Orange County 2013-2014 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (12)

June 26, 2014 — Maximizing the Benefits of John Wayne Airport to Better Serve Orange County

67 pages 13 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F1: John Wayne Airport has an imbalance of high demand and constrained capacity which, if optimized, could lead to future higher patronage and a more competitive user cost, all leading to a more robust Orange County economy.

F2: John Wayne Airport has completed significant infrastructure upgrades which include improved seismic safety and increased airport capacity. This increase in airport capacity is significantly more than any future authorized Million Annual Passengers (MAPs) increases per the Settlement Agreement.

F3: John Wayne Airport has one of the most challenging take-off flight paths in the world for commercial airliners.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The John Wayne Airport Director should evaluate and recommend to the Board of Supervisors to determine the cost/benefit of increasing runway length to improve safety and allow for larger aircraft or heavier take-offs in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration Displacement Runway Threshold (DRT) study. (F.3., and F. 5.)

F4: New fuel and engine technology will substantially mitigate noise and pollution issues and allow for higher passenger limits and flights without increases in noise or pollution.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The John Wayne Airport Director should recommend to the Board of Supervisors to evaluate and consider promoting increasing operating hours when newer airline aircraft can fly 86.8 dB or less SENEL (Single Event Noise Level) at Noise Monitoring Station 1S; 86.9 dB or less SENEL (Single Event Noise Level) at Noise Monitoring Station 2S; and 86.0 dB or less SENEL (Single Event Noise Level) at Noise Monitoring Station 3S; 4S; 5S; 6S; 7S; 8N; 9N; 10N., during those extended hours after 2035. No Averaging. (F.4., F.11 and F.12)

F5: John Wayne Airport runways have the space to utilize a Displaced Runway Threshold (DRT) to allow for heavier commercial and cargo aircraft use.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: The Settlement Agreement operating constraints significantly impair John Wayne Airport’s ability to serve future demand.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The John Wayne Airport Director should evaluate and recommend to the Board of Supervisors adoption of the 2013 Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Policy and Plans Terminal Area Forecast Detail Report predictions of passengers demand and Class A Average Daily Departure (ADDs) limits. (F.2. and F.6.)

F7: John Wayne Airport has the highest commercial air-fares of the five regional airports. John Wayne Airport airfares and long term parking fees are not competitive relative to local regional and international airports.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The John Wayne Airport Director should evaluate and recommend to the Board of Supervisors implementation of revenue neutral policies for lowering long term airport parking fees to incentivize leisure travelers to use John Wayne Airport in lieu of other commercial regional airports. (F.1. and F.7.)

F8: John Wayne Airport travelers can now travel to Canada and Mexico, making it a truly international airport.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The John Wayne Airport Director should recommend to the Board of Supervisors consider renaming John Wayne Airport to John Wayne International Airport to reflect the new Customs Service and the increase in international flights. (F.8.)

