement of public trust in government. b. The prevention of unethical conduct. B. Legislation The oversight authority has the power to review and recommend County ordinances related to ethics, including but not limited to: Conflicts of Interest, Preferential Treatment, Recusals, Gifts, Confidential Information, Misuse of Government Property, Patronage, Nepotism, Transparency, Procurement, Campaign Financing, Lobbying and Post-Employment of Government Officials. C. Advice and Training a. The oversight authority shall provide formal and informal ethics advice to public officials and employees. b. The oversight authority shall plan, develop, implement and facilitate regular ethics training for public officials and employees -- at all levels of Orange County government. D. Whistleblower Hotline a. The oversight authority shall create, maintain, monitor and publicize a hotline for citizens and County employees alike to report real or suspected unethical conduct. E. Enforcement a. The oversight authority shall ensure compliance through the use of administrative settlements and published annual reports that are available on their website. F. Independence and Jurisdiction a. The oversight body shall have the following powers: i. Be free to act without political interference. ii. Have jurisdiction over each County department, agency, commission, and board and joint powers authority – regardless of whether the head of such a body is elected or appointed. iii. Have ethics-related jurisdiction over the elected leadership of the County. G. The oversight body must have the authority to enforce compliance through the use of warning letters, administrative settlements and the issuance of annual public reports. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury A Call For Ethical Standards: Corruption In Orange County (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
R7:
The Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with the office of the CEO, the Human Resource Services Department, and with input on legal perspectives from County Counsel, shall initiate a formal outreach program for persons who have experienced discrimination or sexual harassment. The outreach should include counseling, if wanted, and an assessment of possible retaliation against any of the victims. (F7) 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury The Culture Of Harassment: Change On The Horizon
F8:
Other than re-issuing a yearly statement on the County policy regarding discrimination and harassment, County elected officials and executive management have undertaken no pro-active measures to address and change the County culture that allowed the tolerance of inappropriate behavior that was present for years. This culture continues and needs leadership to change.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Board of Supervisors and the Office of the CEO will define and implement a series of steps to affirm their leadership in achieving a harassment free workplace: (F8) a. Refresh the current board resolution so that it contains clear complaint handling protocols. b. Evaluate whether a policy on office relationships is appropriate for the County especially when it concerns managers and subordinates. c. Display a more pro-active voice, more than once a year, on delivering the message that having a harassment free environment is important. d. Evaluate hiring/training discrimination and harassment contact officers. e. Discontinue negative comments on anonymous complaints. f. Personally attend different County department meetings that provide opportunities to express the County commitment to a harassment free workplace.
F9:
All police departments believe that on-going training should be supported by Mental Health Services Act funding.
F10:
All police departments adhere to written policy, procedure and/or protocol regarding contact with mentally ill persons.
F11:
Policy and lawmakers in the County of Orange continue to examine Laura’s Law in light of its potential impact on the mentally ill and all citizens for positive outcomes. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury To Protect And To Serve A Look at Tools to Assist Law Enforcement in Achieving Positive Outcomes with the Homeless Mentally Ill
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Some Sheriff-Coroner Department employees are unfamiliar with the confidentiality and process of Grand Jury proceedings in civil investigations and the authority of the Grand Jury to admonish witnesses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Sheriff-Coroner Department shall make sure employees are aware of the importance and necessity of the confidentiality of the Grand Jury process and the Grand Jury admonition process. (F1)
F2:
The attention to data tracking of AB 109 inmates is excellent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Sheriff-Coroner Department employees shall continue to track AB 109 inmates. (F2)
F3:
The Theo Lacy Dining Hall has an outdated video VHS camera system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Theo Lacy shall upgrade the dining hall video system. (F3)
F4:
The Theo Lacy Housing modules do not have cameras in the day rooms.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Theo Lacy shall add four cameras to each day room in the Housing Modules. (F4)
F5:
The Central Jail Complex camera systems are inadequate for the (1) dining hall, (2) booking loop, (3) housing areas, and (4) on the roof areas.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Central Jail Complex shall upgrade and provide cameras for the (1) dining halls, (2) booking loop, (3) housing areas, and (4) roof areas. (F5)
F6:
The Commissary employs Community Work Program inmates who with more training could leave the Commissary with a marketable job skill..
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Commissary shall develop an inmate worker program that partners with a local educational institution to teach skills that will produce employment opportunities that will result in credits leading to marketable skills certification when the inmate is released. (F6)
F7:
The Commissary Account code 600 has a mixture of business cost and resale items. James A. Musick site and facilities master plan, section 5: Architectural Program
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Financial administration services shall place the resale items, currently located in the Commissary Clothing and Personal Supplies account 600, into a more suitable account. (F7) COMMENDATION The Grand Jury would like to thank the many sworn and professional staff that met with the Grand Jury during the preparation of this report. The professional attitude and hard work the Grand Jury observed was greatly appreciated. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The FBA balance has been declining as the expenditure has exceeded revenue since 2009. This problem is enhanced with the diminishing income from interest and OC bankruptcy repayment. What will happen to the Correctional Programs when the FBA balance becomes zero is unknown.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Correctional Programs Unit must address the budget issue immediately. “Addressing the budget” refers to: A. The continual draw against the “Fund Balance”, B. Deployment of funds to a research team to determine the best use of available money – even if that means terminating some existing rehabilitation programs in order to determine the effectiveness of others. (F1, F2, F11)
R3:
Continuation of any correctional program without metrics shall be maintained at minimum cost until a meaningful program to assess its effectiveness can be implemented no later than Dec 31, 2013. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
R4:
This Grand Jury recommends new programs be implemented only if metrics are attached. (F1, F2, F4, F6)
F2:
This Grand Jury found that the current staff of the OCSD Correctional Program Unit is providing numerous programs designed to educate and mentor inmates during incarceration.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Correctional Programs Unit must address the budget issue immediately. “Addressing the budget” refers to: A. The continual draw against the “Fund Balance”, B. Deployment of funds to a research team to determine the best use of available money – even if that means terminating some existing rehabilitation programs in order to determine the effectiveness of others. (F1, F2, F11)
R3:
Continuation of any correctional program without metrics shall be maintained at minimum cost until a meaningful program to assess its effectiveness can be implemented no later than Dec 31, 2013. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
R4:
This Grand Jury recommends new programs be implemented only if metrics are attached. (F1, F2, F4, F6)
R5:
Rehabilitation programs must be tailored for differences between inmates: age, race (cultural and gang issues), type of offense, etc. (F2, F5)
F3:
The County has no definition for recidivism.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Department must encourage the establishment of a meaningful definition for recidivism. (F3)
R3:
Continuation of any correctional program without metrics shall be maintained at minimum cost until a meaningful program to assess its effectiveness can be implemented no later than Dec 31, 2013. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
R8:
If the partnership with UCI fails as recommended in R7 above, a research department must be established by the Correctional Programs Unit to perform the statistical analysis as outlined in R7 above. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F11)
F4:
Neither the effectiveness of any particular rehabilitation program nor the Correctional Programs Unit as a whole is known. A. Particular programs refers to GED instruction, Money Matters, Introduction to Software, Institutional Food Preparation, Domestic Violence, Thinking for a Change, Substance Abuses classes, etc. B. “As a whole” refers to the overall effectiveness of the Correctional Programs Unit in reducing recidivism. C. “Effectiveness” refers to both ending the human suffering of re- incarcerating the same individual over and over again, and the economics of capturing, judging and supporting in jail the same individual again and again.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3:
Continuation of any correctional program without metrics shall be maintained at minimum cost until a meaningful program to assess its effectiveness can be implemented no later than Dec 31, 2013. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
R4:
This Grand Jury recommends new programs be implemented only if metrics are attached. (F1, F2, F4, F6)
R7:
