Orange County Grand Jury
2015-2016
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (31)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Some County responses to Grand Jury Reports are submitted after the date due by law or not at all. Greater County follow-up is necessary to ensure responses are submitted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CEO should meet with each sitting OCGJ by March 31st of each year to provide a status report of open responses to previous grand jury reports. The status report should include a brief Executive Summary covering financial challenges and opportunities facing the county that could impact the timing of response implementation. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control 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 authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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 are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings 1-3; Recommendation 1). Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: Orange County Chief Executive Officer (Findings 1-3; Recommendation 1). REFERENCES 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury. (2016). To Be Continued...Follow-Up for Open Formal Grand Jury Report Responses. Retrieved from Orange County Grand Jury: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2015_2016_GJreport/2016-05- 03_Responses_Website_Report.pdf Administrative Office of the Courts. (2005). Model Guide for California Grand Juries. APPENDICES Appendix A: 2015-2016 Grand Jury Reports Responses
F2:
Many responses to Grand Jury reports are not submitted in the format required by law and/or are incomplete. Greater follow-up by the County is needed to ensure required responses to findings and recommendations are submitted on time and in the appropriate format.
F3:
Many responses to Grand Jury reports declare that the recommendation “will be implemented in the future” or that the recommendation “requires further analysis” with future dates for implementation. Implementation of recommendations aimed at fixing complex problems or calling for expensive solutions can often run up against the realities of the budgeting or procurement processes. Improved mechanisms are required to ensure these responses come to fruition. 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 2016-2017 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 entitled “Unfinished Business: Responses to 2015-2016 Grand Jury Reports” in Orange County, the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendation:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
All but one of Orange County’s twenty-eight school districts have (encapsulated) asbestos present at one or more its schools.
F2:
Although current EPA standards provide that encapsulated asbestos does not present an immediate hazard to people who come near it, any physical disturbance and/or weathering which damages that encapsulation and releases asbestos fibers into the air will present an immediate hazard to anyone exposed to those fibers. Hence, broad-based awareness of where encapsulated asbestos is located is essential to avoid disturbing it such that it does become a threat to students and staff.
F3:
Many school districts are not in full compliance with the AHERA regulatory requirement to have applicable AHERA reports available in the main offices of each school for public review.
F4:
Many school districts are not in full compliance with the AHERA regulatory requirement to identify at each school in their district a “Designated Person” and to train each Designated Person to EPA-defined standards.
F5:
Although nearly all school districts train their facilities and maintenance staff on hazardous materials management, many fail to provide hazardous materials training to their teaching and administrative staff.
F6:
Orange County public schools are subject to very infrequent EPA inspections for AHERA compliance.
F7:
Inadequately managed construction efforts at more than one Orange County public school have led to expensive and disruptive hazardous materials events. Many Orange County school districts lack one or more documented requirements for contracting for construction 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Dealing with Asbestos in Orange County Public Schools that implement generally recognized best practices for dealing with hazardous materials. Such written best practices include: a. Performing all work at schools that deals with, or potentially deals with, hazardous materials at times when students and staff are not present, b. Controlling the scope of construction/modernization/major repairs undertaken in any one year to remain within the district’s ability to manage the efforts, c. Separately contracting for hazardous materials inspection, abatement, and construction work once hazardous materials are abated, d. Including clear schedule performance requirements in every contract, e. Defining intermediate schedule milestones for all construction-related work that is expected to take over one month to complete, and f. Requiring monitoring by district senior staff of progress on construction work via personal walkthroughs of the work in progress.
F8:
Many school districts with public charter schools approved and financed by their district, lack, and have not provided their charter schools with, written definitions of the respective roles and responsibilities of the district and the charter school in dealing with hazardous materials and with AHERA regulatory compliance.
F9:
Many school districts rely on paper documents for recording key information such as facilities data, facilities construction and repair plans, and AHERA reports.
F10:
Some school districts have no documented facilities plans, and many districts that have plans lack key information in their plans such as estimated costs, funding sources, and schedules for work initiation and completion.
F11:
Many school districts fail to post key safety-related information on their web sites such as upcoming activities at school facilities involving the abatement of hazardous materials.
F12:
Despite the fact that all Orange County school districts serve highly language-diverse communities, several districts have no provision for communicating with their community in any language other than English.
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
By changing the employment relationship for the revised OIR’s Executive Director and professional staff from independent contractor to County employee, the Board of Supervisors appears to have made the 2015 version of the Office of Independent Review less independent of the Board and more vulnerable to the Board exerting politically- motivated influence on the five covered agencies and/or their leadership through the OIR.
F2:
Some members of the Board of Supervisors were dissatisfied with the OIR’s performance from 2008-2015. Some of the dissatisfaction appeared to be the result of a mismatch between Supervisors’ expectations and the OIR mandate as described in the 2008 OIR ordinance and the OIR Executive Director’s contract.
F3:
Although the 2015 OIR ordinance calls for the OIR to “conduct substantive systemic audits and reviews,” there is no explicit provision of authority or resources for the OIR to conduct them independently, a recurring supervisorial expectation. Without the authority or resources to conduct its own independent audit investigations, the 2015 version of the OIR 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Office of Independent Review: What’s Next? would have to act only as reviewer of audits and reviews performed by Performance Audit, and/or Internal Audit, and/or the agencies themselves.
F4:
The OIR could easily cost upwards of $3 million/year due to expansion to five agencies plus jail monitors.
F5:
It will be a challenge to find and retain a permanent staff with the qualifications and sufficient subject matter expertise to identify best practices and to review the broad range of services provided by the five agencies identified in the 2015 ordinance.
F6:
The increase in OIR purview from the 2008 ordinance to the 2015 amended ordinance, from just the OCSD to the OCSD plus four other agencies, is so large in the breadth of services offered by the five agencies, the number of County employees covered, and the number of OIR staff to be hired, that a phased implementation will be required.
F7:
The strenuous opposition of the OCDA to its inclusion in the OIR’s purview could pose a serious threat to the ability of the OIR to provide an effective review of the OCDA as required by the 2015 ordinance.
F8:
The willingness of the OCSD to work cooperatively with the OIR was crucial to allowing the original 2008 OIR to be effective as an independent reviewer of OSCD’s internal investigations.
F9:
With the OIR’s newly-expanded role to review the policies and practices of the OCSD and recommend reforms consistent with evolving best practices, the OCSD has an opportunity to take advantage of the new OIR to assist the OCSD in recovering from the current jailhouse informant controversy. This would require the continued voluntary cooperation of the OCSD with the new OIR.