F9: Frontier Airlines FL: Air Tran G4: Allegiant Air NK: Spirit Airlines SY: Sun Country Airlines UA: United Airlines US: US Airways VX: Virgin American WN: Southwest Airlines WS: West Jet YV: Mesa Airlines Y4: Volaris Airlines 40: Interjet Commuter Airline Codes CP: Compass Airlines OO: Sky West Airlines Air Cargo Codes FM: FedEx Express 5X: UPS (United Parcel Service) Appendix B: Glossary Aeronautical Information Manual: The federal regulatory body's official guide to basic flight information and air traffic control procedures. Airport Improvement Program: United States federal grant program that provides funds to airports to help improve safety and efficiency. American Society for Testing and Materials: International standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of materials, products, systems, and services. The organization's headquarters is in West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. Average Daily Departures: Average number of scheduled departures per day of air carrier aircraft computed on the basis from April 1 of each year to March 31 of the following year. Average Daily Traffic: Total vehicles entering and leaving the airport over a 24 hour period. Auxiliary Power Unit: Provides energy for functions other than propulsion. Capital Improvement Plan: A short-range plan, usually four to ten years, which identifies capital projects and equipment purchases, provides a planning schedule and identifies options for financing the plan. Carbon Dioxide: Chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms each covalently double bonded to a single carbon atom. Plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product. Compressed Natural Gas: Methane stored at high pressure. It is made by compressing the gas to less than 1 percent of its volume. Decibel: Unit of measure of sound proportional to the logarithm of the measured sound pressure. Displacement Runway Threshold: Located at a point other than the physical beginning or end of the runway. The portion of the runway so displaced may be used for takeoff but not for landing. Landing aircraft may use the displaced area on the opposite end for roll out. Enplaned Passenger: Revenue passenger boarding an aircraft Effective Perceived Noise Level decibels: Perceived Noise Level in decibels plus a tone correction and a duration correction. Federal Aviation Administration: National aviation authority of the United States of America. An agency of the United States Department of Transportation, it has authority to regulate and oversee all aspects of American civil aviation. Federal Aviation Regulations Rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governing all aviation activities in the United States. Federal Express: Federal Express Corporation is an American global courier delivery service company headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. Fixed Base Operators: Commercial business granted the right by an airport to operate on the airport and provide aeronautical services such as fueling, hangar, tie-down and parking, aircraft rental, aircraft maintenance, and flight instruction. International Civil Aviation Organization: A specialized agency of the United Nations. It codifies the principles and techniques of international air navigation and fosters the planning and development of international air transport to ensure safe and orderly growth. Its headquarters are located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Million Annual Passengers: Counting Arriving and Enplanement passengers in a year. Nitrogen Oxide: Produced during combustion, especially at high temperature. Noise Monitoring Station: Permanent stations with a microphone and the sound level measurement device. Regional Air Passenger Demand Allocation Model: Forecasting the demand for the region aviation needs. Publish by the Southern California Association of Governments. Southern California Association of Governments: Metropolitan planning organization of six of the ten counties in Southern California, serving Imperial County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and Ventura County. It is the largest metropolitan planning organization in the United States, containing 18 million people within 38,000 square miles and is mandated by the federal government to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Single Event Noise Exposure Level: Noise exposure level of a single aircraft event measured over the time between the initial and final points when the noise level exceeds a predetermined threshold. Transportation Security Administration: Agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security that exercises authority over the security of the traveling public in the United States. United Parcel Service: United Parcel Service of America, Incorporated is an American global package delivery company headquartered in Sandy Springs, Georgia. Appendix C: Settlement Agreement Terms Proposed by Various Stakeholders Principal Proposed Federal Aviation John Wayne John Wayne Restrictions Project Administration Airport Airport’s Extension of Office of Aviation Commercial Air Physical the Settlement Policy and Plans Service Capacity: Agreement Terminal Area Providers Input Current Forecast Detail Hours of Report Operations Term 1-1-16 through 1-1-16 through 1-1-16 through 1-1-16 through 12-31-2030 12-31-2030 12-31-2030 12-31-2030 Curfew 1-1-16 through 1-1-16 through 1-1-16 through 1-1-16 through 12-31-2035 12-31-2035 12-31-2035 12-31-2035 Annual Passenger Limit: Million Annual Passengers (MAPs) 1-1-16 to 10.8 MAPs 10.8 MAPs 10.8 MAPs 16.9 MAPs 12-31-20 1-1-21 to 11.8 MAPs 11.4 MAPs 13.0 MAPs 16.9 MAPs 12-31-25 1-1-26 to 12.2 or 12.5 12.8 MAPs 15.0 MAPs 16.9 MAPs 12-31-30 MAPs* Passenger Flights (Class A Average Daily Departures [ADDs] for Passenger Service) 1-1-16 to 85 Class A 107 Class A 100 Class A 288 Class A 12-31-20 ADDs ADDs ADDs ADDs 1-1-21 to 95 Class A 120 Class A 100 Class A 288 Class A 12-31-25 ADDs ADDs ADDs ADDs 1-1-26 to 95 Class A 135 Class A 115 Class A 288 Class A 12-31-30 ADDs ADDs ADDs ADDs Cargo Flights (Class A Average Daily Departures [ADDs] for all-cargo service) 1-1-16 16 to 4 Class A ADDs 4 Class A ADDs 4 Class A ADDs 4 Class A 12-21-30 ADDs Passenger Loading Bridges 1-1-16 16 to 20 20 20 No Limit 12-21-20 1-1-16 21 to No Limit No Limit No Limit No Limit 12-21-30 Source: www.ocair.com Class A: Aircraft that serve long and medium haul market more than 1,000 miles. * Trigger for capacity increase to 12.5 MAPs: Air carriers must be within 5 percent of 11.8 MAPs in any one year during the January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2025 time frame. Appendix D: John Wayne Airport Noise Limits (see Figure 3 for locations) Noise Commercial Aircraft General Aviation Monitoring Class A Class E Daytime Nighttime Station NMS 01S 101.8 dB SENEL 93.5 dB SENEL 101.8 dB SENEL 86.8 dB SENEL NMS 02S 101.1 dB SENEL 93.0 dB SENEL 101.1 dB SENEL 86.9 dB SENEL NMS 03S 100.7 dB SENEL 89.7 dB SENEL 100.7 dB SENEL 86.0 dB SENEL NMS 04S 094.1 dB SENEL 86.0 dB SENEL 86.0 dB SENEL NMS 05S 094.6 dB SENEL 86.6 dB SENEL 86.0 dB SENEL NMS 06S 096.1 dB SENEL 86.6 dB SENEL 86.0 dB SENEL NMS 07S 093.0 dB SENEL 86.0 dB SENEL 86.0 dB SENEL NMS 08N 86.0 dB SENEL NMS 09N 86.0 dB SENEL NMS 10N 86.0 dB SENEL Source: John Wayne Airport – www.ocair.com dB: Decibel. SENEL: Single Event Noise Exposure Level. Class A: Aircraft which operate at gross takeoff weight not greater than 140,000 pounds for dual main landing gear configurations and 300,000 pounds for aircraft for dual tandem landing gear configurations. These aircraft serve long and medium haul market more than 1,000 miles. These aircraft requires more fuel to reach its destination and as a result, requires greater thrust on departure. The combination of heavy fuel loads and a greater thrust correlate to the higher noise levels. Class E: Aircraft which operate at gross takeoff weight not greater than 140,000 pounds for dual main landing gear configurations and 300,000 pounds for aircraft for dual tandem landing gear configurations. These aircraft serve short haul markets less than 1,000 miles and carry less fuel and are, as a result, lighter and quieter. In the years of 2012, 2013 and 2014 there has been no noise violations of any commercial airline using any of its aircraft type under Class A that has exceeded any quarterly average noise limits. In the years of 2012, 2013 and 2014 there has been no noise violations of any commercial airline using any of its aircraft type under Class E that has exceeded any quarterly average noise limits. In the years of 2012, 2013 and 2014 there has been no noise violations of any commuter airline using any of its aircraft type that has exceeded any quarterly average noise limits.53 53 www.ocair.com Appendix E: 2013 Forecast – John Wayne Airport Enplanements Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Policy and Plans Terminal Area 2013 Forecast - John Wayne Airport Enplanements Year Forecast Air Commuter Total International Total Carrier Enplanement Enplanements 2008 4,366,016 233,034 402 4,599,452 2009 3,984,673 264,441 1,179 4,250,293 2010 4,108,624 194,575 8,014 4,311,213 2011 4,102,052 122,165 28,526 4,252,743 2012 4,083,745 143,574 77,445 4,304,764 2013 * 4,181,682 146,270 202,317 4,530,269 2014 * 4,245,856 140,337 233,248 4,619,441 2015 * 4,347,893 143,392 264,178 4,755,463 2016 * 4,448,453 146,583 295,108 4,890,144 2017 * 4,552,750 149,823 326,037 5,028,610 2018 * 4,657,972 153,257 356,964 5,168,193 2019 * 4,759,495 156,493 387,894 5,303,882 2020 * 4,857,640 159,610 418,823 5,436,073 2021 * 4,940,873 162,209 449,753 5,552,835 2022 * 5,022,345 164,813 480,683 5,667,841 2023 * 5,105,957 167,484 511,613 5,785,054 2024 * 5,195,409 170,349 542,543 5,908,301 2025 * 5,283,601 173,032 573,473 6,030,106 2026 * 5,371,306 175,811 604,400 6,151,517 2027 * 5,457,444 178,533 635,329 6,271,306 2028 * 5,547,576 181,384 666,258 6,395,218 2029 * 5,639,659 184,236 697,188 6,521,083 2030 * 5,737,877 187,463 728,118 6,653,458 2031 * 5,833,762 190,512 759,048 6,783,322 2032 * 5,929,730 193,704 789,978 6,913,412 2033 * 6,025,192 196,723 820,908 7,042,823 2034 * 6,121,001 199,775 851,838 7,172,614 2035 * 6,224,170 203,012 882,765 7,309,947 2036 * 6,330,037 206,289 913,694 7,450,020 2037 * 6,433,627 209,623 944,623 7,587,873 2038 * 6,535,990 212,724 975,553 7,724,267 2039 * 6,634,030 215,687 1,006,483 7,856,200 2040 * 6,733,070 218,783 1,037,413 7,989,266 Appendix F: 2013 Forecast – John Wayne Airport Operations Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Policy and Plans Terminal Area 2013 Forecast - John Wayne Airport Operations AIRPORT OPERATIONS Itinerant Operations Local Operations Year Forecast Air Air General Military Civil Military Total Airport Carrier Taxi Aviation Operations 2008 88,985 27,739 120,219 65 91,946 0 328,954 2009 87,439 14,749 101,963 83 84,000 0 288,234 2010 88,133 10,423 104,680 65 83,387 0 286,688 2011 83,172 9,346 97,975 172 74,394 0 265,059 2012 82,675 9,083 96,949 464 71,342 0 260,513 2013 * 85,001 10,251 96,170 592 69,328 76 261,418 2014 * 84,180 10,631 95,805 592 68,315 76 259,599 2015 * 86,480 10,737 96,997 592 68,658 76 263,540 2016 * 88,758 10,844 98,203 592 69,002 76 267,475 2017 * 91,100 10,952 99,425 592 69,348 76 271,493 2018 * 93,471 11,061 100,662 592 69,696 76 275,558 2019 * 95,767 11,171 101,914 592 70,046 76 279,566 2020 * 97,996 11,281 103,181 592 70,398 76 283,524 2021 * 99,940 11,392 104,464 592 70,752 76 287,216 2022 * 101,854 11,506 105,763 592 71,108 76 290,899 2023 * 103,807 11,618 107,079 592 71,466 76 294,638 2024 * 105,872 11,731 108,411 592 71,825 76 298,507 2025 * 107,910 11,844 109,760 592 72,186 76 302,368 2026 * 109,943 11,958 111,126 592 72,549 76 306,244 2027 * 111,943 12,072 112,507 592 72,914 76 310,104 2028 * 114,025 12,187 113,906 592 73,281 76 314,067 2029 * 116,143 12,305 115,323 592 73,650 76 318,089 2030 * 118,380 12,424 116,758 592 74,021 76 322,251 2031 * 120,565 12,547 118,210 592 74,394 76 326,384 2032 * 122,755 12,673 119,681 592 74,769 76 330,546 2033 * 124,937 12,798 121,170 592 75,145 76 334,718 2034 * 127,125 12,924 122,676 592 75,522 76 338,915 2035 * 129,455 13,053 124,201 592 75,901 76 343,278 2036 * 131,824 13,183 125,746 592 76,282 76 347,703 2037 * 134,171 13,314 127,311 592 76,665 76 352,129 2038 * 136,480 13,446 128,894 592 77,050 76 356,538 2039 * 138,707 13,580 130,498 592 77,437 76 360,890 2040 * 140,961 13,715 132,122 592 77,826 76 365,292 Appendix G: 10 Most Popular John Wayne Airport Destinations Top 10 John Wayne Airport Destination Airports (United States Only, Passengers) Phoenix International Airport 481,000 San Francisco International Airport 425,000 Dallas/Fort Worth International 425,000 Airport Denver International Airport 423,000 O'Hare International Airport 286,000 (Chicago) Norman Y. Mineta San Jose 282,000 International Airport Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 280,000 Oakland International Airport 276,000 McCarran International Airport (Las 250,000 Vegas) Sacramento International Airport 226,000 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 Source: United States Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2013 Represents data from January 2013 – December 2013 Appendix H: Market and Carrier One Way Fare Information The Department of Transportation’s Office of Aviation Analysis releases a quarterly fare report. It lists the number of one-way passenger’s trips per day, the nonstop distance, the average market fare, and identifies the airlines with the largest market share and the lowest average fare; market share and average fares are provided for both airlines. Average fares are average prices paid by all fare paying passengers. They therefore cover first class fares paid to carriers offering such service, but they do not cover free tickets such as those awarded by carriers offering frequent flyer programs. The lowest fare carrier is the carrier with the lowest average fare that has at least 10 percent share of the traffic in the market, except for markets where only a single carrier has a 10 percent of greater share in such markets the carrier with the lowest average fare is identified even if its market share is less than 10 percent. In some markets the market average fare will be lower than the fare for its lowest fare carrier because several carriers that do not individually account for a 10 percent share can collectively account for a significant share. Often they charge lower average fares than individual carriers with greater market participation.54 Market and Carrier One Way Fare Information Per Day Airport Distance Passengers Overall Largest Market Average Carrier Market Average Code Miles Average Carrier Share Fare With Share Fare Fare Largest Largest Lowest Lowest Lowest Carrier Carrier Fare Carrier Carrier ATL SNA 1,919 396 $319 DL 67.5% $345 WN 10.1% $242 BUR 1,941 36 $270 WN 54.2% $261 WN 54.2% $261 LAX 1,947 2,092 $296 DL 64.6% $320 FL 10.3% $230 LGB 1,933 21 $274 DL 48.4% $287 US 47.9% $257 ONT 1,900 159 $270 WN 31.0% $258 AA 18.0% $241 DEN SNA 846 1,327 $162 WN 40.9% $154 F9 28.0% $150 BUR 850 370 $175 WN 72.0% $161 WN 72.0% $161 LAX 862 2,607 $159 WN 36.9% $147 F9 18.7% $144 LGB 854 15 $183 DL 53.0% $194 US 44.0% $174 ONT 819 352 $189 WN 76.6% $177 WN 76.6% $177 DFW SNA 1,205 866 $259 AA 79.3% $265 AS 11.4% $220 BUR 1,231 40 $245 US 80.3% $229 US 80.3% $229 LAX 1,235 2,669 $217 AA 55.7% $237 NK 11.3% $108 LGB 1,221 20 $220 US 86.5% $219 DL 10.3% $217 ONT 1,188 331 $243 AA 75.8% $243 US 19.8% $235 54 United States Department of Transportation’s Office of Aviation Analysis Air Transport Association Domestic Airfare Report 4th Quarter. Market and Carrier One Way Fare Information Per Day Airport Distance Passengers Overall Largest Market Average Carrier Market Average Code Miles Average Carrier Share Fare With Share Fare Fare Largest Largest Lowest Lowest Lowest Carrier Carrier Fare Carrier Carrier EWR SNA 2,434 449 $412 UA 84.4% $424 UA 84.4% $424 BUR 2,444 34 $272 UA 44.7% $271 WN 30.4% $256 LAX 2,454 2,874 $336 UA 62.7% $346 UA 62.7% $346 LGB 2,444 11 $261 US 75.0% $282 B6 19.2% $184 ONT 2,409 90 $258 UA 37.7% $250 WN 21.2% $230 IAH SNA 1,346 356 $307 UA 85.3% $310 UA 85.3% $310 BUR 1,378 20 $271 UA 55.7% $255 UA 55.7% $255 LAX 1,379 1,371 $270 UA 61.1% $312 NK 17.5% $127 LGB 1,364 42 $209 US 92.3% $208 US 92.3% $208 ONT 1,334 122 $306 UA 67.7% $310 US 23.5% $286 LAS SNA 226 819 $139 WN 80.7% $150 FL 19.2% $94 BUR 223 1,150 $128 WN 100.0% $128 WN 100.0% $128 LAX 236 2,738 $117 WN 46.4% $115 WN 46.4% $115 LGB 231 654 $96 B6 100.0% $96 B6 100.0% $96 ONT 197 404 $122 WN 100.0% $122 WN 100.0% $122 MSP SNA 1,522 291 $310 DL 61.7% $350 US 12.9% $267 BUR 1,523 39 $276 WN 53.2% $256 WN 53.2% $256 LAX 1,535 1,334 $247 DL 49.6% $297 NK 11.7% $117 LGB 1,529 12 $297 US 72.2% $286 US 72.2% $286 ONT 1,494 87 $271 WN 43.5% $249 WN 43.5% $249 OAK SNA 371 1,405 $144 WN 99.0% $144 WN 99.0% $144 BUR 325 2,007 $137 WN 99.7% $137 WN 99.7% $137 LAX 337 1,869 $127 WN 83.5% $129 DL 15.3% $117 LGB 353 597 $107 B6 100.0% $107 B6 100.0% $107 ONT 362 1,108 $129 WN 99.5% $129 WN 99.5% $129 ORD SNA 1,726 842 $275 AA 51.1% $260 AA 51.1% $260 BUR 1,734 27 $276 UA 47.4% $249 UA 47.4% $249 LAX 1,745 3,494 $246 AA 37.3% $248 NK 10.3% $143 LGB 1,735 22 $253 US 70.4% $251 DL 20.7% $240 ONT 1,700 106 $253 US 40.0% $241 UA 40.0% $241 PDX SNA 859 628 $165 AS 68.9% $169 WN 20.9% $155 BUR 817 428 $162 AS 56.7% $169 WN 38.1% $152 LAX 834 1,233 $164 AS 52.6% $164 WN 15.6% $146 LGB 846 662 $127 B6 88.6% $127 B6 88.6% $127 ONT 838 420 $163 AS 49.8% $165 WN 44.4% $159 PHX SNA 338 1,233 $148 WN 68.2% $154 US 31.4% $136 BUR 369 909 $138 WN 79.3% $138 WN 79.3% $138 LAX 370 1,682 $138 WN 56.3% $137 WN 56.3% $137 LGB 355 226 $119 US 98.8% $119 US 99.8% $119 ONT 325 651 $139 WN 73.5% $142 US 26.3% $132 Market and Carrier One Way Fare Information Per Day Airport Distance Passengers Overall Largest Market Average Carrier Market Average Code Miles Average Carrier Share Fare With Share Fare Fare Largest Largest Lowest Lowest Lowest Carrier Carrier Fare Carrier Carrier SEA SNA 978 1,185 $183 AS 84.7% $184 AS 84.7% $184 BUR 937 623 $177 AS 80.6% $177 WN 14.7% $174 LAX 954 2,981 $161 AS 47.7% $161 VX 25.0% $157 LGB 965 732 $140 B6 67.9% $137 B6 67.9% $137 ONT 956 657 $164 AS 69.4% $164 WN 22.8% $160 SFO SNA 372 1,900 $126 WN 49.6% $124 WN 49.6% $124 BUR 326 209 $200 UA 92.7% $201 UA 92.7% $201 LAX 337 5,401 $125 VX 26.8% $129 WN 24.6% $122 LGB 354 622 $106 B6 97.6% $106 B6 97.7% $106 ONT 363 171 $174 UA 90.2% $175 OO 90.2% $175 SLC SNA 588 424 $191 DL 80.1% $193 WN 15.6% $175 BUR 574 151 $195 DL 65.4% $199 WN 29.6% $184 LAX 590 1,172 $174 DL 46.4% $183 WN 32.0% $164 LGB 588 752 $137 B6 61.8% $134 B6 61.8% $134 ONT 558 179 $206 DL 53.0% $217 WN 38.0% $192 SMF SNA 404 1,142 $152 WN 98.2% $151 WN 98.2% $151 BUR 358 1,042 $153 WN 99.4% $153 WN 99.4% $153 LAX 373 1,221 $150 WN 71.0% $149 DL 12.9% $140 LGB 387 407 $112 B6 99.4% $112 B6 99.4% $112 ONT 390 1,018 $149 WN 99.0% $149 WN 99.0% $149 Source: United States Department of Transportation’s Office of Aviation Analysis Air Transport Association Domestic Airfare Report 2013 4th Quarter Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Denver International Airport International Airport $300 $200 $175 $250 $200 $242 $261 $230 $257 $241 $ $ 1 1 2 5 5 0 $150 $161 $144 $174 $177 $150 $100 $75 $100 $50 $50 $25 $0 $0 Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Dallas/Fort Worth International Newark Liberty International Airport Airport $250 $450 $400 $200 $220 $229 $217 $235 $350 $424 $300 $150 $346 $250 $100 $ $ 1 2 5 0 0 0 $256 $230 $50 $108 $100 $184 $50 $0 $0 Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier George Bush International McCarran International Airport Airport (Houston) (Las Vegas) $350 $150 $300 $125 $250 $310 $286 $100 $128 $122 $200 $255 $115 $150 $208 $75 $94 $96 $50 $100 $127 $50 $25 $0 $0 Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Minneapolis-Saint Paul Oakland International Airport International Airport $300 $150 $ $ 2 2 0 5 0 0 $267 $256 $286 $249 $ $ 1 1 0 2 0 5 $144 $137 $117 $129 $107 $150 $75 $100 $50 $117 $50 $25 $0 $0 Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier O' Hare International Airport Portland International Airport (Chicago) $300 $175 $250 $150 $200 $260 $249 $240 $241 $125 $155 $152 $146 $159 $100 $127 $150 $75 $100 $143 $50 $50 $25 $0 $0 Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Phoenix International Airport Seattle - Tacoma International Airport $150 $200 $175 $125 $136 $138 $137 $132 $150 $184 $174 $100 $119 $125 $157 $160 $75 $100 $137 $75 $50 $50 $25 $25 $0 $0 Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier San Francisco International Salt Lake City International Airport Airport $225 $200 $200 $175 $175 $201 $150 $175 $184 $192 $150 $175 $125 $164 $125 $100 $134 $100 $124 $122 $75 $75 $106 $50 $50 $25 $25 $0 $0 Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier Sacramento International Airport $175 $150 $125 $151 $153 $149 $140 $100 $75 $112 $50 $25 $0 Average One Way Air Fare of the Lowest Carrier

F10: John Wayne Airport has the highest price for 100LL aviation fuel and Jet A fuel of any of the regional airports for general aviation. John Wayne Airport does not allow self-service fueling for general aviation pilots.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The John Wayne Airport Director should recommend to the Board of Supervisors implementation of a self-serve 100LL aviation fuel and Jet A fueling station for general aviation pilots. (F.10.) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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 as 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: Response Requested to Findings: John Wayne Airport Director:

F11: The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) gives the Federal Government the exclusive right to regulate airport noise.