The Correctional Programs Unit should develop a partnership with the University of California at Irvine (UCI) criminology department. The purpose would be to aid in measuring the efficiency of the entire Correction Programs Unit and individual programs in particular. The measure of effectiveness must gauge the change in recidivism. The statistical support sought from UCI must measure the financial cost of supporting those who recidivate and the savings realized by preventing recidivism. (F4, F6, F9, F10)
R8:
If the partnership with UCI fails as recommended in R7 above, a research department must be established by the Correctional Programs Unit to perform the statistical analysis as outlined in R7 above. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F11)
F5:
There is very limited classification of inmates regarding issues of age, race, type of crime, etc. as these differences might apply to rehabilitation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Rehabilitation programs must be tailored for differences between inmates: age, race (cultural and gang issues), type of offense, etc. (F2, F5)
R8:
If the partnership with UCI fails as recommended in R7 above, a research department must be established by the Correctional Programs Unit to perform the statistical analysis as outlined in R7 above. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F11)
F6:
The new programs being considered by the OCSD Correctional Programs Unit staff are not accompanied with metrics to measure the effectiveness.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3:
Continuation of any correctional program without metrics shall be maintained at minimum cost until a meaningful program to assess its effectiveness can be implemented no later than Dec 31, 2013. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F6)
R4:
This Grand Jury recommends new programs be implemented only if metrics are attached. (F1, F2, F4, F6)
R7:
The Correctional Programs Unit should develop a partnership with the University of California at Irvine (UCI) criminology department. The purpose would be to aid in measuring the efficiency of the entire Correction Programs Unit and individual programs in particular. The measure of effectiveness must gauge the change in recidivism. The statistical support sought from UCI must measure the financial cost of supporting those who recidivate and the savings realized by preventing recidivism. (F4, F6, F9, F10)
R8:
If the partnership with UCI fails as recommended in R7 above, a research department must be established by the Correctional Programs Unit to perform the statistical analysis as outlined in R7 above. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F11)
F7:
The “Transition from Jails to Communities” program was completed at the beginning of 2012. The results have yet to be released and utilized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Correctional Programs Unit shall continue to compile the necessary data started with the TJC initiative. (F7)
F8:
There is a lack of universal acceptance by the rank and file of the OCSD of the benefit of rehabilitation programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Sheriff’s Department must demand and gain positive commitment and cooperation from its entire staff for rehabilitation. (F8) REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department is required to respond to F1, F2, F3, F4,
F9:
UCI has professional and academic talent in the area of criminology and social studies which could play a significant role with researching data about the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Correctional Programs Unit should develop a partnership with the University of California at Irvine (UCI) criminology department. The purpose would be to aid in measuring the efficiency of the entire Correction Programs Unit and individual programs in particular. The measure of effectiveness must gauge the change in recidivism. The statistical support sought from UCI must measure the financial cost of supporting those who recidivate and the savings realized by preventing recidivism. (F4, F6, F9, F10)
F10:
OCSD Correctional Programs could benefit by sophisticated statistical analysis from UCI.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Correctional Programs Unit should develop a partnership with the University of California at Irvine (UCI) criminology department. The purpose would be to aid in measuring the efficiency of the entire Correction Programs Unit and individual programs in particular. The measure of effectiveness must gauge the change in recidivism. The statistical support sought from UCI must measure the financial cost of supporting those who recidivate and the savings realized by preventing recidivism. (F4, F6, F9, F10)
F11:
The effectiveness of jail sponsored rehabilitation programs could be financed by closing down dubious programs and re-directing those monies towards research and statistical analysis of the remaining rehabilitation programs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Correctional Programs Unit must address the budget issue immediately. “Addressing the budget” refers to: A. The continual draw against the “Fund Balance”, B. Deployment of funds to a research team to determine the best use of available money – even if that means terminating some existing rehabilitation programs in order to determine the effectiveness of others. (F1, F2, F11)
R8:
If the partnership with UCI fails as recommended in R7 above, a research department must be established by the Correctional Programs Unit to perform the statistical analysis as outlined in R7 above. (F3, F4, F5, F6, F11)
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
ACCESS service fulfills the transportation needs of its qualified subscribers and ACCESS customers continue to be very satisfied with the quality of the ACCESS service.
F2:
Some of the ACCESS customers may be able to use the OCTA’s lower cost fixed-route service which may reduce ACCESS service costs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Address the growth of ACCESS demand by using community partnerships, same-day taxi service, and emphasizing reduced fare fixed- route travel training during eligibility assessment process and outreach programs. (F2, F3, F5)
R4:
Update the training video “ACCESS Service” to meet ADA video guidelines (i.e., incorporate closed-captioning feature) and use the video during certification process to educate and encourage ACCESS applicants to consider other transportation options such as the “reduced fare fixed- route” service to help lower ACCESS service costs. (F2, F3, F4)
F3:
Standardizing the eligibility evaluation process has helped to accurately determine if a customer can use the fixed-route service for some trips, thereby, significantly reducing ACCESS service costs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Address the growth of ACCESS demand by using community partnerships, same-day taxi service, and emphasizing reduced fare fixed- route travel training during eligibility assessment process and outreach programs. (F2, F3, F5)
R4:
Update the training video “ACCESS Service” to meet ADA video guidelines (i.e., incorporate closed-captioning feature) and use the video during certification process to educate and encourage ACCESS applicants to consider other transportation options such as the “reduced fare fixed- route” service to help lower ACCESS service costs. (F2, F3, F4)
F4:
The current video “ACCESS Service” shown during the ACCESS eligibility certification process needs to be updated to meet ADA guidelines.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Update the training video “ACCESS Service” to meet ADA video guidelines (i.e., incorporate closed-captioning feature) and use the video during certification process to educate and encourage ACCESS applicants to consider other transportation options such as the “reduced fare fixed- route” service to help lower ACCESS service costs. (F2, F3, F4)
F5:
A majority of ACCESS customers are not aware of either the Same-Day taxi service or the reduced fare program on a fixed-route bus.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Address the growth of ACCESS demand by using community partnerships, same-day taxi service, and emphasizing reduced fare fixed- route travel training during eligibility assessment process and outreach programs. (F2, F3, F5)
F6:
The current ACCESS Rider’s Guide (July 2009) is outdated and needs to be updated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Update the ACCESS Rider’s Guide. (F6)
F7:
Cancelled rides and no-shows puts stress on dispatchers and reservationists to efficiently manage bus schedules.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Incorporate IVR feature into the reservation process to alleviate demands placed upon reservationists and allow them to focus solely on scheduling trips, as well as to improve system efficiency and operating cost per vehicle mile. (F7, F8, F9)
F8:
The Interactive Voice Response (IVR) feature of the Trapeze system for automated phone reminders is not implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Incorporate IVR feature into the reservation process to alleviate demands placed upon reservationists and allow them to focus solely on scheduling trips, as well as to improve system efficiency and operating cost per vehicle mile. (F7, F8, F9)
F9:
No-shows are detrimental to the productivity of the ACCESS system impacting efficiency and operating cost per vehicle mile.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Incorporate IVR feature into the reservation process to alleviate demands placed upon reservationists and allow them to focus solely on scheduling trips, as well as to improve system efficiency and operating cost per vehicle mile. (F7, F8, F9)
F10:
The current radio system on ACCESS buses uses old technology and does not meet the Federal Communications Commission’s narrow- banding mandate44.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Upgrade or replace ACCESS bus radio communication systems to meet FCC narrow-band mandate. Improve efficiency by eliminating multiple system logons by bus operators. (F10)
F11:
ACCESS service is being influenced by the age and mileage of the ACCESS fleet vehicles, which impact maintenance reliability, increase vehicle downtime and maintenance costs, reduce vehicle availability, and diminish service quality.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Replace ACCESS buses that have reached the end of their useful life and have exceeded minimum FTA regulatory requirements for age and mileage to limit and/or decrease operational/maintenance costs, control service failures, and improve efficiency of the service. (F11) 44 Source: FCC Website (All public safety and industrial/business licensees in the 150-174 MHz and 421- 512 MHz bands must either migrate to 12.5 kHz technology or use a technology that achieves equivalent efficiency.)