F10:
With the OIR’s newly-expanded role to review the policies and practices of the OCDA and recommend reforms consistent with evolving best practices, the OCDA has an opportunity to take advantage of the new OIR to assist the OCDA in recovering from the current jailhouse informant controversy, and in particular, implementing IPPEC recommendation #2. This would require the voluntary cooperation of the OCDA with the new OIR.
F11:
The assurance of confidentiality, through attorney-client privilege between the five relevant County agencies and the OIR, is essential to the effective implementation of the 2015 OIR ordinance. Still, even attorney-client privilege may be insufficient for allowing access to some confidential documents, like juvenile records and personnel files that are very tightly controlled by the courts. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Office of Independent Review: What’s Next?
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
The OCDA should add an OIR staff attorney as an “outside” or independent member of the OCDA’s Confidential Informant Review Committee, in keeping with IPPEC
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
For several years the Orange County Procurement Office and the County’s procurement functions have not been prioritized to bring about necessary changes to achieve an efficient and cost effective operation despite numerous recommendations from Grand Juries and auditors.
F2:
Training requirements for new and experienced Deputy Procurement Agents is inadequate. Further, the inconsistent enforcement of training compliance, and confusing training and 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority certification timelines is a high risk practice because it allows untrained and/or uncertified employees to perform procurement tasks.
F3:
The current de-centralized Procurement organizational structure is outdated and not consistent with other large California counties or current procurement Best Practices and deprives the County of the ability to leverage its collective buying power to reduce costs.
F4:
The County does not appear to have an in-house expert on centralization who could design and implement the transition to centralized procurement.
F5:
The automated procurement tracking system is outdated and thereby difficult to use and appears to contribute to errors and additional costs.
F6:
) 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority R.12. The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should conduct a salary survey and make
F7:
Advanced training and professional certification are not encouraged and are not credited in hiring or promotion of employees with procurement duties.
F8:
The Request for Proposal (RFP) process has a number of correctable technical operational issues such as inconsistencies in solicitation packets, conflict of interest, uncorrected errors and bidder qualifications
F9:
In pursuit of centralizing OCIT services, a cross-agency Working Group developed a program for the pilot phase recently launched which, if successful, may be a model for centralization of Procurement.
F10:
There are Procurement best practices readily available for consideration that could be adopted to improve Orange County Procurement performance.
F11:
The number of contracts annually reviewed for compliance with the Contract Policy Manual is insufficient for a dependable assessment.
F12:
There are no current specific minimum qualifications for County Purchasing Agent or a selection /testing procedure to identify and appoint the most qualified candidate.
F13:
Orange County does not offer competitive compensation for the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series (and related positions) and pays up to 30% below the average of three like-sized California counties. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority
F14:
There has been no action taken on many of the recommendations made by 1997-1998, 2002-2003 and 2013-2014 OC Grand Juries, the 2009 Procurement Policy Study, and the 2014 Performance Auditor and the Internal Auditor.
F15:
The Contract Policy Manual – 2012 is outdated.
F16:
There are no consistent hiring standards and qualifications for employees working in Procurement assignments, and most procurement staff are hired by agencies other than County Procurement into job titles outside the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series.
F17:
The County lacks approved procedure manuals for procurement functions.
F18:
Some executive and upper management selections are made without an active recruitment and a testing process to identify the most qualified candidate, but by transferring an existing manager into the position, some without related education or experience. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Procurement – Big Budget, Low Priority”, the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 14 recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R11:
The Chief Purchasing Agent should research procurement best practices, especially Performance Based Contracting, and submit a plan to adopt appropriate practices that would contribute to improved performance by Procurement, by January 1, 2017. (F1. F3, F6 ) 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority
R13:
The County Purchasing Agent should complete a report on recommended revisions to the Contract Policy Manual by October 15, 2016 and complete the revisions by March 1, 2017. (F1, F8, F15,)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The County, in part, is responsible for the unfunded pension liabilities to increase from a surplus of $130,000 in 2000 to $4.5 billion as of December 2012. This represents an increase of more than 4,500% since year 2000.
F2:
The County should have developed a plan to curb the growth in unfunded pension liability independent of OCERS.
F3:
The County and OCERS have taken recent actions to control and slightly reduce the unfunded liabilities by 11% from $4.5 billion in 2012 to $3.8 billion in 2015, but the County could be more aggressive.
F4:
Issuing short term Pension Obligation Bonds (7 of past 10 years) to achieve taxpayer’s savings of over $100 million during the past decade was a good decision by the County.
F5:
OCERS Board of Retirement made a solid financial decision to reduce the amortization period of the UAAL from 30 years down to its current period of 20 years, resulting in increased annual payments from the County.
F6:
Passage of the state Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 should improve the financial stability of the County’s retirement system.
F7:
The State and local governments have the ability to implement Defined Contribution Plans, or hybrid plans, instead of the traditional Defined Benefit Plan. Much of the private sector has transitioned to the Defined Contribution Plans such as 401K plans and more than 30 jurisdictions in California use Defined Contribution Retirement Plans, including Orange County.
F8:
County employees are not treated equally as relates to retirement benefits. Orange County utilizes and contributes to several Defined Contribution Plans as supplemental retirement 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County’s $4.5 Billion Unfunded Pension Liability & Retirement Plans plans to OCERS and one of the plans is restricted to “select” employees and all elected County officials. Additionally, the County has eight non-County employees in the exclusive 401(a) plan.
F9:
Orange County has not designated unfunded liability reduction as a priority either by action or in its Strategic Financial Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County’s $4.5 Billion Unfunded Pension Liability & Retirement Plans”, the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following seven recommendations:
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
Mod L, located in the Intake and Release Center, has an insufficient number of beds to accommodate all mentally ill inmates who would benefit from regular interaction with medical, psychiatric, nursing, and case management services. The lack of bed space for the number of mentally ill inmates who need acute services supports the Department of Justice concern that the jail needs to act to prevent mental health crises and provide adequate transition programs, not just to deal with the most immediate urgent needs.
F2:
Correctional Health Services provides minimal mental health treatment services in the form of therapy groups to less than 1% of the total jail population diagnosed with some type of mental illness, which precludes therapeutic treatment to most mentally ill inmates.
F3:
The Intake and Release Center has no system for ensuring humane treatment of an inmate in a safety cell. Examples include: the inmates are cold, they sleep next to a grate that is used as a toilet, and no water is available for the inmate to wash hands after the use of the toilet and prior to eating meals.