Related Recommendations (1)

F12: There have been no noise violations of any commercial or commuter airline using any of its aircraft type or class that has exceeded any quarterly average noise limits in the years of 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Related Recommendations (1)

F13: Vehicle traffic thru the airport is increasing. Repetitive traffic has increased through the airport loop waiting for arriving passengers. This is creating congestion during peak hours and safety issues. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as notes, request) 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 John Wayne Airport in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following seven recommendations:

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The John Wayne Airport Director should evaluate and recommend to the Board of Supervisors implementation of a separate cell phone waiting area to reduce repetitive traffic looping through the terminal to pick up arriving passengers. (F.13.)

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R31-30: 6,000,000 Proposed Agreement: 1-1-26 to 12-

June 23, 2014 — ~ Dana Point Harbor Revitalization ~ 15 Years of Planning: What Has Been Learned?

35 pages 10 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: The original and current contract for the project management company has been extended five times since March 2003 without an audit clause.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The CEO should assign OCPWD to oversee the construction phases of the Dana Point Harbor revitalization project. (F.1. through F.5. and F.10.)

F2: The references for the final chosen three applicants responding to the original request for proposal, (RFP) were not verified.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The CEO should reduce the current time and material agreement for the project management company in cost and scope via specificity of tasks and deliverables, particularly in the area of design and construction management. (F.1..F7.,F10)

F3: When the evaluations were done of the three competitors, the selected company came in last on the weighted written portion, but first on the orals. The proposals included references on past performances however; the evaluators did not evaluate the past performance submitted with the proposal. The original references by the selected project management company could not be produced.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The CEO should establish and direct that all construction competition guidelines for major construction agreements follow the current County Policy Contract Manual. (F.2., F.3.,)

F4: The original responses to the initial ‗Request For Proposals‘ (RFP), have been unable to be found by Dana Point Harbor or the County Executive Office staff.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Board of Supervisors and the CEO should carefully monitor all major agreements and the implementation of the terms on a continuing basis during the term of the contract. (F.1.) (F.4., F.5., F.10.)

F5: Amendment #5, April, 2013 to the original contract for the project management company was incorrectly labeled and submitted to the Board of Supervisor for ratification as a ‘Sole Source’ contract although this was subsequently corrected.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The CEO should amend the County Policy Contract Manual to include a clear and concise guideline for ‘sole source’ justification. (F.6.)

F6: The Contract Policy Manual does not contain well written examples of ‗sole source’ justification.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The CEO should require Dana Point Harbor to follow the OCPWD standard procedure for monitoring invoice submittal. (F.7.)

F7: Historical invoices submitted by the project management company lack specificity. Although monitoring of the invoices have improved with the oversight of the County Internal Auditor, the Grand Jury found that there remains a lack of information on the submitted invoices to determine the specified task, the portion of the task completed, or the anticipated date of completion. The ability to follow the assigned task from beginning to completion with the financial allotment/award is not easily determined.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The CEO and the Dana Point Harbor Director should record and keep on file complete standardized minutes of all meetings with the various contractors and agencies with whom they regularly meet. (F.8.)

F8: Standardized minutes of the weekly meetings held with Harbor Management, the project management company, various vendors, and lease holders associated within the Harbor, are not documented.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The CEO and the Dana Point Harbor Director should do a cost analysis for the efficiency of operating two marina management companies under two separate operating agreements with the County that duplicate services for boaters. (F.9.)

F9: There are two managerial marine companies in the Harbor which duplicate services for boaters and operate under two separate County agreements; the East Marian and the West Marina.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The CEO should conduct a financial audit of the Dana Point Harbor. (F.7., F.8., F9., F.10.) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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 to Findings F.1. through F.10. are requested from the CEO. Responses to Findings F.8. and F.9. are requested from the Dana Point Harbor Director Responses to Recommendations R.1. through R.9. are requested from the CEO Response to Recommendation R.4. is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors APPENDICES

F10: Oversight for the Revitalization Project is lacking especially in the areas of: a) no audit clause in the original contract b) invoice non specificity (document does not track deliverables) c) sole source error to the original contract RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Dana Point Harbor Revitalization Project in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 9 recommendations:

📋June 23, 2014 — Orange County City Pension Liabilties Budget Transparency Critically Needed

47 pages 12 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 Responses Cities Councils of: Aliso Viejo X X X X X X X X X X X X Anaheim X X X X X X X X X X X X Brea X X X X X X X X X X X X Buena Park X X X X X X X X X X X X Costa Mesa X X X X X X X X X X X X Cypress X X X X X X X X X X X X Dana Point X X X X X X X X X X X X Fountain Valley X X X X X X X X X X X X Fullerton X X X X X X X X X X X X Garden Grove X X X X X X X X X X X X Huntington Beach X X X X X X X X X X X X Irvine X X X X X X X X X X X X La Habra X X X X X X X X X X X X La Palma X X X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Beach X X X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Hills X X X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Niguel X X X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Woods X X X X X X X X X X X X Lake Forest X X X X X X X X X X X X Los Alamitos X X X X X X X X X X X X Mission Viejo X X X X X X X X X X X X Newport Beach X X X X X X X X X X X X Orange X X X X X X X X X X X X Placentia X X X X X X X X X X X X Rancho Santa Margarita X X X X X X X X X X X X San Clemente X X X X X X X X X X X X San Juan Capistrano X X X X X X X X X X X X Santa Ana X X X X X X X X X X X X Seal Beach X X X X X X X X X X X X Stanton X X X X X X X X X X X X Tustin X X X X X X X X X X X X Villa Park X X X X X X X X X X X X Westminster X X X X X X X X X X X X Yorba Linda X X X X X X X X X X X X Required/Requested

F2: OC cities’ unfunded pension liabilities have been increasing on a year over year basis over the past several years as a result of the 2007-2009 Great Recession and as key actuarial assumptions have been changed by CalPERS and OCERS.

F3: There are risks to OC cities of changes to key actuarial assumptions including revisions downward of expected returns on investment and the likely move by pension funds to using more realistic mortality assumptions, which would increase unfunded liabilities.

F4: Locating city budget information on a city web site is not always straightforward and prior year budgets are sometimes not posted by a city.

F5: City budgets posted online project revenues and expenditures for at most one or two years into the future and sometimes do not show prior year data.

F6: City budgets often lack footnotes explaining key assumptions, risks, and unusual changes in budgeted amounts or revenues and expenditures.

F7: City budgets sometimes do not provide trend data on the accumulation/drawdown of reserves and lack details on the city’s plan for the size of its reserves or their intended uses.

F8: Cities can control most future expenditures by increasing or decreasing budgets for those expenditures as funds are available. However, increases to annual required contributions to their pension systems are imposed externally, change unpredictably, and when they occur, are ramped up over two to five years.

F9: City budgets posted online do not explicitly show the link between planned city pension expenditures and pension system actuarial reports and those reports’ annual required contributions. Risks associated with predictions of future annual required pension contributions based on risk assessment data provided by their pension systems and/or based on their own analysis are not discussed.

F10: Pension costs for New (Post-PEPRA) employees will be substantially lower than for Legacy employees, but only a small percentage of current employees, typically only a few percent of total employees, are New. Substantially reduced pension costs for cities as a result of pension reform will not be realized for one or more decades.

F11: CalPERS Annual Valuation Reports for Miscellaneous and Safety City employees are available to the public online for a very small number of cities.

F12: OCERS provides pension plans for OCFA and OCSD employees, but there is no way to trace through publically available sources OCERS unfunded pension liabilities to the city budgets which outsource to OCFA and OCSD for fire and police services. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested, from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Pension Funding Status of Cities in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 8 recommendations:

Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Responses Cities Councils of: Aliso Viejo X X X X X X X Anaheim X X X X X X Brea X X X X X X Buena Park X X X X X X X Costa Mesa X X X X X X Cypress X X X X X X X Dana Point X X X X X X X Fountain Valley X X X X X X Fullerton X X X X X X Garden Grove X X X X X X Huntington Beach X X X X X X Irvine X X X X X X X La Habra X X X X X X X La Palma X X X X X X X Laguna Beach X X X X X X Laguna Hills X X X X X X X Laguna Niguel X X X X X X X Laguna Woods X X X X X X X Lake Forest X X X X X X X Los Alamitos X X X X X X X Mission Viejo X X X X X X X Newport Beach X X X X X X Orange X X X X X X Placentia X X X X X X X Rancho Santa Margarita X X X X X X X San Clemente X X X X X X X San Juan Capistrano X X X X X X X Santa Ana X X X X X X X Seal Beach X X X X X X X Stanton X X X X X X X Tustin X X X X X X X Villa Park X X X X X X X Westminster X X X X X X X Yorba Linda X X X X X X X APPENDICES

R2: Each city’s budget information should contain not only this year/next year budget projections, but should show at least five years of projected revenues and expenditures. Projections should be at the same level of detail and use the same line item structure as information for the current budget. (F.1) (F.2) (F.3) (F.5) (F.8) (F.10)

R3: Each city’s budget should show separate line items for predicted employee and predicted employer contributions for the city pension systems. (F.8) (F.9)

R4: Each city’s budget should provide trend data on the accumulation/drawdown of reserves and provide details on the city’s policy for the size of its reserves and on the intended uses of such reserves. In particular any discussion of reserves should address possible use of reserves to accelerate amortization of unfunded pension liabilities. (F.7)

R5: Each city using CalPERS for one or more of its pension plans should identify the names and dates of the CalPERS Annual Valuation Report(s) which call out Annual Required Contributions (ARCs) for these plans and should provide a separate expenditure line item for predicted city catch-up contributions for the city pension systems based on these ARCs. A discussion of the risks associated with these CalPERS projections should also be provided by the city. (F.1) (F.2) (F.8) (F.9)

R6: Each city which outsources fire or police services to OCFA and/or OCSD should require them to provide projections of future costs of service out at least five years into the future and require that these projected costs explicitly show the relationship of projected pension costs including amortization of unfunded liabilities. This level of pension cost information should be provided in budgeted expenditures for outsourced services. A discussion of the risks associated with these projections should also be provided by the agencies and incorporated in the city’s budgets. (F.6) (F.12)

R7: Each city that has CalPERS as a provider for pensions should include a provision in their agreements with CalPERS that CalPERS will post their Annual Valuation Reports online. (F.11) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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: Required/Requested F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 Responses Cities Councils of: Aliso Viejo X X X X X X X X X X X X Anaheim X X X X X X X X X X X X Brea X X X X X X X X X X X X Buena Park X X X X X X X X X X X X Costa Mesa X X X X X X X X X X X X Cypress X X X X X X X X X X X X Dana Point X X X X X X X X X X X X Fountain Valley X X X X X X X X X X X X Fullerton X X X X X X X X X X X X Garden Grove X X X X X X X X X X X X Huntington Beach X X X X X X X X X X X X Irvine X X X X X X X X X X X X La Habra X X X X X X X X X X X X La Palma X X X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Beach X X X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Hills X X X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Niguel X X X X X X X X X X X X Laguna Woods X X X X X X X X X X X X Lake Forest X X X X X X X X X X X X Los Alamitos X X X X X X X X X X X X Mission Viejo X X X X X X X X X X X X Newport Beach X X X X X X X X X X X X Orange X X X X X X X X X X X X Placentia X X X X X X X X X X X X Rancho Santa Margarita X X X X X X X X X X X X San Clemente X X X X X X X X X X X X San Juan Capistrano X X X X X X X X X X X X Santa Ana X X X X X X X X X X X X Seal Beach X X X X X X X X X X X X Stanton X X X X X X X X X X X X Tustin X X X X X X X X X X X X Villa Park X X X X X X X X X X X X Westminster X X X X X X X X X X X X Yorba Linda X X X X X X X X X X X X Required/Requested R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Responses Cities Councils of: Aliso Viejo X X X X X X X Anaheim X X X X X X Brea X X X X X X Buena Park X X X X X X X Costa Mesa X X X X X X Cypress X X X X X X X Dana Point X X X X X X X Fountain Valley X X X X X X Fullerton X X X X X X Garden Grove X X X X X X Huntington Beach X X X X X X Irvine X X X X X X X La Habra X X X X X X X La Palma X X X X X X X Laguna Beach X X X X X X Laguna Hills X X X X X X X Laguna Niguel X X X X X X X Laguna Woods X X X X X X X Lake Forest X X X X X X X Los Alamitos X X X X X X X Mission Viejo X X X X X X X Newport Beach X X X X X X Orange X X X X X X Placentia X X X X X X X Rancho Santa Margarita X X X X X X X San Clemente X X X X X X X San Juan Capistrano X X X X X X X Santa Ana X X X X X X X Seal Beach X X X X X X X Stanton X X X X X X X Tustin X X X X X X X Villa Park X X X X X X X Westminster X X X X X X X Yorba Linda X X X X X X X APPENDICES

June 20, 2014 — Ethics and Campaign Reporting:

29 pages 6 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Ethics monitoring and enforcement is important, not just to punish violators, but to promote understanding of ethical guidelines and to remind public officials, employees, and candidates that their behavior is under close scrutiny. Vigorous ethics monitoring and enforcement is necessary to develop and maintain trust in government.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should place a proposition on the next available general election ballot to establish an Orange County Campaign Reporting and Ethics Commission, similar to commissions in other jurisdictions in California. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6.)