F12:
ACCESS service fare collection process is manually driven and inefficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Consider using new technologies for ACCESS fare system such as Smart Card or cell phone applications to reduce processing cost of fare collected, customer complaints, and customer service related operational costs, as well as to improve travel time. (F12)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
The sum of uncollected child support ordered in 2011/12 ($70,360,647) plus the accumulated arrears going back many years total over $1.3 billion40. Uncollected dollars of this magnitude scream for attention
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Orange County Child Support Services is to recommend support orders that will most likely result in payment. Any proposed order in excess of 20% of the father’s income should be viewed as unlikely to be collectable. This study acknowledges CSS’s role per California Family Code § 17000 as an extension of federal law limiting it to the collection of support.42 Again, this study recommends CSS actively aid parents in seeking orders that will most likely result in payment – not just printed numbers on paper orders. See Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14.
R2:
CSS should recommend orders that offer the father lower current support so he can afford payment towards arrears.43 See Finding 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
F2:
The two most salient statistics that lead to payment of support as ordered are: 1. Orders that demand more than 20% of a father’s income tend not to be paid. 2. Orders that grant fathers significant custody/visitation with their children tend to yield payment as ordered.
F3:
California Family Code § 4055 dictates what percent of a father’s income he must pay based primarily on his time share with his child(ren) and the parents’ respective incomes. The time share and the amount of income attributed to each parent is a matter of judicial discretion.41 California Family Code charges CSS to set and collect child support. There is no provision for advocating for factors which will yield pragmatic orders; that is orders that will maximize income for the mothers and compliance by the fathers.
F4:
Fathers routinely accept orders granting them about 20% time share with their children.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
As appropriate, CSS should seek an order as appropriate for both parents and the child(ren) to complete counseling. (A caveat to this recommendation is that a “counseling order” should not delay an immediate support order.) The cost of such counseling should be paid by the parties if they can afford it or with lag money if possible or from Orange County MHSA funds. See Findings 4, 5, 10, 11, 12.
F5:
Reasons for fathers’ acceptance of minimal time shares with their child(ren) are many and beyond the scope of this study; however, from anecdotal stories from the parenting programs referenced in this study, some reasons are: 1. Lack of appreciation of their own worth as fathers, 2. Perception they have no time to care for their children in spite of the fact that the mothers miraculously care for their children with utilization of the very same 24 hours per day, 3. Fear of the responsibility and “know how” of parenting, 4. Often parenting is not seen as “macho”, 5. Reluctance and outright refusal by mothers to permit fathers to have contact with “their” children due to: a. Animosity toward the men who got them pregnant, b. Animosity toward the men who have ignored their children to date, c. Animosity toward the men who scorned them (“…hell hath no fury…”), 40 Orange County Child Support Services provided records back to 2000 when the arrears were reported to be $1.095 billion to the present. Income is based upon three factors: “actual earnings” (a pay stub for example); “earning capacity” which will charge an individual with the ability to work even though he/she may not be working at the time; and, “life style”, which for example credits an individual with income when enjoying “free” rent. Each of these three means of determining income can lead to different interpretations of actual income. d. distrust of a father’s capability to care for the child (they never saw “Three Men and a Baby”), e. Animosity over differing and/or conflicting parenting styles and issues.
F6:
Orders for support that are more than 20% of a father’s income will likely result in less actual support paid. An order for $400 for a man earning $2,000 is likely to yield an actual payment of $400. An order for $600 for a man earning $2,000 is likely to yield no payment at all. Even if CSS is able to enforce collection, the cost to collect the extra $200 will likely be equal to or greater than the $200. Fathers tend to take the attitude that if they are to be delinquent for a penny they might as well be delinquent for a dollar.
F7:
Fathers who significantly participate in parenting their child(ren) pay the most child support. Aside from the actual support order, they can also be counted on to pay for the children’s extracurricular activities and luxury items.
F8:
Payment or non-payment of child support is only symptomatic of a much greater parenting issue. Children raised without paternal parenting fall prey to a plethora of social ills ranging from dropping out of high school to criminal incarceration. Every child growing up without a father is not doomed; but, statistics show a hugely disproportionate number of children without paternal care suffer very serious human and social ills.
F9:
Counseling men who have ignored their children can, and has, turned them into devoted fathers as evidenced by the success of the now defunct Fatherhood 101 program.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
As appropriate, CSS should seek orders that mandate the father have counseling or attend an educational program. The word “Appropriate” in the prior sentence acknowledges the courts ultimate jurisdiction as to which fathers would benefit. Upon completion of such counseling, father time with the child(ren) should be increased resulting in affordable child support. The cost should be paid with lag money if possible and from Orange County MHSA funds if beyond the father’s ability to pay. See Findings 9, 10, 11, 12.