F4:
Correctional Health Services uses the safety cell as a substitute for treatment. There are no measurable and observable criteria for moving someone into a safety cell, or immediately removing inmates when they are no longer a threat to themselves or others, which has the potential to result in the use of safety cells for disciplinary purposes.
F5:
A psychiatrist is the only person authorized to remove an inmate from a safety cell, however, one is not always available to do so, which may result in a longer term of confinement than necessary.
F6:
Correctional Health Services staff does not hold a debriefing meeting after each use of the safety cell. Therefore, CHS is unable to identify how the treatment failure occurred and to help prevent future occurrences, including suicide attempts. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails
F7:
Neither Correctional Health Services nor Sheriff’s Department staff collects or analyzes data related to safety cell usage other than how often it is used, and therefore, neither has any quality improvement or risk management activities to assist in reducing safety cell use.
F8:
The Orange County Jail does not have a Restoration of Competency treatment program, to the detriment of inmates declared incompetent to stand trial by the courts. Wait time for transfer to a state hospital does not meet the directive of the court system to transfer within 30-35 days.
F9:
Data demonstrates that the Collaborative and Community Courts provide effective treatment services for mentally ill offenders who qualify for the programs.
F10:
Collaborative Courts save the County a significant amount of money in decreased incarceration and recidivism rates.
F11:
The current number of jail psychiatrists is not sufficient to meet the needs of the general inmate population diagnosed with mental illness. This shortage has resulted in extended periods of time inmates spend in safety cells, as well as a lack of psychiatric services in all but a very small portion of the Orange County Jails. The Department of Justice findings support the concern that therapeutic treatment may not reach prisoners who may be quite ill, but are not the most obviously in need of mental health care.
F12:
Orange County has become a model for successful implementation of Laura’s Law in the State of California. Behavioral Health Services keeps comprehensive statistics on all aspects of Laura’s Law and therefore can effectively analyze the program’s strengths and weaknesses.
F13:
Correctional Health Services does not provide therapeutic treatment services to inmates with a chronic mental health diagnosis in most parts of Mod L or in any of the general jail housing. This small concentration of service supports the Department of Justice concern that the jail does not provide for a cohesive system of therapy and treatment.
F14:
There is a lack of adequate classroom space to conduct educational classes for inmates who would benefit from participation in inmate services programs.
F15:
Correctional Health Services has no written guidelines, no formal course of study, and no specific training for case managers or nursing staff who conduct group therapy sessions on Mod L Crisis Stabilization Unit.
F16:
Sixteen beds in Ward D are insufficient to meet the needs of the large number of inmates with chronic mental health issues outside of Mod L. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails
F17:
Although the Sheriff’s Department has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Health Care Agency to provide mental health care services to Orange County jail inmates, the two entities do not have a formal system in place for sharing mental health data that affects both entities.
F18:
The Jail Compliance and Training Team, made up of Sheriff’s Department personnel, does not include anyone with a Quality Assurance background. Although the Jail Compliance and Training Team completes standard reports and provides them to Sheriff’s Command staff, it does not consistently collect and analyze data over time to identify trends.
F19:
R.17. The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should review its quality management committee structure by December 31, 2016 to ensure issues identified in reports are thoroughly analyzed. Trends should be identified and addressed through quality improvement activities. The minutes of the meeting should reflect committee discussion and decisions regarding trends. Minutes should also reflect follow-up actions taken to ensure resolution of identified issues.
F20:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services collects health care related grievance data and presents it to the Quality Management Committee on a regular basis, however, the data is not formally analyzed to identify trends and the Quality Management Committee minutes do not demonstrate discussion on the implementation of quality improvement activities based on the data presented.
F21:
Neither the Sheriff’s Department or Correctional Health Services has developed and initiated a formal process to address or track lingering issues identified in the 2014 Department of Justice correspondence. Additionally, they do not have a formal system in place to track improvement plans that may have been put into place to correct Department of Justice concerns.
F22:
The Crisis Stabilization Unit does not have a system in place to collect or analyze data. Additionally, they do not have any formal quality improvement activities specific to Mod L treatment services, and therefore are unable to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of therapy groups. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “OUR BROTHERS’ KEEPER: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails,” the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 17 recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department should establish an ad hoc committee by December 31, 2016 to review space utilization in the Intake and Release Center with the goal of establishing additional units where inmates with mental health issues can be housed in closer proximity. F1, F16, F21
R2:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should develop a therapeutic program by October 31, 2017 that includes a formal course of studies to include all inmates in Mod L, and provide training to facilitators to ensure consistency. F2, F13, F15, F21
R3:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should develop a process by December 31, 2016 to ensure that safety cell entrance and exit criteria are clearly defined, measurable, and observable. F4, F5, F6, F21
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should implement a protocol to ensure an inmate in a safety cell has access to water for washing hands after using the toilet and before and after meals by September 30, 2016. F3, F21
R5:
The Sheriff’s Department should develop a plan to eliminate the environmental issue of inmates being excessively cold in safety cells by December 31, 2016.