F2: Governmental ethics includes much more than just campaign finance. It covers prohibitions against personal and financial gain, requirements for transparency, and requirements for fair process and merit based decision making. Most importantly, it includes prohibitions of behavior that is unethical but may not be illegal, such as campaign contributions as quid-pro-quo for government favors and lucrative contracts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should carefully weigh the drawbacks to FPPC enforcement outlined in the Findings before pursuing it as an option to enforcing the County’s campaign finance ordinance. (F.5.)

F3: Orange County is subject to the same potential for corruption as anywhere else, yet monitoring and enforcement of ethics, and campaign and lobbyist reporting in the County is deficient in a number of areas, including oversight, law and policy advice and recommendations, audits, coordination, transparency, and independence.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: If the Board of Supervisors contracts with the FPPC for enforcement of the County’s campaign finance ordinance, it should establish an Office of Ethics and Compliance charged with receiving complaints, monitoring, and investigating possible ethics law and policy violations, and offering training, advice and recommendations regarding such laws and policies. The Office should have the following characteristics: a) a director nominated independently from County government officials, b) a budget mandated by ordinance, with a floor on year-to-year reductions c) paid staff, including its own inside or outside counsel, and d) power to subpoena records and persons. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.6.)

F4: Independence in monitoring and enforcing of ethics and reporting violations from those who are monitored is critical. Organizations performing these functions in Orange County, including the District Attorney, Internal Audit, Human Resources, The Registrar of Voters, the Clerk of the Board, and even the Grand Jury, are not truly independent since appointment of their head officials, and/or their budget appropriations are controlled by the Board of Supervisors.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: At a minimum, to address current deficiencies in ethics and campaign and lobbyist oversight and reporting, the Board of Supervisors should: 1. Charge and appropriate funds for an existing agency in the County to perform comprehensive oversight of ethics compliance. 2. Charge and appropriate funds for the Registrar of Voters and the Clerk of the Board to accomplish more comprehensive oversight of campaign and lobbyist reporting, including more complete audits. 3. Charge and appropriate funds for an existing agency in the County to create and manage a consolidated, compressive database of economic interest and campaign reporting data and information, available to the public via the Internet. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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: Responses to Findings F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., and F.6. are required from the Board of Supervisors Responses to Recommendations R.1., R.2., R.3. and R.4. are required from the Board Supervisors APPENDIX: Ethics Commission Survey Results (Figures are for FY 2012-2013 unless otherwise noted) CITY AND COUNTY OF COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF LOS ANGELES SAN FRANCISCO SAN BERNARDINO Population 3,090,132 1,328,073 3,866,133 826,003 2,081,313 Total budget $5.6 billion $2.8 billion $20, billion $7.9 billion $4.3 billion Total 17,000 19,500 42,000 19,919 employees Los Angeles City Ethics Office of Compliance and Agency name City of San Diego Ethics Commission San Francisco Ethics Commission Commission Ethics (OCE) Voter approved proposition, City Charter Amendment, voter Appears to be part of county Authority City Charter, City Ordinance Ordinance approved government structure. Date 2001 1990 1993 established City’s governmental ethics laws Shape, administer, and enforce Education, training, complaint Operate a strategic including education, training, laws regarding governmental investingation, statistical countywide compliance and Mission investingation, advice, ethics, conflicts of interest, reporting, advice, audits, ethics program, esuring recommendations, enforcement campaign financing, and lobbying, recommendations, enforcement, regulatory and ethical Governance City Council City Council Board of Supervisors Appears to be county CEO. /Budget Purview Political activities of elected Campaign finance audits, Elections, elected officials, (elections, officials, candidates, political candidate matching funds, candidates, city & county elected, staff, committees, com. Treasurers, public lobbyist registration and employees, lobyists, school & cities, county) employees, lobyists, 1,500 people disclosure, city official financial college board. Jurisdiction over Investigations, subpoena, Monitor changes in state Investigations, subpeona power, Investigations, campaign funding, opinions, enforcement laws, recommend policies, Actions outreach & education, advice training, education, whistleblower proceedings, fines, develop internal controls, letters, fines, audits hotline, audits, fines. oral, written informal & formal audits, helpline. Whistleblower Y -@ Auditor/Controller's office Y Y -@ Controller's Office Yes, 3rd party is host. hotline (Y, N) Appears to be 2 listed on Body size 7 5 5 web-site. Jurisdiction 1,328,073 3,866,133 826,003 Population Jurisdiction $2.8 billion $20 billion $6.7 billion Budget $ Jurisdiction no. 19,500.00 42,000 of employees By Mayor on nomination of Council Appointed by the Mayor, City One ea. appointed by Mayor, How appointed and City Att'y, approved by majority Council President, CC Pres Pro BoS, City Attorney, DA, Assessor of Council Tem, City Attorney, and Controller Term Four years Five years Six years No compensation except for Pay None $50 per meeting/waived by all "City benefits" 21 -not covered by civil service 18 includes a full-time educator Paid staff 5 (attorneys would be an asset) procedures! & 2 investigators but need more. Commission $4.2 million '12-13 ($2.3 non- $781K FY 2012 / $977K FY 2013 $2.4 million FY'12-13 Budget $ grant) Collect fines Y - + Lobbyists, campaign Y -$25,000 collected in 2013 Y -$220,200 collected in 2013 & fees? consultants ($82,000 2013) Annual report, training, audits, info Annual report, training, audits, Products website, formal & informal advice Campaign finance audits campaingn info website letters, stipulations APPENDIX: Ethics Commission Survey Results (cont’d) (Figures are for FY 2012-2013 unless otherwise noted) COUNTY OF VENTURA KERN COUNTY CITY OF OAKLAND CITY OF SAN JOSE CITY OF SEATTLE Population 834,398 855,498 399,699 983,574 Total $1.6 billion $1 billion $2.9 billion appropriations Total 3,898 5,655 employees Ventura County Campaign Campaign Finance Hearing Seattle Ethics and Elections Agency name Public Ethics Commission San Jose Ethics Commission Finance Ethics Commission Panel Commission Authority County Ordinance Voter approved ordinance City Charter Municiple Code Budget set by City Council Date 2003 or 2004 2003 1996 1992 established Consider formal complaints of Ensure fairness, openness, Monitors compliance w/ all Administer, interpret and Mission and possible Ethics Ordinance honesty and integrity in city ethics and campaign enforce the Seattle Ethics Code violations government. ordinances Governance Board of Supervisors County Board of Supervisors City Council City Council Mayor and City Council /Budget Purview Campaign Finance for Campaign finance violations Campaign finance, conflicts Interpreting and applying the (elections, candidates -County only, no under Kern County of interest, city council code Campaign and ethics regulations Seattle Ethics, elections, elected, staff, lobbyists, no training or ordinance (campaign of conduct, transparency, of elected officials Election Pamphlet, and cities, county) education, no audits. County contributions) public financing, lobbyist Reviews & investigates allegations Whistleblower Codes. Hears administrative actions Set the salaries of city council of violations of the Code and Complaint driven investigations, members; investigations, makes recommendations for includes whistle-blowers, has Actions re: alleged ordinaance audits, public hearings, enforcement action where subpoena power -handles NO violations subpoenas, fines, penalties. appropriate Sexual Harrassment Whistleblower None listed Yes hotline (Y, N) Body size 3 5 7 5 7 3 - by mayor and city council. Mayor and city council - 3 each How appointed By Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors 4 - recruited and selected by City Council and 7th by Commission commission. 3 years / staggered -may be Term Four years 3 years Three years 4 years reappointed Pay None $200 per day for hearings None 0 1/2 person (from the CEO's Paid staff 0 5 none 6.2 paid (some are part-time) staff) Commission 0 $186,000 $782,000 appropriation Collect fines Collects fines and penalties. $3,000 - $5,000 in a normal year & fees? Annual Report, revise ordinance prior to each Hearings / Public Notices & Products Annual report Annual Report election (every 2 years), Reports letters Commission Cost Discussion Note that an estimated yearly cost of $500,000 for an Orange County ethics body would be less than 0.01 of one percent of Orange County’s total yearly budget. With comparable functions to those proposed for Orange County, the City of San Diego Ethics Commission’s budget is more than double the percentage of the City’s total budget compared to the Orange County cost estimate. Note also that the Los Angeles Ethics Commission budget is 0.01 of one percent of the total City budget, with a total City budget and City staff more than three times the size of Orange County’s. Note also that the City and County of San Francisco Ethics commission budget is whopping 0.06 of one percent of that jurisdiction’s total budget for a much smaller jurisdiction. However, Los Angeles and San Francisco may not be as relevant since they collect and administer campaign matching funds as one of their main functions, a function not proposed for Orange County.

F5: Hiring the FPPC to enforce the County’s TINCUP ordinance has some advantages, but would have a number of drawbacks: a) It could more than double TINCUP contribution limits. b) A contract with the FPPC would be under the control of the Board of Supervisors, while at the same time the FPPC would be responsible for policing the Board. c) Enforcement would only include civil and not criminal violations. d) It would be a pioneering and entirely new enforcement model in California versus the already established ethics commission model. e) It may soon become irrelevant because campaign finance regarding contribution limits may disappear in the near future given the current trend of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

F6: Ethics bodies in California function effectively to monitor and enforce campaign finance laws as well as other ethics laws and policies, and serve as a check and balance on government officials, employees, and candidates. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of existing ethics commissions, and of oversight and enforcement in Orange County of ethics laws and policies, and of campaign and lobbyist reporting, the 2013- 2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations:

June 13, 2014 — Improving the County of Orange Government’s Multi-billion Dollar Contracting Operations Grand Jury 2013-2014

25 pages 6 findings 26 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: County government does not have an identified re-centralization strategy of its contracting assignments in order to pro-actively reduce the fragmentation, inconsistency, and inequality that currently exist. Several County executives and senior managers have noted a need is indicated for a substantial reorganization of intra-agency contracting/procurement responsibilities and personnel assignments.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors and County Executive Officer should adopt a re-centralization strategy and a corresponding implementation schedule for the contracting functions of a majority of County Agencies and Departments. The goal of said strategy will be to ensure that the contracting/procurement procedures and decision-making will be a collaborative and constructive process in an effort to provide for consistency, thoroughness, and transparency with the County Purchasing Agent. (F.1.)

F2: The County Contract Policy Manual, as adopted in 2012, performed an admirable job in response to the critique published by the 1997-1998 Orange County Grand Jury. A majority of the recommendations were implemented and have continued to be helpful in attainment of long-range goals.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The County Executive Officer, utilizing the services of the County Purchasing Agent, should revise and expand the County Contract Policy Manual. The revision should include: a) Procurement Guidelines; b) RFP and IFB methodology; c) Rules of Procedures and Evaluation; d) Procurement Ethics Guide (comprehensive version); e) Risk Assessment; f) Contract Management; and g) Best Practices for Contracting and Procurement. (F.2., F.3. and F.4.)

F3: The 2012 County Contract Policy Manual is a helpful guide that has value as a reference tool; however the Manual is not a comprehensive document inclusive of specialized training courses, complete planning calendars, an extensive catalogue of procedural standards, and occupational proficiencies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The County Executive Officer should implement expanded training curricula and workshops for Deputy Purchasing Agents and other subject matter experts performing contracting and procurement assignments pursuant to the County Contract Policy Manual. This would include increased training frequencies of longer duration, and staff membership councils that are comprised of peer level conferences and collaboration at least quarterly. (F.5.)