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. See Findings F9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the 44 Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F10:
Hispanics constitute over one third of the population of Orange County. This increasing demographic deserves sympathetic attention to their unique conditions, including among other things: language, culture, and economic status.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. See Findings F9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the 44 Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F11:
Counseling the adult female, the adult male and the children of their union has and can have the following positive effects: 1. The counseling creates understanding and empathy between the adults for their respective roles as mothers and fathers. This is no small thing. It decreases the animosity and outright hatred between the adults that so often bleeds onto the children. 2. The understanding and empathy in turn results in a. better compliance with support orders and b. better compliance with custody/visitation exchanges and happier, less stressed children.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. See Findings F9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the 44 Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F12:
The law, California Family Code §§ 3190 – 3191 gives the court the authority to order counseling at its discretion and there exists the means to pay for the counseling for parents and children, specifically: 1. The parents themselves can pay, 2. Lag money can be used to pay, 3. Orange County MHSA (Prop 63) has discretionary money for counseling.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
CSS should form a Parenting Commission composed of following: 1. At least one representative from CSS. 2. One member from Court Services – Mediation. 3. One attorney from the Family Law Section of the Orange County Bar, 4. One attorney from Legal Aid. 5. At least one representative from a participating counseling program. 6. One family oriented social worker. 7. One attorney from the Hispanic Section of the Orange County Bar. 8. One representative from Orange County MHSA. The Commission should do, among other things: 42 CSS is not specifically authorized to advocate what orders should be. This is foolish considering CSS must inject some logical time share and incomes for the parents to determine child support. In fact, parents come to CSS ignorant of anything but their fear. Mother is fearful she will not get enough money to support herself and the children. Father, if he has the courage to meet with CSS at all, fears he will not have enough to live on after paying support. CSS knows that orders for more than 20% of father’s income will likely drive him underground and he will pay nothing at all. Father’s disappearance not only denies Mother of support, it deprives the children of a father. In total Mother should receive more actual support payment than she would otherwise. Father’s benefit is the opportunity to ultimately rid himself of the burden of arrears. 1. Collect money and/or seek commitments from Orange County MHSA. Make the money available to mothers, fathers and children if ordered by the court to get counseling. 2. Monitor counseling programs to determine their effectiveness. 3. Work with other groups that might promote justice between separated mothers and fathers to protect children from the potential devastation of growing up without a father.44 4. Promote orders in the family law arena that will likely yield compliance and maximum contact with both parents. Child Support Services should initiate the creation of this commission utilizing part of its County Contribution ($350,000 in 2011/2012). Future costs should also be borne by CSS. See Findings 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. See Findings F9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the 44 Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F13:
Ignoring paternal parenting is too expensive to allow it to continue. The many hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid child support and the social failings result in both an incalculable loss in human potential and the financial cost of incarcerating society’s failures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. See Findings F9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the 44 Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F14:
CSS had a $350,000 net county contribution in 2011/2012.
F15:
Orange County MHSA (Proposition 63) is obligated to use 20% of its budget for programs for prevention and intervention, and of that Orange County has committed that 75% is to be used for the County’s youth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. See Findings F9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the 44 Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F16:
Promotion of mental wellness includes, among other things, support of programs that prevent youth suicides, youth runaways, unwanted teenage pregnancy, behavioral disorders, juvenile delinquency and high school drop outs. Children of divorced and separated families are recognized as high risk for such behaviors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Department of Mental Health Services should continue supporting counseling/educational of at least 18 hours. The curriculum should be geared to teaching fathers the skills, rights and responsibilities necessary for parenting. This may be best done with social service agencies in the community. The counseling should be sensitive to Hispanic issues and include classes in Spanish. See Findings F9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. CAVEAT TO RECOMMENDATIONS: The wisdom of the courts does and should supersede any recommendations of this report. Every mother, father and child is unique as are their circumstances. The courts bear an enormous burden in cyphering out justice. Nothing herein is meant to challenge the judgments the courts might make. It must be emphasized that the ultimate goal of this study is to relieve the suffering of the children of divorce and those born without the benefit of a coupled mother and father. They may become better parents improving the peace and joy of future generations. The financial savings to the County is but a side benefit. Near time financial savings may be realized in immediate compliance with more pragmatic child support orders. The big savings will pay off as the next generation escapes unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, criminal incarceration and other social ills. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the 44 Orange County Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities are two such groups anxious to lower recidivism by encouraging men with children to assume their roles as fathers. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a.) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b.) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F17:
The existence of Orange County Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), which reviews juvenile detention, provides precedence for the creation of a parenting commission.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
One representative from Orange County MHSA. The Commission should do, among other things: 42 CSS is not specifically authorized to advocate what orders should be. This is foolish considering CSS must inject some logical time share and incomes for the parents to determine child support. In fact, parents come to CSS ignorant of anything but their fear. Mother is fearful she will not get enough money to support herself and the children. Father, if he has the courage to meet with CSS at all, fears he will not have enough to live on after paying support. CSS knows that orders for more than 20% of father’s income will likely drive him underground and he will pay nothing at all. Father’s disappearance not only denies Mother of support, it deprives the children of a father. In total Mother should receive more actual support payment than she would otherwise. Father’s benefit is the opportunity to ultimately rid himself of the burden of arrears.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
Information was obtained from the 2012/13 Orange County Grand Jury Criminal Justice Committee investigation regarding: a. The effect of paternal influence on criminal incarceration. b. The effect of paternal involvement or lack thereof in juvenile delinquency. c. The cost of detention of both adults and juveniles. d. The effect of recidivism.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
A majority of Orange County’s five Board of Supervisors have failed to take an active role in preserving an entity playing a vital role in the healthcare needs of the County’s young, disabled, low income and senior residents. Sadly, 20 months ago, CalOptima received glowing reviews from Member organizations, politicians and government officials at all levels and was an entity Orange County’s residents could be proud of.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Directors of CalOptima should include more than one County Supervisor. This would minimize potential conflict of interest and reduce any opportunity for CalOptima to be used for political gain or to advance personal agendas. The entity is larger than OCTA, which currently has all five Supervisors on its Board.
F2:
A Board of Supervisors majority permitted an organization that is a registered lobbyist in Orange County and Los Angeles County to not only write a County ordinance, but have final approval of its language.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Remove County employees from the Board of Directors of CalOptima since they report to the CEO of Orange County, who is selected by the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
Member organizations have expressed fear of retaliation if they do not support certain causes or candidates and the Board of Supervisors majority has not attempted to curtail or dispel these fears.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In order to attract more qualified individuals to fill vacant positions, offer salaries and incentive packages that are competitive in the healthcare industry.
F4:
A majority of the five Supervisors have allowed CalOptima senior executives, highly qualified individuals who performed their duties with passion and a belief they were making a difference, leave highly specialized positions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Educate CalOptima’s Board of Directors on the agency’s role now and in 2014; why it operated effectively as a hybrid between private industry and County agency; its relevance to the County’s less fortunate’s well-being and healthcare needs and why CalOptima should be free from lobbyists and those who want to use it for political gain.
F5:
A CalOptima Board member and two CalOptima lawyers have been disruptive and created an atmosphere that according to current and former CalOptima employees is ―unsafe for senior executives.‖
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Ensure CalOptima Board members reaffirm their accountability to Members, Member organizations, staff and each other and refrain from leaking closed session details or partial reports to the media. .
F6:
Having a single Supervisor on the CalOptima Board lends to a perception of intimidation either real or perceived. County employees are reluctant to vote against a Supervisor.