R6:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should develop a protocol by December 31, 2016 to authorize nurse practitioners to release inmates from a safety cell. F5, F21 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails
R7:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should establish a debriefing protocol by December 31, 2016 to address each safety cell use in order to properly evaluate any treatment failure and put a plan in place to reduce reoccurrence. F6, F21
R8:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should collaborate on a process by December 31, 2016 to collect and analyze the following safety cell data:
• the average length of stay
• the number of times an inmate is moved to the safety cell more than once
• the day and times safety cells are most utilized
• any injury sustained on the way to, or inside the safety cell
• the use of forced medication in conjunction with safety cell use Data should be incorporated into risk reduction activities that are monitored by the Sheriff’s Department and the Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services. F7, F17, F18, F21
R9:
The County should provide financial assistance through the budgetary process, or some other means such as the Mental Health Services Act (Prop 63) by June 30, 2017, for additional Collaborative Court services that can reduce the current wait list and serve a greater number and variety of mentally ill offenders. F9, F10
R10:
The Health Care Agency should develop a recruitment strategy for hiring additional full time psychiatrists by December 31, 2016, in order to better meet the needs of mentally ill inmates throughout the Orange County jails. F11, F21
R11:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should develop and implement therapeutic and educational curricula specific to the needs of mentally ill inmates in all parts of the Orange County jails by June 30, 2017. F2, F13, F15, F21
R12:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Health Care Agency should collaborate to initiate Thinking for a Change, or a similar therapeutic program, in all areas of the jail, including Mod L, by June 30, 2017, and give first priority to inmates with a mental health diagnosis. F2, F13, F14, F21 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails
R13:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should integrate quality assurance data into their regular standing meetings, or establish a new standing committee by December 31, 2016, where the data includes:
• use of safety cells
• the effectiveness of transfers out of Mod L into the general jail population
• inmate grievances F17, F19, F20, F21
R14:
The Sheriff’s Department should expand the S.A.F.E. division to include a quality risk management team that will collect and analyze data throughout the jail, with a component that will address services provided to mentally ill inmates by June 30, 2017. Consideration of expansion should include incorporating the Jail Compliance and Training Team (JCATT) into S.A.F.E. F18, F21
R15:
The Sheriff’s Department should establish a standing quality management committee that meets at least quarterly to review and analyze data with the goal of improving inmate services by December 31, 2016. The Committee should include representatives from Command Staff, S.A.F.E., JCATT, and Mod L medical, nursing, and case management staff. F18, F19, F21
R16:
The Sheriff’s Department should develop and implement a plan by December 31, 2016 to ensure that the jail grievance policy and procedure is followed. F19
R17:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should review its quality management committee structure by December 31, 2016 to ensure issues identified in reports are thoroughly analyzed. Trends should be identified and addressed through quality improvement activities. The minutes of the meeting should reflect committee discussion and decisions regarding trends. Minutes should also reflect follow-up actions taken to ensure resolution of identified issues. F20, F21, F22
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Recreational drones have greatly increased in number since December 2015 and it is probable their unregulated use will pose significant threats to public safety and privacy in Orange County cities and unincorporated areas.
F2:
With the exception of the recent Federal Aviation Administration registration rule, recreational drone owners are largely self-policed, which leads to a wide range of behavior.
F3:
Most of the cities and unincorporated areas of the County of Orange do not have a drone ordinance, nor do they have any immediate plans to enact an ordinance in the near future.
F4:
Most of the cities provide no educational programs for public awareness of the safety issues connected to recreational drones.
F5:
Some Orange County cities, despite recognizing potential issues with drones, are awaiting drone-related legislative action or other guidance by the State of California or FAA before enacting local ordinances.
F6:
The FAA-required registration of recreational drones provides a useful tool for local enforcement of drone ordinances.
F7:
Orange County cities have not established a procedure for reporting drone incidents, which results in under-reporting of drone safety and privacy events. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Drones: Know Before You Fly RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Drones: Know Before You Fly”, the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following nine recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Each City Council should direct its City Attorney to provide a report to the city’s police department and City Council on existing laws that can be applied to the use of recreational drones in the city’s jurisdiction by December 30, 2016. (F.2., F.3., F.5., F.6.)
R2:
Each City should adopt a recreational drone ownership and operation ordinance, with regulations similar to those found in Los Angeles City ordinance #183912, by March 31, 2017, to the extent not preempted or superseded by Federal law or Federal regulations. (F.1., F.2., F.3.,
R3:
Each City should inform its citizens about laws and ordinances that apply to recreational drone operators through print media, city-related web sites, social media sites and/or public forums by March 31, 2017. (F.4., F.6.)
R4:
Each City should establish and publish on its website a point of contact for drone-related citizen complaints by December 30, 2016. (F.7.)
R5:
Each City should post FAA drone ownership and operation educational links on city-related websites, newsletters, and flyers by December 30, 2016. (F.4.)
R6:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should direct County Counsel to provide a report to the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department and the Board of Supervisors on existing laws that can be applied to the use of recreational drones in county-governed parks and unincorporated areas by December 30, 2016. (F.2., F.3., F.6.)
R7:
The County should adopt a recreational drone ownership and operation ordinance similar to Los Angeles City Ordinance #183912 for the parks and unincorporated areas under its jurisdiction by March 31, 2017, to the extent not preempted or superseded by Federal law or Federal regulations. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.6.)
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Orange County has a shortage of foster families and this shortage will become more acute with the implementation of AB403. The shortage is particularly acute for special populations such as teens, sibling sets, and children with special medical or psychological needs.
F2:
Current Children and Family Services recruitment and retention efforts are inadequate and ineffective as evidenced by zero growth in available foster homes.
F3:
Children and Family Services does not collect, analyze, or track data on the success of foster parent recruitment and retention efforts.
F4:
Children and Family Services has not implemented the principles of the Quality Parenting Initiative in spite of its four year involvement in the project.
F5:
Children and Family Services does not adequately serve the needs of hard to place populations such as teens, large sibling sets and children with medical and psychological disabilities.
F6:
Children and Family Services has not utilized Samueli Academy as a resource to enhance educational opportunities for foster teens because they have not proactively promoted the school or provided transportation to the school.
F7:
Children and Family Services has failed to clarify the role of Foster Family Agencies contracted by the County.
F8:
Children and Family Services does not adequately monitor the 51 Foster Family Agencies contracted by the County to ensure that they are adequately meeting the needs of the children in their care.
F9:
The current caseload of Orange County social workers exceeds industry standards and will hamper efforts to implement AB403.