F4: The Contract Policy Manual lacks a summary for development of all contracting and procurement personnel, with broadened curricula, sample standard documents, and added seminars and workshops.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The County Executive Officer as well as department heads should ensure that County staff members, who act as the department’s Purchasing Agent, should focus primarily, if not exclusively, on procurement and contracting responsibilities as their principal work assignment. (F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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: Responses to Recommendation R.1. and R.4. are required from the County Board of Supervisors. Reponse to Finding F.1. is required from the County Board of Supervisors. Responses Requested: Responses to Recommendations R.2., R.3. and R.4. are requested from the County Executive Officer. Reponses to Findings F.1. and F.2. are requested from the County Executive Officer. Responses to Findings F.3., F.4., F.5. and F.6. are requested from: CEO – County Purchasing Agent CEO – Information Technology Office Health Care OC Community Resources OC Public Works

F5: Contracting and/or Procurement staff members expressly engaged in contracting are not given focused and thorough training designed to present topics in project management, contract administration, and risk assessment. In addition, there is an absence of objectives designed to enhance personal expertise, productivity, and effectiveness.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The County Executive Officer create a Procurement Policy working group reporting to the CEO (in that official’s capacity of County Chief Administrative Officer) to develop and a. administer the new and improved County procurement system, comprised of the County Procurement Code and implementing regulations. Designate the Chief Procurement Officer of the County to chair the group, with membership to include representatives from the ranks of the Purchasing Council, the Contracting Council, and knowledgeable members of the public.

F6: There are County departments that assign staff members to perform contracting or procurement tasks that are unrelated to their regular roles. Such fragmented assignments present negative impacts to accuracy and productivity as a result. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 County of Orange Grand Jury requires 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, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury presents the following 4 recommendations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The County Executive Officer establish standards and provide suitable training for County employees who perform the principal contracting functions.

Additional Recommendations 20

Not linked to specific findings.

R7: The County Executive Officer encourage use of the Commerce Business Daily for the advertisement of specialized County procurement requirements.

R8: The Internal Auditor participate with the Chief Procurement Officer in the annual compliance reviews of procurement activities.

R9: The Auditor-Controller use EPS to track contracts. In collaboration with the Chief Procurement Officer, institute a proactive approach to ensure the timely payment of purchase orders and contracts in accordance with their terms and applicable statutory requirements.

R10: The Office of the Public Defender cease the practice of using oral (not written) orders to acquire the services of expert witnesses. ~ ~ ~

R11: By what method are Panel members instructed on evaluation procedures?

R12: How is the weighting of percentages assigned to the various rating factors for any individual project?

R13: What type of rating procedures is normally employed?

R14: Are Evaluation Panelists instructed on the requirement for confidentiality during their deliberative proceedings and thereafter, pending Board of Supervisors final action? Is a written Confidentiality Statement utilized? “Yes” or “No.”

R15: What procedures are established that are designed to ensure that all submitted bid/proposal documents are kept confidential until presented to the Board of Supervisors?

R16: What measures are in place to restrict the efforts of non-participants from seeking to improperly influence the decision-making process?

R17: What are the penalties/sanctions for the contractor’s non-performance or poor performance?

R18: What safeguards are in place to ensure that services, products, or other deliverables provided conform to the specifications or statement-of-work identified in the contract?

R19: Who on your staff monitors contract compliance by the service provider/vendor?

R20: What is the frequency of contract compliance inspection and documentation?

R21: If the contract requires revenue to be submitted to the County, what are the prescribed verification and auditing procedures?

R22: In the case of payment by the County to vendors, are the payments issued as a result of an invoice? “Yes” or “No.”

R23: What is the internal method of verification that payments are properly supported?

R24: What is your agency’s record of the number of contracts that have been terminated “for cause” within the last ten years?

R25: Has your agency conducted debarment proceedings of a contracted entity? “Yes” or “No.” If “Yes,” how many?

R26: List the number and type of Master Agreements administered by your agency/department. Include the cost to the County or the revenue received by the County. ~ ~ ~

June 04, 2014 — Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Orange County Solutions

32 pages 11 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: Many juveniles are detained in treatment centers for 30 to 60 days, yet many probation staffers believe that additional days of treatment and classes will result in a lower recidivism rate.

F2: By treating juveniles for more days, there are greater “upfront” costs to the County.

F3: The use of evidence-based practices (what treatment modalities work) results in lower recidivism rates since the focus has shifted from detention and punishment to rehabilitation and re-entry into the community.

F4: Budget constraints have reduced the County’s research department. The Probation Department is handicapped by this reduction in staff since they are unable to determine the true cost impact of their programs and recidivism rates due to the lack of research personnel to collect and analyze data.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Orange County Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors should re- constitute a research department to collect and analyze the cost effectiveness of their programs, and further monitor their juvenile recidivism rates. (F.3., F.4., F.6.)

F5: The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) is an innovative approach utilized by Orange County for a number of years

F6: The decline in the number of juvenile detainees has resulted in unused capacity in several juvenile facilities, resulting in the closure of one facility and consolidation in the remaining four facilities. Modest unused capacity is a good thing.

F7: As of 2010, juvenile court cases in Orange County are in line proportionately with other like-sized counties of populations over 500,000.

F8: The recently established collaborative teams of the Community Day School, Santa Ana Unified School District, Orange County Probation Department, and various community services, are working as a cohesive team within the budget limitations of this pilot program.

F9: The Probation Department and Santa Ana Unified School District staffs are dedicated to behavioral modification treatments. Additional staff and programs are needed to provide psychological therapies for many juveniles.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Orange County Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors should budget for evening meals/snacks, transportation home after evening programs, and additional trained behavior modification specialists. (F.9.)

F10: To date, the pilot program of Community Day School is not academically accredited.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Santa Ana Unified School District, the Superintendent of Schools, and the Orange County Probation Department should continue to seek academic accreditation for the Community Day School. (F.10.)

F11: OCPD indicated their intention to replicate the Community Day School to other areas of Orange County, upon successful completion of the pilot program. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of juvenile recidivism in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: After successful evaluation of the Community Day School pilot program, the Orange County Probation Department and the Superintendent of Schools should pursue replicating this model to other areas in Orange County. (F.11.) RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIRED RESPONSES 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 to Findings are requested from: Orange County Probation Department: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11. Responses to Findings are required from: Orange County Board of Supervisors: F4 Superintendent of Schools: F8, F9, F10, and F11. Santa Ana Unified School District: F8, F9, F10, and F11. Responses to Recommendations are requested from Orange County Probation Department: R1, R2, R3, and R4.. Responses to Recommendations are required from: Orange County Board of Supervisors: R1 and R3. Superintendent of Schools: R2 and R4. Santa Ana Unified School District: R2 COMMENDATONS The 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury is impressed with the dedication of the staff at the Orange County Probation Department, and especially the leadership in the Juvenile Division, as well as with the Santa Ana Unified School District staff at the Community Day School. APPENDICES

June 03, 2014 — Sustainable and Reliable Orange County Water Supply:

38 pages 10 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: MWDOC’s SOC water reliability study objective of a 30 to 60 day emergency supply from local storage will fall short, requiring between 33 and 48 Mgd of additional capacity. Mitigation of this short fall may require the development of a new water source.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: MWDOC and OCWD should assemble and finance a strong inter-agency (OCWD, MWDOC, and select retailers) advocacy group to drive the final permitting and construction of several large scale seawater desalination plants with the objective of significantly accelerating the process and shortening project schedules. (F.1. through F.6.), (F.10.)

R5: MWDOC and OCWD should consider merging into a single wholesale agency to better evaluate, coordinate, and integrate more complex strategies involving the allocation and distribution of ground and imported water under emergency and climate change impacts. This merger would facilitate the implementation of Recommendations 1-4. (F.1.), (F.4.), (F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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. Responses to Findings F.1., F.2., F.4., F.5., F.6., F.8., and F.9. are required from the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County. Responses to Findings F.2., F.3., F.5., F.7., and F.9. are required from the Board of Directors of Orange County Water District. Responses to Recommendations R.1. through R.5. are required from the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County. Responses to Recommendations R.1. through R.5. are required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. APPENDICES

F2: The BDCP is an expensive, long-term, ($25 billion in capital and operations over 50 years) plan yet to be approved or funded project to restore the Bay Delta and improve exported water source reliability. The future effects of climate change on water allocations and the vulnerability of the dual, under delta tunnels have not been well defined and should be developed further before MWDOC allocates significant resources to its implementation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: MWDOC should continue to monitor and support the BDCP, but a favorable resolution of water supply allocations and tunnel vulnerability issues is required before significant resources should be expended. (F.2.), (F.8.)

F3: Most of the local and County water sources have been developed and optimized. Some additional capture of ground water and recycling of municipal waste water is in various stages of planning and execution, but these options are progressively more expensive to execute and, by themselves, are not game changers.

F4: OC water quality is widely and frequently monitored by both wholesalers and retailers and, in general, is well within the State standards. Some wells have been contaminated with seawater or industrial chemicals and are either capped or the water is treated on site. All wells and transfer interfaces are frequently monitored for water quality.

F5: The largest, yet to be developed source of local water is the Pacific ocean. Two OC desalination projects are being evaluated by regulatory agencies and OC water districts, Poseidon’s 50 Mgd Huntington Beach project and the MWDOC’s Doheny Coastal Ocean Desalination Project rated at 15 Mgd potable/15 Mgd barrier injection at Doheny Beach.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: The MWDOC imported water supply source and transport infrastructure has been greatly improved, but it is vulnerable to several major events outside of their control. These include flooding or a large earthquake in the Bay Delta which could collapse levees. Quakes could also damage critical infrastructure such as conveyance piping, water treatment plants and pump stations. Contamination of Bay Delta intakes due to the seawater infiltration is a possibility; some say it’s likely. Long periods of drought could also result in the depletion of major State reservoir storage which are currently at 50% or less of annual average capacity.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: MWDOC and OCWD should develop an interconnection process flow network diagram connecting all relevant OC agencies (City, County, and MET) and use it to investigate the impact of ―what if‖ scenarios (various emergency outages due to failed wells and pumping stations, damaged piping, etc.) which could impact local district water supplies. Close coordination of resources and plans is necessary to integrate the local OC water infrastructure. (F.7.)

F7: The local OC water supply is less vulnerable to major events because of a number of innovative retail water supplier and OCWD efforts. The primary focus has been on large waste or surface run-off water reclamation, increased winter and emergency storage, conservation and rate pricing strategies, preventative maintenance, back-up and redundant equipment, and a large number of interconnections between district distribution pipelines.

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: The imported water supply is less vulnerable to earthquakes and long term drought because of a number of recently completed projects such as: 1. Increasing southern California reservoir storage about doubled over the last 10 years and is currently at about 5.5 MAF (million acre-feet, an acre under one foot of water). 2. Upgrading the Diemer imported water treatment plant seismic design. 3. Developing the Diamond Valley reservoir and connecting pipeline to store Colorado River (COR) and State water for emergency use-note that transport piping does not cross the San Andreas Fault and should be less vulnerable to quake caused catastrophic failures. 4. Adding ozone treatment at three water treatment plants for disinfecting potable water. 5. Implementing an extensive conditioned maintenance program for mechanical and electrical equipment including the ability to fabricate, transport and install large diameter pipe spool pieces to repair damaged sections of piping. 6. Negotiating transfer agreements with Imperial and Central Valley agricultural districts for water exchanges and transfers during surplus wet years.

F9: Permitting large water infrastructure construction projects consumes many years, and cuts across many agencies and jurisdictions. Permitting issues are frequently used by stakeholder special interests to manipulate outcomes that are not always consistent with the public’s greater good.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: MWDOC and OCWD should work with legislators, contractors, other stakeholders, and the regulatory agencies to streamline and accelerate the large infrastructure permitting process. The goal should be the development of a one-stop agency capable of representing and adjudicating conflicting or overlapping agency permit requirements. (F.9.), (F.10.)

F10: The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) has geological, demographic and water import issues which are similar to SOC. They are pursuing similar conservation and storage projects, but have also committed to water purchases from a large, 50 Mgd desalination plant located in Carlsbad to achieve a more diverse, local water portfolio. Their interest in seawater desalination has primarily been driven by an imported water curtailment of 50% in 1991. It has taken over 10 years and significant public involvement to obtain regulatory approvals. SDCWA has also completed a conceptual engineering study of the feasibility of locating a second large desalination plant at the Camp Pendleton Marine Base. The Grand Jury recognizes that it lacks jurisdiction over the San Diego Water County Water Authority, but makes the finding merely to demonstrate the complexity of desalination projects and length of time needed for regulatory approval is similar to Orange County. The Grand Jury believes that coordination and advocacy between water districts would be beneficial. RECOMMENDATIONS ―In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District and the Municipal Water District of Orange County which are 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 water reliability and sustainability in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:

May 08, 2014 — Orange County Information Technology Management:

38 pages 8 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: Based on the Grand Jury’s survey of the Chief Information Officers of California counties with populations of one to three million, current costs of Information Technology in Orange County, per resident, appear to be comparable or lower than IT costs in California counties of similar population size.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: CEO/IT should enhance the current format and guidelines for post implementation reviews of IT projects to include reviews of the achievement of the originally approved project goals and business case. Reviews of the achievement of project goals and the business case should be reviewed by the IT Investment Review Board, and should continue until the achievement (or failure) can be verified. (F.2.)