F7:
Several current CalOptima Board members and recent hires lack the healthcare experience to understand the complexity of CalOptima as proven by their comments and questions during CalOptima Board meetings.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Juvenile Hall units M and O have very old windows. Also, the old toilet stalls in these units do not provide privacy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Probation Department management will budget for replacement windows and toilet stalls in Units O and M at Juvenile Hall. The toilet stalls, in particular, require an inordinate amount of repair. Replacement is needed to provide privacy without compromising security. (F1)
F2:
Juvenile Hall and the other juvenile residential facilities have programs and activities to reduce recidivism. Most are not data-driven except Thinking for a Change, A.R.T. and some drug programs. The length of stay in these facilities, in most cases, is about 30 days; therefore, success rates are not documented by the Probation Department. The Research Department has dropped from 14 researchers to approximately 4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Probation Department will approach the University of California, Irvine Criminology and Sociology Departments to create a data base to track programs and activities used in the detention centers; then decide if they reduce recidivism. (F2)
F3:
All the budgets in the juvenile detention facilities have high variances in the food and “other” categories. These variances reflect poor financial accountability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Administration of the detention facilities will adhere to their budget or explain the variances in detail. (F3)
F4:
At Joplin, there were 103 classroom incidents, 8 described as serious in 2012. This is very high considering the student population is about 50 boys. There were 202 incidents with 23 considered serious in 2011.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools/Department of Education will prioritize their budget to provide a part-time on-site Assistant Principal at Joplin High School a minimum of three times a week. (F4, F5)
R5:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools/Department of Education will not use a lead teacher to do the work of a Principal or Assistant Principal at any of the juvenile detention schools. (F4, F5)
F5:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools/Department of Education does not provide a full time certificated Principal or assistant Principal at Rio Contiguo High School or Joplin High School. However, the Orange County Superintendent of Schools/Department of Education uses the Average Daily Attendance money generated by Youth Guidance Center and Joplin students’ in seat attendance.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools/Department of Education will prioritize their budget to provide a part-time on-site Assistant Principal at Joplin High School a minimum of three times a week. (F4, F5)
R5:
The Orange County Superintendent of Schools/Department of Education will not use a lead teacher to do the work of a Principal or Assistant Principal at any of the juvenile detention schools. (F4, F5)
F6:
The incident between a male and a female detainee at Juvenile Hall in February, 2012, was investigated immediately by the Orange County Probation Department with oversight from the Office of Independent Review. Some of the juvenile correctional officers that were implicated were experienced officers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Orange County Probation Department will require experienced juvenile correctional officers to attend professional development seminars on the importance of monitoring themselves, juveniles, and new juvenile correctional officers while on duty. Refresher classes should be available at a minimum of every two years. (F6)
F7:
Orange County spends $349,677 on a lease facility which is unoccupied.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors must take action to either utilize the Los Pinos property or eliminate or minimize the expense of this vacant facility. (F7) REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
Face Everything and Recovery (FEAR) – a program at Joplin that pairs Department of Education and juvenile correctional officers with thirteen juveniles to encourage them to be drug free. Mentoring each juvenile is used to effect change.
R9:
Leash on Life Program – girls in Juvenile Hall volunteer to be “Puppy Mammas” for five to six weeks...They learn how to take care of a puppy assigned to them.
R10:
Mobility Opportunities via Education (MOVE) – allows juveniles at Joplin to volunteer at elementary school facilities for the mentally and physically challenged. The goal is to teach the juvenile to think of others not just himself.
R11:
Narcotic Anonymous (NA) – twelve step group therapy which leads to life changing behaviors and extinction of drug use.
R12:
Progressive Rehabilitation in a Dynamic Environment (PRIDE) – juveniles are given drug and alcohol abuse therapy; taken to obtain a driver’s license, ID card or Social Security Card; taught to fill out job or college applications; assisted with school work; helped to enroll in outside schools when the detainee is released.
R13:
Project Towards No Drug Abuse – drug prevention program for at risk youth using a curriculum designed to help youth develop self-control and communication through resources to resist drugs and improve decision-making strategies
R14:
Puppies and Wards (PAWS) a highly successful program where Juvenile Hall wards train rescue dogs which are adopted by the public. Youths work 10weeks in preparation for the dog’s adoption. Sometimes their own families adopt the dog.
R15:
Regional Occupation Program (ROP) - opportunities to work in the community with businesses such as: carpentry, landscape, culinary arts, business technology, etc.
R16:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Assessment Recovery, Relapse, Preventative Treatment – evaluation of particular drug abuse and factors that influence such abuse. Urinalysis as scientific evidence assessment of drugs in the body. Use of strategies by a drug counselor to aid in recovery and avoidance of relapse. Elements in this program to prevent drug abuse in the first place.
R17:
Thinking for a Change (T4C) – evidence-based program with twenty-five lessons on how to make better life decisions. It is designed to prepare youth to re-enter and transition back into the community. Other therapy is tied to these lessons such as; remedial education, rehabilitative treatment, substance abuse therapy, anger management, and job skills.
R18:
The Youthful Transition Intervention Program (YTIP) - integrated services for incarcerated youth as they transition out of confinement and re-establish themselves in their home, school, community by offering services to reduce drug and alcohol abuse, decrease recidivism and delinquent behavior and prevent sexually transmitted diseases. They help youth increase job skills and assist parents to stay involved with their youth. This federally funded program was suspended in 2012 as the federal grant expired.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The County‘s electronic voting system coupled with the Registrar‘s system of collecting, processing and counting ballots is very proficient both in terms of efficiency and cost effectiveness.
F2:
The Grand Jury has confidence in the security of ballot processing and the accuracy of election results.
F3:
The Registrar fosters a climate of technological innovation, teamwork, efficiency, purpose and introspection that results in employees that appear to be highly competent, cheerful and driven to providing outstanding customer service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The County Executive Officer shall determine how the Registrar has developed a motivated, efficient and customer-friendly workforce and use those principles in training of other County Departments and Agencies. [F3]
F4:
The Registrar of Voters Office is a model for other County Departments and Agencies to emulate.
F5:
The Registrar of Voters is supported by a large number of volunteer poll workers and election-day help that contribute greatly to the efficiency of Election Day operations.