F10:
Effective outreach is hampered by limited and outdated technology. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Fostering a Better Foster Care System
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Use available AB403 funds to provide additional transportation services for foster youth to appointments, visitations, court dates, etc. beginning in County Fiscal Year 2016-2017. (F2, F4,)
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Funding from the Orange County General Fund in support of the Office on Aging has not kept pace with the rapid increase in senior population. Allocation to Office on Aging from the OC General Fund in 2005-2006, prior to the recession, was $2.20 per senior per year. Over the past five years the allocation dropped to only $1.32 per senior person per year in FY 2015-16.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Board of Supervisors should restore funding to the Office on Aging from Orange County General Funds or any other available and reliable, permanent source of at least $1,294,000 in FY 2016-2017, based upon the pre-recession amount of $2.20 per senior per year, to restore staffing levels, update the Call Center and reposition the Office on Aging as the county’s lead planner and advocate. (F1, F2)
R2:
The Office on Aging should apply any increased funds received above the current baseline to restore service levels and to provide strategic leadership countywide. (F1, F2)
F2:
Lack of resources for the Office on Aging hampers its ability to accomplish its mission and mandates as required by the California Code of Regulations-WIC 9400-9404. The Office on Aging is required to be the County’s lead planner and advocate for seniors, working with public and private partners to create an updated, coordinated countywide strategic plan to better leverage and integrate all available resources to address the rapidly growing senior population. Organizational Issues at the Office on Aging
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Board of Supervisors should restore funding to the Office on Aging from Orange County General Funds or any other available and reliable, permanent source of at least $1,294,000 in FY 2016-2017, based upon the pre-recession amount of $2.20 per senior per year, to restore staffing levels, update the Call Center and reposition the Office on Aging as the county’s lead planner and advocate. (F1, F2)
R2:
The Office on Aging should apply any increased funds received above the current baseline to restore service levels and to provide strategic leadership countywide. (F1, F2)
R3:
Add a position to serve as event coordinator at the Administrative Manager level 1 to Office on Aging to support OOA outreach and visibility by July 1, 2017. (F2)
F3:
The position of the Division Manager for the Office on Aging is only a part time position, shared with the Veteran’s Service Office. Increasing outreach and Call Center demand require full time management at this level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Increase Full Time Equivalent Division Manager of the Office of Aging from FTE 0.5 to FTE1.0 and separate the Veterans Service and the Office on Aging by January 1, 2017. (F3)
F4:
Limited funding to support staff positions results in chronic vacancies within the Office on Aging, negatively affecting service and responsiveness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Initiate a recruitment to fill one vacant longstanding Senior Citizen Representative position in the Information and Assistance Call Center by January 1, 2017 (F4)
F5:
Limited staffing resources prevent the pursuit of grants to support senior services. Information and Assistance
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Add a position to serve as grant writer at the Administrator II level by July 1, 2017. (F5)
F6:
The Office on Aging website is outdated and needs technological modernization immediately. There is no provision for access by mobile device or on-line chat capability. Senior Nutrition and Ombudsman Programs
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Update and upgrade the Office on Aging website to provide for mobile device access and an on-line chat function by December 31, 2017. (F6)
F7:
The County of Orange provides no on-going budgetary support beyond the original contract to non-profit subcontractors for the recruitment of volunteers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8:
Enter into a negotiation for a cost share with non-profit subcontractors in volunteer recruitment activity by December 31, 2016. (F7)
R10:
Institute an annual Board of Supervisors Volunteer of the Year Award for senior services rendered in the form of recognition and an award funded by the County by December 31, 2016. (F7)
F8:
Orange County provides no budgetary support to the non-profit agency that publishes the “Answers” publication beyond the cost of individual county department advertising. Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Enter into negotiations to cost share with the applicable non-profit agency to produce the book “Answers” by December 31, 2016. (F8)
F9:
Annual and semi-annual mechanical vehicle inspection is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, but no licensed mechanic is on staff to do this.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program to require the subcontractor to handle the physical and mechanical inspection of vehicles at subcontractor’s cost with documentation required by the Office on Aging that the inspection was conducted at the County’s Public Works/Fleet Services Division. (F9)
F10:
Mileage verification of each Senior Non-Emergency Medical trip is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, an inefficient, labor intensive effort requiring manual input of subcontractor supplied data.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program that the sub-contractor produce mileage verification data obtained through MapQuest or similar software and require contractors to submit mileage verifications with payment request. (F10)
F2000:
o r e b 1500 Inbound m u N 1000 Outbound 500 0 FY 2014-2015 The Office on Aging website has had a steady increase in users since January 2013. The online resource directory page is consistently the second most viewed OOA webpage every month, suggesting that the community is augmenting traditional phone usage with online resources. The website needs updating in content and technology to reflect that current users are more technologically proficient and expect current information to be posted. An on-line chat function would also enhance the functionality of the website. Staffing the Call Center The OOA software statistics shows that the Call Center handles an average of 80-90 calls per day. While the average length of each call is 3-4 minutes, some callers are on hold for half an hour or more, depending upon staffing levels. During peak periods, particularly at winter holiday time, it receives as many as 120 calls per day. A wall mounted screen displays a running total of the number of calls handled that day and also shows the number of calls which went unanswered. During a visit to the Call Center 40 calls were answered, while seven were unanswered for a 15% abandonment rate. Call Center personnel confirmed that this is typical, but that the target for unanswered calls is 10%. A key reason for dropped calls is unfilled staff positions. Of the five authorized staff positions available to operate this center one position has been vacant since 2012. Office on Aging Outreach One task of the OOA is educating the senior Orange County population about the host of services available to them. As a typical example, in the month of October, 2015, the OOA engaged in five local outreach events, attended by a total of 1,027 seniors. In order to reach as many seniors as possible, the OOA also cosponsors and coordinates large scale events with stakeholders, including the Board of Supervisors and non-profit organizations. Budget constraints hamper this very effective and efficient means of speaking to seniors. Funds are not available to enable the OOA to hold these large events every year in each of the county areas. In 2015 the Office on Aging participated in one large event, the South County Senior Summit, held in Laguna Woods, cosponsored by the District 5 Supervisor. Over 1000 seniors and other interested voters attended this event. A similar North County Senior Summit was held in 2014. Outreach efforts to this group of graying voters would be greatly improved if the Office on Aging coordinated an event with each of the Supervisors on the Board of Supervisors to hold an event in each district once a year utilizing the Board members’s office funds. However, these events are labor intensive and, without additional staff, impact the ability of the existing Office on Aging staff to perform their regular duties. Senior Nutrition Program The Senior Nutrition program targets “food insecure” seniors. There are nearly 80,000 adults age 