F2: IT project cost overruns do not plague the County. However, policies and procedures are not in place in the IT governance structure to adequately measure and evaluate achievement of benefits and goals of IT projects over their entire project life cycle.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: As part of the implementation of the new Managed Services contracts with SAIC and Xerox, the Board of Supervisors and CEO/IT should place high priority on successfully completing a disaster recovery exercise with the new DR services provider, and marshaling agency/department support to do so. . Successful completion would include completion and verification of all transactions supporting processes the County datacenter supports that are designated “A” priority in Business Continuity plans. (F.3.)

F3: Recovery of IT resources and services will be critical to the functioning of vital County services in the event of a catastrophic disaster event. Recent Disaster Recovery (DR) exercises for the CEO/IT datacenter have not been completed successfully. Thus, the costs, time, and possibly the ability to recover some or all datacenter operations after a catastrophic disaster event has not been determined or demonstrated.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Because critical law enforcement, public protection and safety functions of the Sheriff’s Department are currently at risk, The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff should place the highest possible priority on studying the alternatives for a short-term DR solution for the Sheriff’s critical systems, selecting and funding an alternative, and implementing and testing it as soon as possible. (F.4.)

F4: The Sheriff’s Department has both its primary production and backup mainframe computers and critical server platforms at its own datacenter. Those computers run most of the Sheriff’s critical applications, including Field, Booking, Jail, Criminal History and Records, and interfaces to outside databases such as the CJIS, DOJ, DMV, etc. A significant physical disaster event or cyber-attack disabling that datacenter would almost completely disrupt the Sheriff’s major law enforcement and public safety and protection functions. There is currently no plan in place to recover the Sheriff’s datacenter functions at another location.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: CEO/IT should strengthen its leadership role in seeing that all County agencies/departments with critical functions dependent on IT processes implement and test DR procedures to meet stated recovery goals. (F.3., F.4.)

F5: IT best practices indicate that user satisfaction should be a key measurement of IT services. The current contracts for managed services both specify that the County shall “conduct satisfaction surveys semi-annually…or more frequently.” However, there are no consistent countywide policies, guidelines, or procedures for user satisfaction surveys of all IT services, including those provided by agencies/departments, and surveys are not taken or published on a regular basis.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: CEO/IT should establish policies and procedures, and recommend the format and timing for user satisfaction surveys of IT services users, including CEO/IT services, and agency/department IT services. CEO/IT should review and publish the results of surveys of themselves and of agencies/departments and make the results available to all agencies/departments. (F.5.)

F6: The CEO/IT’s project management methodology that is accessible through the County Intranet site describes a traditional “Waterfall” approach to system development. Although still being used in the industry, Waterfall is a somewhat dated approach. More current Agile system development methodologies have proven very successful in several County agencies and are recommended in the IT industry as best practices. Use of the Waterfall approach may have been a factor in the failure of the PTMS development project; however, there are many factors that can contribute to the success or failure of system development projects, and the Grand Jury renders no opinion as to the fault or liability relative to any litigation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: CEO/IT should study, embrace, and consider incorporating Agile methodologies into the system development methodologies offered by the Project Management Office and presented on its website. CEO/IT should have the necessary expertise, and should promote use of Agile methodologies on projects where, and to the degree it is appropriate. (F.6.)

F7: Under the new managed services contracts, costs for these outsourced services will be very predictable over the life of the contracts, as long as the County can predict, manage, and control volumes (data, transactions, service calls, etc.) over that period.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: In order to control and predict IT costs under the new Managed Services contracts, CEO/IT should use contract and other mechanisms to very closely monitor IT volumes specified in the contracts. Current and predicted costs or rate changes, and recommendations to avoid future costs increases based on volume trends should be reported to affected departments and agencies and to the Board of Supervisors. (F.7.)

F8: Under the new outsourced contracts, consolidation and centralization of some IT services will result in overall cost savings. It will also standardize the delivery of many services, allowing for more consistent governance and alignment with County strategies and IT guidelines. However, agencies/departments are concerned that additional centralization will result in higher costs and reduced levels of service for them. Centralization of some services may make more business sense than others, and this may vary by function and by business unit. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested, from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Information Technology in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following nine recommendations:

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Before centralizing IT services for an agency or department, CEO/IT should conduct a thorough analysis of the business case for the change, and one of the IT governance groups should review this case. The analysis should include a plan for prevention or mitigation of the possible reduction of service levels and quality, developed with and agreed to by the affected agency. (F.8.) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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: Response Required: Sheriff/Coroner: F.4. Responses Requested: CEO/IT: F.1, F.2., F.3., F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8. Responses Required: Sheriff/Coroner: R.3. Board of Supervisors: R.2., R.3. Responses Requested: CEO/IT: R.1, R.2., R.4., R.5., R.6., R.7., R.8.

May 01, 2014 — Community College Trustees:

36 pages 10 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: District Trustees by their title, oath of office and non-partisan designation are responsible for a high standard of conduct, free from outside influence and charged with the duty to act in the best interest of the district.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The chancellor and trustees should complete an ―Ethics Training‖ program similar to the requirements of California AB1234. A record of this should be maintained on the district website. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8., F.9.)

F2: The trustee office is, by design, a part time position and the overwhelming management and operation of the district, in consultation with employee senates, is delegated by the board to the chancellor.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The chancellor and trustees should maintain a list (e.g. CA Form 460) of campaign contributions made to each member of the board during the previous four years. This list should be reported and updated on the district website in July and January of each year. (F.1., F.5., F.6.,

F3: Trustees govern under guidelines, restraints and recommendations provided by the California Legislature, State Chancellor‘s Office, accreditation commissions and professional membership organizations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The chancellor and trustees should strongly consider advising the entire board of ―potential‖ conflicts of interest on district contracts involving campaign donors from the previous four years. (F.1., F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8., F.9.)

F4: Trustees are not well known within their own district, and govern in meetings that are often not well attended. This was based on surveys, interviews and site visits.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The district board should develop a policy for the rotational selection of officers of the board. (F.1., F.3., F.6., F.8., F.9.)

F5: Trustees can have large campaign budgets and may have received contributions from individuals and firms that do business with the district.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The chancellor and trustees should report their total individual travel expenditures in a public meeting and on the district website. This should be reported four times each year. (F.1.,

F6: There is a lack of ethics training received by trustees and there is minimal oversight over their actions and behaviors, particularly their spending habits for travel.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Trustees should report, on the district website biography section, any official political party leadership positions. (F.1., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., F.8., F.9.)

F7: Trustees may receive generous benefits that are often approved by themselves. Examples: a. Paid health, dental and life insurance benefits for trustees and their families, b. Large travel and conference reimbursements, c. A variety of miscellaneous stipends, allowances, and expenses.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The chancellor should report the value of all district compensation received by each trustee during the previous fiscal year. This should be reported at the first board meeting in September of each year and posted on the district website. (F.1., F.4., F.6., F.7., F.9.)

F8: Trustees provide extensive personal information on the district website but little information about their performance in office.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Strong consideration should be given to sending a copy of this 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury study and district responses to collaborating educational organizations. (F.1., F.2.,

F9: Laws, regulations, guidelines and ethics require trustees to be fully transparent in all aspects of their actions, behavior, and performance. The actions of trustees should be readily available for public review.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: Strong consideration should be given to posting the chancellor‘s complete employment contract on the district‘s website to promote transparency. (F.10.) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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: Response Required: Chancellor/Board of Trustees, Coast Community College District:

F10: District chancellors are some of the most highly paid public officials in Orange County, yet their salaries or contracts are not easily accessible to the public. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested, from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Community Colleges in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following eight recommendations:

March 27, 2014 — Domestic Violence:

35 pages 10 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: Instances of domestic violence are prevalent in Orange County. The evidence indicates that thousands seek help through crises hotlines, emergency shelters and counseling programs in locations throughout the County.

F2: There are many Orange County government agencies that are actively addressing domestic violence issues involving both victim and batterer.

F3: Orange County has established effective partnerships with domestic violence emergency shelters for victims.

F4: Orange County has established effective partnerships with non-profit organizations that offer victims support and resources through the legal justice system.

F5: There is a lack of constructive communication regarding the Batterer Intervention Program (BIP) between the Probation Department, Programs Division and the BIP facilitators that have formal Memoranda of Understanding with Orange County.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: Orange County Probation Department, Programs Division should begin to conduct written surveys of Batterer Intervention Program (BIP) participants and the probation staff that supervise them to obtain input and suggestions on improving the program. (F.5.)

R2: Orange County Probation Department, Programs Division should begin to conduct written surveys of the BIP facilitators to obtain input on the effectiveness of BIP and recommendations for improvement. (F.5.)

R3: Probation Department, Programs Division should promote more in-depth agendas for the CADVOC quarterly meetings that include attendee interactions and County government guest speakers such as the Behavioral Health Services. (F.5.)

F6: Orange County Health Care Agency, Behavioral Health Services receives substantial annual funding from the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) from the state of California, some of which could be applied to the problem of domestic abuse.

F7: Orange County Health Care Agency, Behavioral Health Services staff hosts an annual meeting of County stakeholders to receive input on how best to distribute and spend MHSA funding. Agencies and non-profit organizations that deal primarily with domestic violence have not been included in the collaboration.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Health Care Agency, Behavioral Health Services should include representatives from the Probation Department, Batterers Intervention Program facilitators and the four domestic violence shelters in the participation of the annual Mental Health Services Act planning process as stakeholders. (F.7.), (F.8.), (F.9.)

F8: Advocates and representatives of domestic violence victims and their batterers need additional information and understanding of Orange County sponsored mental health programs and services that can provide assistance for clients with long term mental health illnesses.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: Health Care Agency, Behavioral Health Services should appoint a liaison between its office and the four domestic violence emergency shelters that receive County funds. The liaison will contact these four organizations and offer to attend their collaborative meetings as well as assist with understanding the available County mental health programs and services. (F.8.)

R5: Health Care Agency, Behavioral Health Services should appoint a liaison with the Probation Department to assist the probation staff with identifying mental health issues of convicted batterers under probation supervision. (F.8.), (F.9.)

F9: There is a gap in coordination and collaboration between the Orange County Health Care Agency, Behavioral Health Services, and the Orange County Probation Department, Special Supervision Division, in addressing the mental health issues of convicted batterers under court ordered supervision.

Related Recommendations (2)

F10: The process for requesting a temporary restraining order from the Lamoreaux Justice Center in the city of Orange is burdensome for domestic violence victims living in southern Orange County communities. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Domestic Violence in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following seven recommendations:

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Orange County District Attorney should request the Orange County Superior Court to consider allowing requests for restraining orders to be faxed to the Lamoreaux Justice Center from the domestic violence shelter that receives County funds and is located 25 miles away. (F.10.) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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-Coroner, 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 Requested: Orange County Probation Department: F-5, F-8, F-9 Orange County Health Care Agency: F-6, F-7, F-9 Responses Required: Orange County District Attorney’s Office: F-10 Responses Requested: Orange County Probation Department: R-1, R-2, R-3, Orange County Health Care Agency: R-4, R-5, R-6 Responses Required: Orange County District Attorney’s Office: R-7

School Bonds – the Untold Story of Assessed Values

39 pages 9 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: Taxpayers in the Westminster, Cypress and Savanna Elementary School Districts will potentially be faced with significantly higher tax rates in future years to repay school construction bonds.

F2: The funds raised through these school bonds for the Westminster, Cypress and Savanna Elementary School Districts have been spent on much needed capital improvements. All three of these districts were faced with schools that in some cases had not been renovated in over 50 years. These districts are making tremendous progress in bringing their schools up to a 21st Century standard.

F3: Savanna Elementary School District received a waiver from the State Board of Education in July 2012 to exceed the bonded indebtedness limit of 1.25% of assessed values (AVs). Savanna applied for the waiver before exceeding the bonded indebtedness limit.

F4: School districts located in lower AV areas are at a distinct disadvantage in terms of their bonding capacity per student. For instance, Laguna Beach Unified School District has over ten times the bonding capacity per student as Garden Grove Unified School District.

F5: The 20 year average for growth in AVs for the Savanna, Cypress and Westminster Elementary School Districts are approximately 4% per year.

F6: The assumptions made for the expected growth in AVs in the future years has a very significant effect on the corresponding tax rates. For example, in the Savanna Elementary School District, the tax rate will be $60.74 per $100,000 of AV in the year 2052 if the AVs continue to grow at an average of 4% per year. The tax rate falls to $20.04 per $100,000 of AV in the year 2052 if the AVs grow at an average rate of 7%.