F6:
There was no evidence of widespread or organized voter fraud.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Registrar of Voters shall continue vigilance in detecting voter fraud and other irregularities and use cutting edge technology to assist Orange County in this effort. [F6]
F7:
Voting by Mail increased in popularity among the Orange County electorate, but due to voter error, casting a ballot in this manner is more likely to be disqualified than any other method of voting; however, such possibility of rejection is still only .54%.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Registrar of Voters shall continue efforts through training, outreach and design to minimize the amount of vote-by-mail ballots that must be rejected34 due to voter error. [F7]
F8:
The Registrar‘s Office has a plan to maintain operations in the event of natural or man-made disaster.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The County‘s Emergency Manager shall plan and host a table top emergency management exercise that involves an event likely to strike Orange County (earthquake, wildfire, power grid failure, Santa Ana wind event) in the days prior to a general election. [F8] The Registrar of Voters shall respond to Recommendations R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5. The County Executive Officer shall respond to Recommendations R5, R6 and R7. The County‘s Emergency Manager shall respond to Recommendation R8 REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F9:
Orange County residents serving in the U.S. Military abroad cannot return their ballots to the Registrar of Voters via e-mail per state law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Registrar of Voters will partner with and lobby within the State of California to identify appropriate safeguards and recommend legislative changes that allow Californians serving in the military to return completed ballots electronically to their respective registrars including Orange County. [F9]
F10:
The existing voting system meets the current requirements of the Registrar of Voters; however, new voting systems should be explored to determine if it is time to upgrade.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Registrar of Voters shall determine the projected lifespan of its electronic voting equipment and report his findings to the County Executive Officer of the County. [F1, F2, F3, F5, F10]
R6:
The County Executive Officer shall ensure the viability of the electronic voting system by earmarking funds for the procurement of replacement equipment, as needed over time. [F1, F2, F3, F5, F10] 34 As required by California state law
F11:
The existing office and warehouse space is overcrowded. The Registrar of Voters shall respond to Findings F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F9, F10 and
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Registrar of Voters shall determine office and warehouse space needs for the future and work with the County Executive Officer to fulfill their office space needs for the next decade. [F11]
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There is a lack of written policies, procedures, and guidelines relating to EEO laws and employee complaints in the County Human Resource Services Department. The County Human Resource Services Department is currently personnel constrained due to its efforts in its re-centralization and should look to other ways to produce their policies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Human Resource Services Department shall prepare and publish policies, procedures, and guidelines related to all employee complaints and how they are investigated. Special attention, or separate policies, should be published for complaints related to discrimination and harassment to ensure they meet the Employer Responsibilities outlined in state and federal statute. If necessary, the County Human Resource Services Department should utilize the services of outside companies specializing in human resource matters. The Human Resource Services Department should develop, approve, and publish the policies and procedures within six months. The Board of Supervisors should support this effort with adequate funding. (F1)
F2:
The training of County employees on matters of discrimination and harassment is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All County employees and elected County officials shall undergo training on discrimination and harassment. At a minimum, all employees classified as supervisors and above should receive in-person training every two years, as well as have access to on-line training. The Board of Supervisors, and any other elected County officials, should participate in the in-person training at a minimum of once every two years. The Board of Supervisors should support this effort with adequate funding. (F2)
F3:
The training of Human Resource Services personnel is not consistent. 2Albert Schweitzer
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Human Resource Services Department should develop specific training schedules for all of its personnel to ensure consistency in addressing County employee issues. The training should be ongoing and include both internal and external sources. Additional and specific training should be given to those in charge of investigating complaints.(F3)
F4:
Mandated qualifications for the position of Supervisor or Manager in the Human Resource Services Department lack the job specific requirement for human resource schooling, certifications, or equivalent experience. F.5 Written policies, procedures, and guidelines for the referral of possible criminal conduct to law enforcement agencies do not exist.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County Human Resource Services Department shall re-write the job qualifications for any position of supervisor and above in the Human Resource Services Department to include mandatory certification, schooling, or equivalent experience in the human resource field. (F4)
F5:
Written policies, procedures, and guidelines for the referral of possible criminal conduct to law enforcement agencies do not exist. F6. Currently there is no way for an employee to contact the EEO Access Office with anonymity. If an employee wants to make a complaint and not reveal their name the only County mechanism to do so is the “fraud hotline” which may be confusing to employees who wish to report discrimination or harassment. F7. The County did not initiate an outreach to the victims who had experienced sexual harassment over the last few years. F8. Other than re-issuing a yearly statement on the County policy regarding discrimination and harassment, County elected officials and executive management have undertaken no pro-active measures to address and change the County culture that allowed the tolerance of inappropriate behavior that was present for years. This culture continues and needs leadership to change. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2012 - 2013 Grand Jury 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 of The County of Orange Human Resource Services Department and The County of Orange Chief Executive Officer, County Counsel for the County of Orange and The County of Orange Board of Supervisors the 2012 - 2013 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following eight recommendations. R1. The County Human Resource Services Department shall prepare and publish policies, procedures, and guidelines related to all employee complaints and how they are investigated. Special attention, or separate policies, should be published for complaints related to discrimination and harassment to ensure they meet the Employer Responsibilities outlined in state and federal statute. If necessary, the County Human Resource Services Department should utilize the services of outside companies specializing in human resource matters. The Human Resource Services Department should develop, approve, and publish the policies and procedures within six months. The Board of Supervisors should support this effort with adequate funding. (F1) R2. All County employees and elected County officials shall undergo training on discrimination and harassment. At a minimum, all employees classified as supervisors and above should receive in-person training every two years, as well as have access to on-line training. The Board of Supervisors, and any other elected County officials, should participate in the in-person training at a minimum of once every two years. The Board of Supervisors should support this effort with adequate funding. (F2) R3. The County Human Resource Services Department should develop specific training schedules for all of its personnel to ensure consistency in addressing County employee issues. The training should be ongoing and include both internal and external sources. Additional and specific training should be given to those in charge of investigating complaints.(F3) R4. The County Human Resource Services Department shall re-write the job qualifications for any position of supervisor and above in the Human Resource Services Department to include mandatory certification, schooling, or equivalent experience in the human resource field. (F4) R5. The Human Resource Services Department, with input from County Counsel shall draft policies, procedures, and guidelines for all agencies and departments on handling the reporting of potential criminal conduct by County employees. (F5) R6. The Human Resource Services Department should install a confidential communication source for employees who want to file complaints relating to discrimination or harassment with anonymity. The system should include multiple access paths such as mail, phone, fax, or email. Notification of this new County service should be accompanied by a vigorous email campaign and announcements by senior County management in meetings and their communications to their staff. Posters identifying how an employee can file a confidential complaint should be permanently posted in appropriate locations. The Board of Supervisors should support this effort with adequate funding. (F6) R7. The Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with the office of the CEO, the Human Resource Services Department, and with input on legal perspectives from County Counsel, shall initiate a formal outreach program for persons who have experienced discrimination or sexual harassment. The outreach should include counseling, if wanted, and an assessment of possible retaliation against any of the victims. (F7) R8. The Board of Supervisors and the Office of the CEO will define and implement a series of steps to affirm their leadership in achieving a harassment free workplace: (F8) a. Refresh the current board resolution so that it contains clear complaint handling protocols. b. Evaluate whether a policy on office relationships is appropriate for the County especially when it concerns managers and subordinates. c. Display a more pro-active voice, more than once a year, on delivering the message that having a harassment free environment is important. d. Evaluate hiring/training discrimination and harassment contact officers. e. Discontinue negative comments on anonymous complaints. f. Personally attend different County department meetings that provide opportunities to express the County commitment to a harassment free workplace. REQUIRED RESPONSES California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.) such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05 (a), (b), and (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from: Responses to Findings F1, F2, F3, F4, F 5, F6, and F7 are requested from the Orange County Human Resource Services Department. Responses to Findings F6, F7, and F8 are requested from the Orange County, County Executive Office. Responses Findings F5 and F7 are requested from the Office of County Counsel. Responses to Findings F6, F7, and F8 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendations R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 are requested from the Orange County Human Resource Services Department. Responses to Recommendations R6, R7, and R8 are requested from the Orange County, County Executive Office. Responses to Recommendations R5 and R7 are requested from the Office of County Counsel. Responses to Recommendations R1, R2, R6, R7, and R8 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Human Resource Services Department, with input from County Counsel shall draft policies, procedures, and guidelines for all agencies and departments on handling the reporting of potential criminal conduct by County employees. (F5)