60+ living alone in Orange County. Those numbers increase each year and it is expected that in just five years there will be 160,000. Many of those are insecure because of physical, mental, and/or financial limitations. These restrictions make it difficult or impossible for them to obtain food or meals on a regular basis, further impairing their health and safety. According to county providers, the Home Delivered Meals Program (sometimes known as Meals-on-Wheels) serves over 1,100,000 individual meals annually to more than 2700 individual Orange County seniors. The purpose is to provide healthy meals seven days a week to those medically qualified seniors who are homebound. While, meals are delivered five days a week, meals for the week-end are left with the Friday delivery. This program is a major tool in achieving the goal of stakeholders from all levels of government. That goal is encouraging aging-in-place. As a result of this valuable program, capable seniors have been able to avoid placement in expensive long term care facilities when they no longer have easy access to food. All clients in the Home Delivered Meals (Meals on Wheels) program are screened for eligibility, which includes physical limitations, age and self-care ability. Federal regulations prevent means testing of the recipients, although there is a requested “donation” of up to $ 6.50- 7.50 per day to help defray costs. Those unable to pay receive their meals free of charge. There is also a full pay program, at a cost of $10/ day, for those who do not qualify under the guidelines. Those who have sufficient mobility to visit local senior centers may take part in the Congregate Lunch program served at a total of 37 senior centers around Orange County. The Congregate Lunch program provides both a nutritious lunch and social interaction to those who are still mobile, but may no longer be willing or capable of preparing food for themselves on a regular basis. Waiting lists vary greatly. At present there is no waiting list in South County, but North Orange County has a wait list of 200 people, with most in Santa Ana and Anaheim. The federal and state governments hand down complex, demographic based funding formulas using the 2010 Census. They do not adjust for shifts in local senior populations between censuses. In addition, two charitable foundations in the North region redirected major grants away from senior care toward children in 2014. The loss of this money will exacerbate the situation in the North, impacting day-to-day planning and allocation of resources. Observations of the Home Delivered Meals Program Providers sub-contracted to the Office on Aging operate three central commercial kitchens to create and prepare the meals. One serves South County, one serves North County and the City of Irvine serves Irvine. A dietician at each site creates the menus and oversees compliance with nutrition regulations. From the commercial kitchens, the meals are dispersed by truck to senior centers throughout Orange County. Volunteer drivers pick up the meals at the senior centers and deliver them to individuals at home. Members of the Grand Jury accompanied volunteers from different regions in the county on their meal delivery routes. In one region, hot lunch meals packaged with cold dinner and breakfast meals are prepared at a subcontracted commercial kitchen and delivered to a local senior center in insulated bags. Volunteers then deliver the meals along an assigned route. Some customers on the route receive meals five days a week, while others choose only two or three times a week. In that same region, one senior center distributes meals to approximately 75 home-bound clients each day. There are nine routes with 6-9 clients in each route. The routes operate five days a week, requiring a total of 45 volunteer drivers. According to representatives of the non-profit organizations, it is sometimes a struggle to find enough volunteers. If a route is uncovered, clients do not receive their meals and are put on a waiting list. A member of the Grand Jury accompanied a driver to the six clients on his route. The clients visited included a 97 year old woman living with a home care provider and a couple consisting of a fragile husband and his wheel-chair bound wife. In this example, all of the clients had nothing but praise for the service. The only complaint heard had to do with the type of food provided – one client bemoaned the lack of sauerkraut in her meals. In another program, a microwaveable frozen dinner, prepared by the contactor’s own off-site commercial kitchen, is packaged with a cold lunch and breakfast. The Grand Jury visited the commercial kitchen which prepares the meals using purchased, not donated, food. The kitchen appeared to meet the strict cleanliness and documentation standards of a hospital kitchen. Several members of the Grand Jury took part in ride-alongs with drivers delivering meals. The City of Irvine operates its own on-site commercial kitchen at the Lakeside Senior Center. About 100,000 meals are prepared each year with over 54,000 meals served to 186 individual, unduplicated seniors provided through the Home Delivered Meals (Meals on Wheels) program. Over 1,000 home delivered meals are provided weekly by more than 150 volunteers, covering over 11 routes. Twenty thousand meals per year are provided for the very popular Congregate Lunch program at the Lakeview Senior Center and another 20,000 meals provided to the Adult Day Care Facility co-located with the Lakeview Senior Center. All meals are “ no added sugar”, low-sodium and meet the Nutritional Daily Allowance guidelines for older adults. It is obvious that clients not only trust their volunteer driver, since the doors were left open at most of the homes, but that the driver becomes a welcome friend and visitor to lonely, fragile aged. The driver is also another pair of eyes and ears monitoring the condition of the client, reporting any changes in physical and/or mental condition through the provider staff to the Office on Aging. The driver is also required to report any suspected elder abuse. This service allows many seniors to age at home, instead of needing to go to assisted living or nursing facilities. Long Term Care Ombudsman Program Ombudsmen investigate all complaints from residents in long-term care facilities. Ombudsmen work to resolve problems and concerns of individual residents by creating a presence through regular unannounced visits, monitoring conditions and care, and providing a voice for those unable to speak for themselves. The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program (LTCOP) serves 1,100 care facilities for the elderly in Orange County. These include 75 large assisted living facilities and nearly 1,000 six bed Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE). In 2015 there were three times as many Residential Care for Elderly homes (RCFEs) in Orange County than there were thirty years ago. Ten percent of all California RCFEs are located in Orange County. Only Los Angeles County has more. These state licensed RCFEs are located in single family homes throughout the county and are indistinguishable from any other residence in the neighborhood. A maximum of six residents live in each RCFE and receive around the clock care from a team of care providers. The team usually consists of two people, but there is no minimum number required by the State Licensing Board. Most residents are elderly with varying degrees of dementia and/or Alzheimer’s disease and are either alone with no relatives nearby or can no longer be cared for by family. These RCFEs are profit centered businesses, which depend upon reputation to be successful. (Non-profit ombudsman provider) In the past, most of the county’s facilities had an assigned Ombudsman making regular announced and unannounced visits, which included building relationships with the residents. As a result of funding deficiencies, 160 facilities with 960 residents did not have an assigned Ombudsman in 2013. The result was a decline in the complaint resolution rate from 82% in FY 2010-2011 to 66% in FY 2013-2104. (OOA Area Plan Update, 2015-16) As a state program, the Long-term Care Ombudsman Program has advocated two separate pieces of legislation. One bill would have increased the number of required inspections and oversight by the licensing agency. The second was to restore funding to the pre-2008 levels. Unfortunately, neither bill made it past the governor’s desk. At that time, a grant from a generous corporate sponsor allowed Orange County’s primary non-profit ombudsman provider to fill in that gap. In 2014, for the first time in the history of the program, 100% of the facilities in Orange County had a designated Ombudsman, up from 85% one year ago (Non-profit ombudsman provider). While the program has always been responsible for investigating complaints and abuse allegations, a designated Ombudsman in each facility insures a more persistent presence via announced and unannounced