F7: The homeowners and property owners will pay additional taxes of $2,025, $809 and $628 per $100,000 of AV over the term of the bonds in the Savanna, Cypress and Westminster Elementary School Districts respectively if AVs continue to grow at the historical rate of 4%.

F8: The methodology used by the Savanna, Cypress and Westminster Elementary School Districts to estimate the future growth rates for AVs does not appear to be reliable to the Grand Jury. Savanna and Cypress relied on average growth of AVs over a 35-year period. The first 10 to 15 years of this historical data includes a considerable amount of original development, thereby inflating the average AV growth rate. Westminster developed an estimate of AV growth that appears to have no historical or factual basis. AV growth is projected to average around 6% from the years 2017 – 2041, and then tails off dramatically for the last 10 years of the bonds, averaging less than 2%. Using this estimate, Westminster projects the district will never exceed the legal tax rate of $30 per $100,000.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: All school districts in Orange County should include a clear explanation of the assumed future growth rate of assessed values in the bond election materials made available to voters for future bond issues. This explanation should reference the relevant historical assessed value data for the individual district. For instance, if the district is fundamentally built out, the historical assessed value data should not include years with significant development because that is not indicative of the district’s current and future situation. (F.1., F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8.)

F9: Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) does not have any statutory authority to ensure all Orange County school districts properly disclose assessed value assumptions for bond measures being presented to voters for approval. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of School Bonds – The Untold Story of Assessed Values, the 2013- 2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations:

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Although there is no statutory requirement, the Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) should evaluate whether to assume voluntary oversight responsibility, with concurrence of the individual school district issuing the bonds, to ensure all Orange County school districts properly disclose their assessed value assumptions used for future bond measures. (F.9) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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: Savanna, Cypress and Westminster Elementary School Districts: F.1., F.2., F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8. Savanna Elementary School District: F.3. Superintendent of Schools, Orange County Department of Education: F.4., F.9. Elementary Districts: Anaheim City, Buena Park, Centralia, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, La Habra, Magnolia, Ocean View, Savanna, Westminster: R1 High School Districts: Anaheim Union, Fullerton Joint, Huntington Beach: R1 Unified Districts: Brea-Olinda, Capistrano, Garden Grove, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Los Alamitos, Newport-Mesa, Orange, Placentia-Yorba Linda, Saddleback Valley, Santa Ana, Tustin: R1 Superintendent of Schools, Orange County Department of Education: R.1., R.2. APPENDICES

Annual Report on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities

26 pages 9 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: All the jails have inadequate video equipment. The video equipment itself is not the hindrance. The cost to upgrade the infrastructure to accommodate new updated equipment is the limiting factor.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Each of the five jails should be funded for upgraded video camera/recording equipment installed as soon as possible. (F.1.)