F6:
Currently there is no way for an employee to contact the EEO Access Office with anonymity. If an employee wants to make a complaint and not reveal their name the only County mechanism to do so is the “fraud hotline” which may be confusing to employees who wish to report discrimination or harassment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Human Resource Services Department should install a confidential communication source for employees who want to file complaints relating to discrimination or harassment with anonymity. The system should include multiple access paths such as mail, phone, fax, or email. Notification of this new County service should be accompanied by a vigorous email campaign and announcements by senior County management in meetings and their communications to their staff. Posters identifying how an employee can file a confidential complaint should be permanently posted in appropriate locations. The Board of Supervisors should support this effort with adequate funding. (F6)
F7:
The County did not initiate an outreach to the victims who had experienced sexual harassment over the last few years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with the office of the CEO, the Human Resource Services Department, and with input on legal perspectives from County Counsel, shall initiate a formal outreach program for persons who have experienced discrimination or sexual harassment. The outreach should include counseling, if wanted, and an assessment of possible retaliation against any of the victims. (F7)
F8:
Other than re-issuing a yearly statement on the County policy regarding discrimination and harassment, County elected officials and executive management have undertaken no pro-active measures to address and change the County culture that allowed the tolerance of inappropriate behavior that was present for years. This culture continues and needs leadership to change.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Board of Supervisors and the Office of the CEO will define and implement a series of steps to affirm their leadership in achieving a harassment free workplace: (F8) a. Refresh the current board resolution so that it contains clear complaint handling protocols. b. Evaluate whether a policy on office relationships is appropriate for the County especially when it concerns managers and subordinates. c. Display a more pro-active voice, more than once a year, on delivering the message that having a harassment free environment is important. d. Evaluate hiring/training discrimination and harassment contact officers. e. Discontinue negative comments on anonymous complaints. f. Personally attend different County department meetings that provide opportunities to express the County commitment to a harassment free workplace.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Municipalities in Orange County cities are well-versed in EEO issues and maintain exemplary compliance strategies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
OC cities and the County of Orange government shall continue efforts to utilize best practices with respect to Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation. (F1,3)
F2:
In an effort to improve Human Resource efficiencies and increase focus on EEO, the County has centralized its Human Resource functions in the new HRSD.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
All OC cities and County government shall include funding for training of management and supervision as required by law and ensure training for all employees every two to three years. (F2,3,4,5)
R4:
The OC Board of Supervisors shall continue to provide funding and resources sufficient to complete HRSD’s centralization program. (F2)
F3:
The County has implemented a Compliance Oversight Committee (COC) to review all EEO complaints in the County.
F4:
Complaint ratios between OC cities and the County of Orange are similar; but differences in how previous complaints were handled in the County led to major problems.
F5:
The County and several cities do not offer, or provide limited, training in harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, particularly for line staff. At this time, although line staff training is not required, all staff benefit from EEO training.
F6:
There are several Risk Management Joint Powers Insurance Pools (of which most cities are members) to ensure adequate coverage and sharing of liability with other member entities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
OC cities shall review SIR aggregate limits every five years to assess changes in risk management economies and insurance pool mix. (F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
CSS is tasked to establish child support orders in accordance with state guidelines.
F2:
Child Support Court is tasked to make orders setting child support in accordance with state guidelines.
F3:
State guidelines for child support require determination of the percentage of child custody/visitation allotted each parent.
F4:
Orange County’s interpretation of both IV-D and California Family Code § 17000 et al does NOT permit CSS to make orders regarding parental custody.
F5:
Child Support Court is the judiciary organ created to adjudicate issues of child support brought by CSS. FC § 4252 does NOT deny CSS from suggesting orders regarding child custody.
F6:
Denial of either CSS or Child Support Court to make custody orders creates an intolerable hardship on the parents, their children and the California Superior Court system by requiring parents go to Family Law Court to get a custody order and then return to the Child Support Court for a support order.
F7:
An amendment to FC § 17400 specifically authorizing CSS to advocate custody orders would greatly improve both CSS and Child Support Court’s ability to efficiently make child support orders as they are mandated to do by IV-D.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
CSS should initiate a legislative amendment to FC § 17400 by adding language which would enable CSS to advocate child custody issues before the Child Support Court in order to obtain equitable child support orders. Findings F1, F2,
F8:
The County of Orange is in a position to seek legislation authorizing CSS to advocate for child custody orders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
CSS should initiate a legislative amendment to FC § 17400 by adding language which would enable CSS to advocate child custody issues before the Child Support Court in order to obtain equitable child support orders. Findings F1, F2,
F9:
Continued denial to CSS and Child Support Court to make child support orders is an absolute waste of human effort.
F10:
The federal OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT is proposing inclusion of custody/visitation orders in all CSS support orders by 2014 and mandating the same by 2019.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Public officials are stewards of the public trust and maintain it by placing the civic interest ahead of their own. Even the appearance of impropriety damages public faith in government. Citizens expect its officials to conduct business in a lawful and ethical manner.
F2:
The unparalleled development of Orange County from an agrarian to world- class economy in the post-World War II era led to the creation of a “power elite” of land developers and public officials. The influence of “development dollars” in the form of contributions to public officials resulted in a series of public corruption cases over a forty-year period. Other ethics scandals involved the abuse of power.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors shall select Blue Ribbon Commission members based upon their knowledge of government ethics, ability to conduct research and desire to make positive change to Orange County government. Their selection should represent a cross-section of Orange County‟s population and be free of political influence. Commission applicants should be vetted and randomly selected from an approved pool of candidates. [F2, F7]
F3:
Orange County reacted to the 1994 bankruptcy scandal by creating a patchwork of oversight offices to audit financial, performance and professional standards. These offices have varying levels of independence, jurisdiction and legislative support. They need to be accountable as well.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors creates a Blue Ribbon Commission to study ethics programs in California and around the nation. The Commission shall recommend an ethics reform program and oversight authority to the Board of Supervisors within 12 months. [F1, F3, F6, F7]
R3:
The Board of Supervisors shall require that ethics reform recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission address the following in their report: [F3, F4, F5,
F4:
Unethical behavior at the local government level is not something that “simply fixes itself.” The County needs an independent Ethics Program that provides training, advice and guidance to public officials and private persons seeking to do business with government.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors creates a Blue Ribbon Commission to study ethics programs in California and around the nation. The Commission shall recommend an ethics reform program and oversight authority to the Board of Supervisors within 12 months. [F1, F3, F6, F7]
R3:
The Board of Supervisors shall require that ethics reform recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission address the following in their report: [F3, F4, F5,
F5:
Citizens need a clearinghouse to voice complaints about actual and perceived incidents of corruption and unethical behavior by public officials.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors creates a Blue Ribbon Commission to study ethics programs in California and around the nation. The Commission shall recommend an ethics reform program and oversight authority to the Board of Supervisors within 12 months. [F1, F3, F6, F7]
R3:
The Board of Supervisors shall require that ethics reform recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission address the following in their report: [F3, F4, F5,
F6:
In California, the Cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland have ethics commissions that address similar ethics issues.