visits. The Long-term Care Ombudsman Program continues to be the only program protecting all the residents of Orange County in long-term care facilities. However, such corporate funding is not predictable or guaranteed and leaves a significant number of seniors vulnerable in its absence. Ombudsman Program Structure A single non-profit organization under subcontract to the Office on Aging is the only agency in the state providing countywide Ombudsman protection. It has been under contract since the inception of the program in 1973. This agency recruits, trains and monitors Ombudsman volunteers. Currently the Ombudsman program has 27 paid part time staff and a volunteer base of 78. Each Ombudsman, whether paid or volunteer, receives 36 hours of state- mandated training at the non-profit agency’s offices plus another ten hours of field training. Ombudsmen make unannounced visits to each facility once a month and attend regular resident council meetings at the assisted living facilities. Office on Aging Programs in Conjunction with the Ombudsman Program The Office on Aging is currently conducting a pilot Music Therapy Project. A small group of 25- 30 residents are being followed for six months to see if music therapy enhances their responsiveness and quality of life. If the pilot program is successful, the provider will apply for a grant to expand the program. The provider is also working with the State Ombudsman Office on a plan to reduce the use of psychotropic drugs in skilled nursing facilities. The Office on Aging is working with the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of California, Irvine (UCI) to bring education and training to assisted living facility staff on the care and well-being of residents with dementia. There is currently no specific program in place to educate the administrators and caregivers in the small 6 bed facilities about working with dementia residents. Observations of the Ombudsman Program Ombudsmen are indispensable eyes and ears, calling attention to below standard elder care. As a result of Ombudsman efforts, most recently two RCFEs in Anaheim, as reported by the Orange County Register on February 11, 2016, had their licenses revoked. The Orange County Grand Jury accompanied Ombudsmen on their routes to both RCFEs and assisted living facilities across Orange County. The Grand Jury observed how the Ombudsmen checked the physical condition of the facilities, the physical and emotional condition of the clients and how they conducted their inspections and reporting. The Ombudsmen were queried about their training and any barriers to the performance of their duties. One of the most frequent comments was the amount of paper work required. Since most of the Ombudsmen are volunteers, this was cited as one of the reasons that potential Ombudsmen who completed the initial training course did not continue to become Ombudsmen. The Office on Aging should partner with its non-profit ombudsman provider and the California Department of Aging to explore if the reporting system could be accessed from a tablet or mobile phone. This improvement would allow the Ombudsman to immediately write a report after a visit. The quality of volunteer Ombudsmen varies. At one end of the spectrum were dedicated, caring individuals, who connected with each resident in the facility. At the other end, the Grand Jury also found volunteers who followed their training with regard to compliance with paperwork and interaction with facility management, but, during the period of the Grand Jury’s observation, were observed to do little to cultivate a trusting relationship with their clients. The Ombudsman program is experiencing an attrition of volunteers because of relocation and retirement. A smaller pool of volunteers may make it increasingly difficult to maintain high volunteer standards. Much more needs to be done by the County of Orange to assist in the recruitment of Ombudsmen. Senior Reference Guide The Ombudsman non-profit agency contracted with OOA produces a senior services reference handbook called “Answers” outside of its county contract. This publication is an alternative to the Office on Aging Call Center and website, which sometimes can be challenging for seniors to use. The non-profit agency funds its production with no support from the Office on Aging other than a paid advertisement. Since it is basically an extension of the Office on Aging outreach function, it should be integrated with that effort and receive funding from the Office on Aging. Budget constraints at the non-profit agency prevent this publication from being more widely available. The OOA should partner with the non-profit agency to provide funding to produce sufficient copies of this resource for all seniors who are interested. Senior Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Program The Office on Aging administers the Senior Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (SNEMT) program, providing approximately 135,000 medical-related trips for approximately 2,000 unduplicated Orange County older adults who lack other transportation options. (OOA Area Plan Update 2015-16). Orange County is divided into three specific geographical SNEMT regions covering the entire county: North County, Central and South County. In accordance with standard county contracting procedures, the OOA selects a provider in each region to provide the transportation services. Providers can cover multiple regions. Fifty to sixty percent of Senior Non-Emergency Medical Transportation participants use the service for recurring dialysis appointments. Chemotherapy, physical therapy and doctor’s appointments account for the rest. Seniors can reserve transportation a month in advance. Because dialysis is often on a three day a week schedule, service is available from 4 AM six days a week, including Saturday. There is currently no waiting list for service, except for Saturday. There is a $2 fee, waived for low income clients. There is a 15 mile limit for trips, but there are exceptions on a case by case basis. The number of SNEMT trips in North and Central County has increased by a factor of six over the past three years. There were 20,000 trips in 2012 in Central and North areas; there were 120,000 in 2015. (SNEMT Contractor) According to the OOA, customer complaints are rare, amounting to less than five a year. There is a procedure for customers to report complaints to the subcontractor. The subcontractor investigates and attempts to resolve the issue. It is also required to report the complaint to OOA. Drivers originate some complaints, most often involving safety issues; such as, customers are not cooperating in wearing their seatbelts. Others originate with customers, who most often complain about pick- up times. Accidents are required to be reported to the County Risk Management Agency, but there were no accidents in 2015. The Office on Aging is required to physically inspect the vehicles used in the SNEMT program. Although this is a technical, mechanical inspection, it is currently assigned to an Administrative I level employee at the Office on Aging. Another duty of the Office on Aging is mileage verification of trips taken through the SNEMT program. Even though performed through sampling of 10% of the total trips, it remains a labor intensive effort, since the start and end location of each trip, as reported by the subcontractor, must be entered manually into MapQuest or similar software. As another example of the fragmentation of senior services, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) offers its own paratransit transportation program, ACCESS, funded by the Americans with Disabilities Act, for the disabled of any age, including qualified seniors. Although OCTA is the county’s public transit service, SNEMT is considered a social service program because of its funding source, and, therefore, is not administered by OCTA. The SNEMT program is funded by County Measure M2, Tobacco Settlement Revenue, and a grant through OCTA from the federal New Freedom Program. However, the New Freedom funds ended in September of 2015 for a loss of $171,184 to the SNEMT program. Although some seniors may be eligible for both programs, there is no coordination to maximize accessibility or service. Public – Private Partnership According to non-profit organizations, the revenue from governmental sources, including the OOA, does not meet the current expenditure necessary to meet current demand. The non-profit organizations attempt to bridge this gap with charitable donations from individuals, corporate sponsors and voluntary donations for service from clients. They report that it is difficult to fill the funding gap in the present environment and will be an even greater challenge as the client population increases, becomes older and more frail. The thinking is that since the economy has recovered and is doing well, less government help is needed. Those on fixed incomes have suffered in the low interest rate environment and are not