F2: Budget constraints have marginalized upgrading efficient video equipment, thus reducing adequate monitoring of inmates.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should add a line item to the budget to include the training required to ensure competent employees who can oversee and maintain new video equipment. (F.4.) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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-Coroner, 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: A response to findings F.1. through F.4. is required from Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. A response to findings F.1. through F.4. is required from Orange County Board of Supervisors A response to recommendations R.1. and R.2. is required from Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. A response to recommendations R.1. and R.2. is required from Orange County Board of Supervisors. COMMENDATIONS In every step, the Grand Jury’s jail tours were handled professionally and confidently. The Grand Jury was met with warmth and each facility was eager to convey jail function and responsibilities. The Grand Jury would especially like to commend the leadership and staff at Theo Lacy for a willingness on both tours to provide The Grand Jury with all requested information for this report submitted to the facility in a questionnaire format. Responses were returned both timely and hand delivered! The informative tours at James Musick were equally professional. The staff enlightened the Grand Jury on the approved expansion plans set for 2016 and how this will alleviate the space and overcrowding the State’s realignment program has burdened County facilities with. JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES SUMMARY The Orange County Probation Department currently operates four juvenile detention and treatment facilities in the County. There were originally five facilities. However, Los Piños, which was located on the Ortega Highway in Lake Elsinore, was closed in 2009, though it continues to be leased by the Orange County Probation Department. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury traveled to each of the four facilities in use today (below) and was given presentations by senior staff. 1. Juvenile Hall 2. Youth Leadership Academy 3. Youth Guidance Center 4. Joplin Youth Center The Grand Jury determined that all four facilities had many similar needs. There was a need for a new gym, medical facilities, a longer commitment than the typical ninety days to take advantage of the numerous programs offered and aftercare programs. More efficient, up-graded video systems were also needed at all of the facilities. REASON FOR STUDY The Grand Jury is charged by the California Penal Code 919(b) to review all detention facilities in the county. Part II of the Annual Report on Jails focuses on four juvenile detention and treatment facilities in Orange County. This study is in conjunction with the Annual Report on Jails as mandated by the California Penal Code Section 919(b) requiring the Grand Jury to “…inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” The 2013-2014 Grand Jury opted to include the Juvenile Detention Centers as an addendum to the jail report since Juvenile Detention lies within the purview of the Grand Jury as well. BACKGROUND AND FACTS During 2013-2014, the Orange County Probation Department operated four juvenile detention centers. They are as follows: 1. Juvenile Hall 2. Joplin Youth Center 3. The Youth Leadership Academy 4. The Youth Guidance Center Another detention center, Los Piños, was closed in 2009, though the land and buildings continues to be leased by the Orange County Probation Department in the event the facility may be reopened. The intent of the Probation Department is to help prepare juvenile offenders to be more productive and law abiding in their communities when they leave the program. The Probation Department strongly believes that effective rehabilitation is better than punishment and incarceration. Described in this report, the Probation Department has numerous programs to reduce recidivism and to give juvenile offenders the opportunity to prepare for a successful and productive return to society. Orange County Juvenile Hall Juvenile Hall is located on City Drive in the City of Orange. The facility is located next to the Lamoreaux Justice Center where the juvenile courts are held. The age range of the youth is from 10 to 21 years old. There are a total of 434 beds in this maximum security facility though it is currently staffed at 380 beds. The population at the time of the Grand Jury visit was 208 which consisted of 191 males and 17 females. Last year at this same time, there were 229 youth which declined to 198 by year’s end. The Grand Jury learned that the population at Juvenile Hall has been decreasing for the last five years. This coincides with a nationwide drop in juvenile crime due to better policing and policies such as finding ways to work with offenders through educational and professional programs rather than simply detaining them. At full capacity, Juvenile Hall employs a maximum staff of 472, though only 390 positions were actually filled at the time of the Grand Jury visit. The average length of stay at Juvenile Hall is 27 days which includes youth spending at least one night (until parents can be located), to some youth committed up to three years for serious crimes. Visitation hours are limited to two hours in duration and typically take place on Saturdays and Sundays. Visitation is for families only (no minors) and only two family members at a time may attend. Special visits may be arranged as needed for those juvenile detainees who actually have children. Juvenile Hall was built in phases from 1950 to 2005 and is compliant with the ADA. There are nurses on-site 24/7 as well as doctors throughout the day and on call when they are not on-site. An OB/GYN (obstetrics and gynecology) physician attends to female detainees once a week. There is also a dentist that meets the needs of the youth at the facility. Boys and girls are assigned to separate living units designed to house 20 to 60 juveniles. The units have sleeping rooms, restrooms, showers, and a day room for leisure activities. The Intake and Release Center houses boys and girls who have been newly arrested as well as those awaiting an initial court appearance. There are also units that separately house non-violent minors, sex offenders, violent offenders, and the mentally ill. There is a very complete, though outdated video recording system with good coverage. The cameras are highly visible throughout the facility. There is also a central video monitoring center. Various upgrades to the video system are scheduled for the latter part of 2014 and will be upgraded to a newer digital system. The Orange County Department of Education provides a fully accredited academic program on site. The accreditation is provided by the Otto Fischer High School, which also accommodates a middle school curriculum. This is a State aligned curriculum that follows California State Standards and Framework for all classes. There is a full-time Principal for the Otto Fischer High School who serves as the Principal for the middle school as well; there are 50 full time teachers on-site. There is a well-stocked library with mobile book carts that transport books to various sections of the facility as needed. The youth attend school all day, Monday through Friday, which includes a 1-hour exercise program per day. The school also has a full-time sports league, which teaches the value of team sports. There are many programs and services available for the youth offenders. Noteworthy are: a) “Thinking for a Change,”8 is a program which has proven to reduce recidivism by 36%. This program is a multi-week, behavioral treatment program designed to assist youth with cognitive restructuring, and the development of social and problem solving skills. It guides juvenile offenders through the Trouble Cycle which is recognizing the thinking that leads to trouble and teaches them about bad decisions and their consequences versus positive decisions that lead to better outcomes. b) “Decision Points,”9 is similar to “Thinking for a Change,” though of minimal duration with 4 sessions lasting only 2 weeks. This program is comprised of cognitive and behavioral management that focuses on key social and problem solving skills designed specifically for short-term stays. This shorter session ensures more youths can complete the course during their detention. 8 http://www.nicic.gov/t4c 9 Interview with O.C. Juvenile Hall personnel c) “Stop the Cycle” is a program that, with parental involvement, helps youth control their thoughts and feelings by turning negative behaviors into more positive ones. Juvenile Hall partners with the Parks and Recreation Department to allow some youth to engage in Saturday and Sunday work programs like cleaning parks rather than being detained at the facility. This allows juveniles an opportunity to go offsite in supervised activities that give them a sense of pride and accomplishment. There are also programs for substance abuse, family therapy, parenting, computer classes, and Regional Occupational Programs (ROP)10 for students who want to expand vocational opportunities through vocational classes besides academics. Disciplinary issues are handled with verbal counseling, room confinement, additional work hours, early bed time, or writing assignments. Joplin Youth Center The Joplin Youth Center is a juvenile correctional facility nestled in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains above Trabuco Canyon. This is a minimum-security facility that houses boys from ages 13 to 16 and was built in 1958 with a maximum capacity of 64 beds. The average length of stay at Joplin is approximately 35 days. At the time of the Grand Jury inspection visit, 49 beds were occupied. Although Joplin’s location is very isolated with little security, there are no armed officers. Youth are carefully screened for suitability. Those with a history of running away are not considered good candidates. Juveniles are assigned at the Orange County Juvenile Hall and typically have 30 to 60 days remaining on their court commitments. Joplin employs a staff of 52, of which 44 are employed by the Orange County Probation Department. The remaining eight consists of therapists, a nurse and counselors. A nurse is on site three days a week (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) and Juvenile Hall’s Medical Unit is available by phone 24 hours a day. Additionally, there are four teachers who provide onsite state curriculum to Joplin High School overseen by the Orange County Department of Education. A typical school day at Joplin consists of five, 55-minute classes in which the students work on individualized courses of instruction. Juveniles also receive special education classes, employment training, library access and math tutoring as needed. The school administration consists of a part-time Assistant Principal who is at Joplin on average, two days a week, and a full-time front office specialist. Rehabilitation and academics are a priority at Joplin by the staff and the Orange County Health Care Agency who provide counseling for youth that have abused drugs and alcohol. Other topics such as gang violence intervention, anger management, and parenting skills are also provided. There are numerous programs and activities available to the juveniles such as gardening, culinary arts, “Thinking for a Change,” Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and vehicle 10 http://rop.ocde.us/ maintenance that provides them with basic work habits and improvement of social skills. Additionally, there are apprentice programs in skills for laundry, kitchen help and woodshop. Boys are expected to complete various daily and weekly chores which include maintaining the Joplin grounds, as well as office and kitchen cleanup. Boys also have the opportunity to learn skills in a clean, well-stocked industrial shop for woodworking that houses machinery like lathes and radial saws, etc. Boys are also instructed on how to cooperate and follow directions in the proper use of a variety of industrial tools in safe, effective ways. All youth receive at least one hour of large muscle exercise daily plus there are sports leagues that are available such as basketball, flag football and soft ball. Volunteers offer numerous other services such as Bible study, worship services, tutoring and crafts. The programs are designed so that Joplin functions as a small community where the boys learn to relate to one another in more positive ways and hopefully learn to function in society with stronger interpersonal skills. The juveniles are divided into five living groups and are graded by the staff on a daily basis, both as individuals and group members. Some of the basic responsibilities include following rules, personal hygiene and being respectful to help the youth develop a better sense of responsibility. Each month the group with the most points receives a reward for their efforts. Weekly payments in “Joplin Money” are made to those earning rewards and are subsequently used at an on-site store to purchase additional snacks and personal items beyond what is made available to all the boys at Joplin Youth Center. Parents and legal guardians are allowed to visit their boys on-site each Sunday from 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Other relatives may visit if they are approved prior to the visit. Some find it difficult to get to Joplin due to the remote location, in which case, boys can be transported to Juvenile Hall for special visits when necessary. Disciplinary problems are handled with a variety of informal sanctions for petty infractions. For major or repeated violations of institutional rules, disciplinary options include loss of privileges for a specified period of time up to and including removal to Juvenile Hall. The staff does break up fights and are trained in the use of physical, mechanical, and chemical methods (such as pepper spray) if necessary. The boys wear different colored T-shirts that represent their status at Joplin. Severe infractions, including running away, result in a disciplinary hearing and a transfer to Juvenile Hall. The Grand Jury discovered that the program benefits would be greatly enhanced by longer terms in residence. The brief stays result in a high rate of turnover of students creating a difficult situation for the school staff, effectively minimizing the lasting carryover effects of the rehabilitative experience from many of the programs offered. Youth Leadership Academy Youth Leadership Academy is a medium security juvenile residential and treatment center operated by the Orange County Probation Department. The facility is centrally located behind Juvenile Hall, consisting of two, two-story buildings, is ADA compliant, and has a capacity of 120 beds. Only half of the beds are currently in use due to budget reductions. At the time of the Grand Jury visit, only 25 beds were occupied. The population consists of youths between 17 to 20 years old who have experienced problems with aggression and anti-social behavior with a moderate to high risk to re-offend. Only males reside in this facility with an average length of stay usually under 50 days. The facility opened in 2006. It is self-contained and includes laundry and intake/release services. Each building contains a control center, dayrooms, dining and multi- purpose areas with shared access to four school classrooms and outdoor recreation space. A third building serves as the administration building. The multi-lingual staff consists of the following: Probation Division Director 1 Supervising Juvenile Corrections Officer 3 Deputy Juvenile Corrections Officer 23 Administrative and Clerical 2 The above unarmed staff positions are all employed by the Orange County Probation Department. All Deputy Juvenile Corrections Officers complete the state mandated “Juvenile Corrections Officer Core Course” prior to working in the institution. The five-week course provides a broad range of specialized training to prepare officers for working with youth in a custody setting. Individuals with health problems go to Juvenile Hall and are assessed then treated by the Orange County Health Agency where youths receive whatever medical care they need; preventative or emergency. The Youth Leadership Academy provides a comprehensive residential program designed to prepare youth to re-enter and transition back into the community through enhanced programs including, but not limited to, remedial education, rehabilitative treatment programs, substance abuse programs, mental health services, and community outreach opportunities. Education is provided by the Orange County Department of Education at Otto Fisher High School on the grounds of Juvenile Hall. A full range of educational services are provided including special education, General Education Development (GED) preparation, high school graduation, educational counseling services, and transition to community schools after release from custody. A total of four teachers are on the Otto Fisher staff, employed by the Orange County Department of Education. A certified counselor, a psychological clinician, as well as special education evaluations and services, help juveniles achieve success. Religious services are available and primarily provided through the Catholic Detention Ministries and Pacific Youth Correctional Ministries. Services are conducted one time a week and evening bible studies are available one evening a week for each ministry. All youth are provided a minimum of three hours of recreation and physical exercise each school day and five hours of recreation and physical exercise during non-school days. Youth are given the opportunity to participate in sports leagues such as basketball, flag football and soft ball. The Youth Leadership Academy also utilizes Evidence Based Programs11 and activities that have been proven to be effective like “Thinking for a Change” and “Decision Points” previously mentioned under the heading; Orange County Juvenile Hall. Efforts are made to include the youth’s family and are assigned a probation officer throughout each phase of these programs to ensure a successful transition into the community. Staff led activities and programming are developed and presented to promote pro-social attitudes and life skills. Some of these programs and activities include landscaping crews, driver education, college tours, vocational skills, and anger management courses. Visitation at the Youth Leadership Academy takes place every Saturday from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. for two hours with up to two parents, guardians, or other approved visitors. Special visits with younger siblings, infant children of youth housed at the facility, and other individuals who have a positive relationship with the youth are arranged on a case-by-case basis. Duration of these visits is determined based on the juvenile’s relationship to the visitor and case objectives. Youth who successfully achieve higher citizenship levels become eligible for on-site furloughs in which families are allowed to have lightly supervised visits. Youth who achieve the highest level of citizenship and show sustained positive behavior may earn an off-site furlough (escorted by their parent or guardian) to attend activities such as employment searches, job interviews, participate in family activities, or attend religious services. Discipline is handled on a case-by-case basis. Verbal counseling and redirection is used for minor infractions. More serious discipline problems can result in work assignments and loss of free time activities. Youth who commit major rule violations such as violent acts may be returned to court or transferred to Juvenile Hall. Staff is trained in a variety of verbal and physical interventions designed to control youth who are acting out. The staff must also be proficient in empty hand techniques (no use of weapons), use of handcuffs and leg restraints, and the approved use of pepper spray. Work release programs are available for juveniles who are housed at the Youth Leadership Academy. Those who achieve the highest level of citizenship and show sustained positive behavior, with a desire to actively work on transition into the community, may be permitted to 11 Interview with Youth Leadership Personnel attend a community college during the day or participate in part-time employment at a local business during weekend hours. This activity is usually reserved for a youth coming to the end of a longer than average period of confinement. Youth Guidance Center The Orange County Youth Guidance Center is a minimum security facility centrally located in Santa Ana across the river from Juvenile Hall and the Youth Leadership Academy. It has a total of 125 beds with 30 currently occupied as of this writing. The facility is ADA compliant. The facility houses male and female juveniles ranging in age from 14 to 20 years old. They are separated during confinement. At the time of the Grand Jury visit, there was a population of 83 youths residing at the facility; 65 males and 18 females, with an average 90-day length of stay. There are a total of 71 unarmed staff members on-site, all employed by the Orange County Probation Department. The staff is multi-lingual in Spanish, Tagalog, Korean, Cantonese, and Samoan/Hawaiian. The facility offers substance abuse rehabilitation for the youths. A program is offered to reduce recidivism through behavior modification. All residents participate in academic programs at the on-site Rio Contiguo High School operated by the Orange County Superintendent of Schools/Department of Education. Students normally attend six classes each day. Selected students may attend off-site college courses or correspondence and televised courses for college credit. The teaching staff consists of six General Education teachers and one Special Education teacher. The staff is trained in behavior for At-Risk Youths in the Classroom and Discipline Training. Gang Probation Officers lecture to juveniles on current trends in Orange County. Several of the Administration staff have attended the Annie E. Casey Foundation Administrative Training Program; a private charitable foundation, dedicated to helping build better futures for disadvantaged children in the United States. Rio Contiguo High School also offers two life-skills programs that affect behavior modification: “Thinking for a Change” (mentioned earlier) and “Aggressive Replacement Training,” which features three coordinated and integrated components that include social skills training, anger control and moral reasoning. The ROP teaches skills such as business technology, culinary arts and parenting. This program gives students the opportunity to work in a business environment and learn the skills necessary for such an undertaking. There are no work release programs for juveniles housed at this facility. Drug abuse is a central issue for the juveniles at the Youth Guidance Center. There are several programs that deal with this problem. Individual treatment plans are tailored to each juvenile’s specific needs. Each of the living units has an on-site psychologist, drug counselor and probation officer who establish goals and objectives for youth during their stay. There is a nurse available on-site Monday thru Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Discipline is handled progressively according to the offense, which is broken down into minor and major categories. Fights are broken up by the staff with verbal commands, use of force and pepper spray if needed with serious infractions sending juveniles back to court or Juvenile Hall. Visiting hours are held weekly on Saturday from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Only 2 adult parents or guardians are allowed to visit. Furloughs are sometimes permitted for 2 hours on-site and from 2 to 12 hours off-site. METHOD OF STUDY The Grand Jury visited and inspected each of the existing four facilities. Two visits were made to Juvenile Hall and Youth Leadership Academy and one visit was made to Youth Guidance Center and Joplin Youth Center. Managers and some staff were interviewed at length with prepared questions. The Grand Jury also reviewed documents presented by each facility that support protocols necessary for juvenile rehabilitation. ANALYSIS Orange County Juvenile Detention Facilities have a fluctuating population on a daily basis. The Grand Jury determined that none of the facilities were over staffed based on the fact that each facility was staffed twenty-four/seven. Each facility had trained staff to take care of use-of-force incidents by verbal commands, pepper spray when needed and physical restraints if appropriate. All four detention facilities offered numerous programs that help youth achieve success after being released from confinement. The Grand Jury learned there is a majority consensus amongst staff from all the facilities that longer terms of confinement are of greater benefit to detainees. It was determined that longer stays reinforce newly acquired behaviors and contribute to the declining rate of recidivism. The Grand Jury discovered that the juvenile detention centers are also in need of more efficient up-graded video systems, though these facilities do not have the same infrastructure constraints as James A. Musick, Theo Lacy, and the Central Jail Complex. Juvenile Hall The Grand Jury believes the following facility enhancements would benefit youth, staff, and the County: 1. A gym also used as a visiting center, as well as a chapel. There is already space to accommodate this. The gym could also be used for graduations, assembly and activity when the youths cannot go outside due to weather conditions. 2. An infirmary with a negative pressure room for juveniles affected by any form of contagion. This would save time and costs for the staff rather than having to transport youth to an outside medical facility. This infirmary could be built in an existing area across from the current intake unit. 3. Updating the antiquated video surveillance system to a new, digital system that could be easily viewed from throughout the facility. Joplin Youth Center The Grand Jury has determined that the following three staffing improvements are necessary: 1. A full-time school administrator who will: a) attend to minor school disciplinary issues within the school environment in order to better prepare youth for their return to public school, and b) oversee the teaching staff and curriculum on a daily basis; to enhance communication and collaboration between probation and the school. (The OC Department of Education is not a County agency but acts on behalf of the County when educating juveniles). 2. Due to budget and position cuts experienced over the past five plus years, Joplin lost the only assigned Transitional Deputy Probation Officer at that facility two years ago. Reinstating such a critical position would be highly beneficial by enhancing an already short-staffed probation department at Joplin. 3. Additional mental health and substance abuse services would be beneficial. Youth Leadership Academy The Grand Jury identified one of the largest and most complex issues confronting juvenile justice in California is the need for mental health services for youth in custody and post-custody. The Academy continues to explore ways to connect youth with programs that while in custody will eventually help facilitate their transition back into their family and community. Youth Guidance Center The Grand Jury believes that detainees should be confined longer than 90 days to take full advantage of the numerous programs offered. Also, there is a need for more aftercare programs and additional probation officers to supervise these programs. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.5, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) the responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. Based on its investigation of Juvenile Detention and Treatment facilities in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at nine principal findings, as follows:

F3: As the quickest fix to alleviate partial improvements, prioritize what jail facilities are most in need of upgraded surveillance and then fund each one accordingly until all five jails are completed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Probation Department should update antiquated video surveillance to a more advanced digital system at all four juvenile detention and treatment facilities. (F.3.)

F4: The skill level of employees assigned to the five jails cannot currently support upgraded video systems. An upgraded system would require advanced training in audio/video equipment, software programming and security to monitor such an enterprise. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Probation Department should add a full-time school administrator at the Joplin Youth Center (F.4.)

F5: Due to budget and position cuts experienced over the past five plus years, Joplin lost the only assigned Transitional Deputy Probation Officer two years ago.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Probation Department should establish a budget to reinstate the Transitional Deputy Probation Officer. (F.5.)

F6: Joplin is in need of mental health and substance abuse services. One of the largest and most complex issues confronting justice in California is the need for mental health services for youth in custody and for post-custody.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Probation Department should establish a budget for the addition of mental health and substance abuse services. (F.6.)

F7: The four facilities would benefit from longer terms of residence beyond the typical 90 days in order for youth to have full advantage of the numerous programs offered.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Probation Department should conduct a study to determine if program benefits would be enhanced by longer terms of residence beyond the typical 90 days. (F.7.)

F8: The Academy needs to continue exploring additional ways to connect youth with services while in custody that will transition them back into the community and assist the entire family.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Probation Department should determine if the Youth Leadership Academy has the need to explore additional ways to connect youth with services while in custody that will transition them back into the community and assist their family. (F.8.)

F9: There is a need for additional post release programs with more probation officers to supervise these programs. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Juvenile Detention and Treatment facilities in Orange County, the 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Probation Department should determine the possibility of additional post release programs with more probation officers to supervise these programs. (F.9.) REQUIRED RESPONSES 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: A response to findings F.1. thru F.9. is requested from the Orange County Probation Department. A response to findings F.3. F.5 and F.6. is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. A response to findings F.4. is required from the Superintendent of Schools/Department of Education. A response to recommendations R.1. thru R.9. is requested from the Orange County Probation Department. A response to recommendations R.3., R.5. and R.6. is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. A response to recommendation R.4. is required from the Superintendent of Schools/Department of Education. COMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury would like to commend all four of the Juvenile Detention Facilities that were visited. The degree of professionalism and cooperation was outstanding. The rehabilitation programs offered the youth were explained in detail. The staff at each facility showed great determination to helping youth succeed in improving their lives after their release from confinement.