F7:
Orange County lacks effective ethics oversight of its public officials.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors creates a Blue Ribbon Commission to study ethics programs in California and around the nation. The Commission shall recommend an ethics reform program and oversight authority to the Board of Supervisors within 12 months. [F1, F3, F6, F7]
R2:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors shall select Blue Ribbon Commission members based upon their knowledge of government ethics, ability to conduct research and desire to make positive change to Orange County government. Their selection should represent a cross-section of Orange County‟s population and be free of political influence. Commission applicants should be vetted and randomly selected from an approved pool of candidates. [F2, F7]
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Although POST requires continuing education in the area of dealing with individuals who are mentally ill, it does not specify the number of hours or frequency of officer training; nor does it require that such training be documented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Require specific continuing education for all police officers and sheriff‟s deputies in interacting with the mentally ill and homeless population: Orange County City Police Chiefs and the Sheriff-Coroner shall corroborate with the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriff‟s Association to set the type, hours and frequency of this supplemental training; Include Crisis Intervention Training (perhaps the Memphis model); Training is to be documented. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F10)
F2:
Field officers desire more in-depth training in dealing with the mentally ill on the street. (Interviews)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Require specific continuing education for all police officers and sheriff‟s deputies in interacting with the mentally ill and homeless population: Orange County City Police Chiefs and the Sheriff-Coroner shall corroborate with the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriff‟s Association to set the type, hours and frequency of this supplemental training; Include Crisis Intervention Training (perhaps the Memphis model); Training is to be documented. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F10)
F3:
There is one officer – in a very few instances two officers – for every one thousand (1,000) citizens in a given city within the County who are expected to deal with the full range of law enforcement issues of that city.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Require specific continuing education for all police officers and sheriff‟s deputies in interacting with the mentally ill and homeless population: Orange County City Police Chiefs and the Sheriff-Coroner shall corroborate with the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriff‟s Association to set the type, hours and frequency of this supplemental training; Include Crisis Intervention Training (perhaps the Memphis model); Training is to be documented. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F10)
F4:
Nationally accredited police departments police less than 10% of Orange County cities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Require specific continuing education for all police officers and sheriff‟s deputies in interacting with the mentally ill and homeless population: Orange County City Police Chiefs and the Sheriff-Coroner shall corroborate with the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriff‟s Association to set the type, hours and frequency of this supplemental training; Include Crisis Intervention Training (perhaps the Memphis model); Training is to be documented. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F10)
R2:
All Orange County City Police Departments and the Sheriff‟s Department shall be accredited with a national accreditation agency within five (5) years. (F4)
F5:
Not all Orange County cities have at least one officer trained in Crisis Intervention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Require specific continuing education for all police officers and sheriff‟s deputies in interacting with the mentally ill and homeless population: Orange County City Police Chiefs and the Sheriff-Coroner shall corroborate with the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriff‟s Association to set the type, hours and frequency of this supplemental training; Include Crisis Intervention Training (perhaps the Memphis model); Training is to be documented. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F10)
F6:
There is a broad spectrum of on-going training provided to patrol officers in order to develop their abilities and strategies in dealing with the mentally ill. Some departments provide minimal training; others have comprehensive programs in place.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Require specific continuing education for all police officers and sheriff‟s deputies in interacting with the mentally ill and homeless population: Orange County City Police Chiefs and the Sheriff-Coroner shall corroborate with the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriff‟s Association to set the type, hours and frequency of this supplemental training; Include Crisis Intervention Training (perhaps the Memphis model); Training is to be documented. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F10)
F7:
Five departments have their patrol officers ride periodically with the homeless liaison officer. Seventeen do not.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Require specific continuing education for all police officers and sheriff‟s deputies in interacting with the mentally ill and homeless population: Orange County City Police Chiefs and the Sheriff-Coroner shall corroborate with the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriff‟s Association to set the type, hours and frequency of this supplemental training; Include Crisis Intervention Training (perhaps the Memphis model); Training is to be documented. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F10)
F8:
Departments are reaching out – or beginning to reach out – to neighboring departments and to other skilled professionals, both in dialogue about the mentally ill and homeless issues in their cities, and to learn more effective strategies in dealing with these individuals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Require specific continuing education for all police officers and sheriff‟s deputies in interacting with the mentally ill and homeless population: Orange County City Police Chiefs and the Sheriff-Coroner shall corroborate with the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriff‟s Association to set the type, hours and frequency of this supplemental training; Include Crisis Intervention Training (perhaps the Memphis model); Training is to be documented. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F10)
F9:
All police departments believe that on-going training should be supported by Mental Health Services Act funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Orange County Department of Mental Health Services and the Orange County Board of Supervisors shall provide funding for on-going police officer training through Mental Health Services Act funding. (F9) REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining with the Homeless Mentally Ill to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the
F10:
All police departments adhere to written policy, procedure and/or protocol regarding contact with mentally ill persons.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Require specific continuing education for all police officers and sheriff‟s deputies in interacting with the mentally ill and homeless population: Orange County City Police Chiefs and the Sheriff-Coroner shall corroborate with the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriff‟s Association to set the type, hours and frequency of this supplemental training; Include Crisis Intervention Training (perhaps the Memphis model); Training is to be documented. (F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F10)
F11:
Policy and lawmakers in the County of Orange continue to examine Laura‟s Law in light of its potential impact on the mentally ill and all citizens for positive outcomes. with the Homeless Mentally Ill
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County of Orange Board of Supervisors shall implement a pilot program for Laura‟s Law with the necessary accommodations to insure that the program will function effectively as an essential tool to help those with mental illness, thus benefiting law enforcement, and the citizens of Orange County. (F11)
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Treasurer does not have a securities representative (staff member). The Treasurer shall consider the benefits of having a member of the investment team equity licensed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Treasurer shall consider the benefits of having a current staff member licensed as a Securities representative. (series 7, 51 and 63)
F2:
Having a licensed securities representative on staff could be a conflict of interest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Treasurer shall address the conflict of interest issues with having a securities licensed staff member.
F3:
The Treasurer leverages several information systems for tax collection and investments. The majority are older legacy systems. These systems have limited flexibility and are expensive to change and enhance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Treasurer shall address the expense, time restraints and expectations related to improving the information systems. The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because or is not reasonable it is not warranted, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the