benefitting from the improved economy. Service to seniors also has suffered recently as some major charities have prioritized their efforts away from senior programs toward children. In general, charitable gifts are considered easier to obtain for children’s services than for seniors. Volunteers are essential to the delivery of service in the Ombudsman and Nutrition Programs, yet there is virtually no funding available in the OOA budget to partner in the recruitment of these volunteers. Without enough volunteers there is an unavoidable reduction in service. There are waiting lists in some Home Delivered Meals programs. Ombudsman complaint resolution drops. Similarly, in the area of outreach, there is no specific funding available to partner in the production of a countywide directory of services, which is published by a non-profit agency. Only a fraction, 71,000 of the 500,000, or 14%, of seniors have received this resource guide. A public- private partnership, in which Orange County demonstrates its commitment to its senior citizens with substantial budgetary support, is necessary. The non-profit organizations leverage each dollar put forth by the County through the use of volunteers to carry out the programs. This multiplier effect cannot be undervalued. Orange County needs a comprehensive and visionary approach to bridge the increasing gap between the senior population growth and the declining services. Since the stated mission of the Office on Aging as an Area Agency is to provide that leadership, it must be given the resources it needs to accomplish that mission. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings represented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Gray Matters, A look at the Office on Aging,” the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes has arrived at ten principal findings, as follows: Orange County General Funds F1: Funding from the Orange County General Fund in support of the Office on Aging has not kept pace with the rapid increase in senior population. Allocation to Office on Aging from the OC General Fund in 2005-2006, prior to the recession, was $2.20 per senior per year. Over the past five years the allocation dropped to only $1.32 per senior person per year in FY 2015-16. F2. Lack of resources for the Office on Aging hampers its ability to accomplish its mission and mandates as required by the California Code of Regulations-WIC 9400-9404. The Office on Aging is required to be the County’s lead planner and advocate for seniors, working with public and private partners to create an updated, coordinated countywide strategic plan to better leverage and integrate all available resources to address the rapidly growing senior population. Organizational Issues at the Office on Aging F3: The position of the Division Manager for the Office on Aging is only a part time position, shared with the Veteran’s Service Office. Increasing outreach and Call Center demand require full time management at this level. F4: Limited funding to support staff positions results in chronic vacancies within the Office on Aging, negatively affecting service and responsiveness. F5: Limited staffing resources prevent the pursuit of grants to support senior services. Information and Assistance F6: The Office on Aging website is outdated and needs technological modernization immediately. There is no provision for access by mobile device or on-line chat capability. Senior Nutrition and Ombudsman Programs F7: The County of Orange provides no on-going budgetary support beyond the original contract to non-profit subcontractors for the recruitment of volunteers. F8: Orange County provides no budgetary support to the non-profit agency that publishes the “Answers” publication beyond the cost of individual county department advertising. Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program F9: Annual and semi-annual mechanical vehicle inspection is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, but no licensed mechanic is on staff to do this. F10: Mileage verification of each Senior Non-Emergency Medical trip is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, an inefficient, labor intensive effort requiring manual input of subcontractor supplied data. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Gray Matters, A look at the Office on Aging,” the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following twelve recommendations: R1: Board of Supervisors should restore funding to the Office on Aging from Orange County General Funds or any other available and reliable, permanent source of at least $1,294,000 in FY 2016-2017, based upon the pre-recession amount of $2.20 per senior per year, to restore staffing levels, update the Call Center and reposition the Office on Aging as the county’s lead planner and advocate. (F1, F2) R2: The Office on Aging should apply any increased funds received above the current baseline to restore service levels and to provide strategic leadership countywide. (F1, F2) R3: Add a position to serve as event coordinator at the Administrative Manager level 1 to Office on Aging to support OOA outreach and visibility by July 1, 2017. (F2) R4: Increase Full Time Equivalent Division Manager of the Office of Aging from FTE 0.5 to FTE1.0 and separate the Veterans Service and the Office on Aging by January 1, 2017. (F3) R5: Initiate a recruitment to fill one vacant longstanding Senior Citizen Representative position in the Information and Assistance Call Center by January 1, 2017 (F4) R6: Add a position to serve as grant writer at the Administrator II level by July 1, 2017. (F5) R7: Update and upgrade the Office on Aging website to provide for mobile device access and an on-line chat function by December 31, 2017. (F6) R8: Enter into a negotiation for a cost share with non-profit subcontractors in volunteer recruitment activity by December 31, 2016. (F7) R9: Enter into negotiations to cost share with the applicable non-profit agency to produce the book “Answers” by December 31, 2016. (F8) R10: Institute an annual Board of Supervisors Volunteer of the Year Award for senior services rendered in the form of recognition and an award funded by the County by December 31, 2016. (F7) R11: Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program to require the subcontractor to handle the physical and mechanical inspection of vehicles at subcontractor’s cost with documentation required by the Office on Aging that the inspection was conducted at the County’s Public Works/Fleet Services Division. (F9) R12: Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program that the sub-contractor produce mileage verification data obtained through MapQuest or similar software and require contractors to submit mileage verifications with payment request. (F10) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under the elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), detail, 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 authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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 or requested from: Responses Required: Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings 1-10, Recommendations 1-12) Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: Director, Orange County Community Resources (Findings 1-10, Recommendations 1-12) Works Consulted 2003-2004 Grand Jury Report, Senior Transportation in Orange County 2005-2006 Grand Jury Report, The Long Term Care Ombudsman Program: Are We Ready for the Coming “Age Tsunami”? 2010 US Census, Quick Facts for Orange County –website www.census.gov/2010census California Department of Aging, Population Data for Orange County -website 2015 OC Community Indicators Office on Aging- website https://officeonaging.ocgov.com 2012-2016 Office on Aging, Area Study and its annual updates Office on Aging, FY 2015-2016 Budget Subcontracts for Nutrition, Ombudsman and Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Programs Orange County, FY 2005-2006 Budget Summary for Office on Aging US Census Bureau, American FactFinder, Orange County, CA, website June, 2015 Works Consulted - Websites Abrazar, http://abrazarinc.com Age Well Senior Services, https://www.google.com/9/22/2015search?q=agewell+senior+services&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe= Age Well Senior Services Annual Report 2014, http://www.agewellseniorservices.org/html/downloads2014_annual_report%20(2),pdf, 9/22/2015 Age Well Senior Services Revenue-Expenses, http://www.agewellseniorservices.org/htmldownloads/PIE_fye%201213.pdf, 9/22/2015 AIRS- Alliance of Information and Referral Systems, www.airs.org,10/2/2015 AIRS –Taxonomy, http://www.airs.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3386,10/2/2015 Area Agencies on Aging, https://www.aging.ca.gov/ProgramsProviders/.../AAA_listing.a..., 10/10/15 California Department of Finance, www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic, 10/15/2015 California Department of Aging, http://www.aging.ca.gov, 8/23/2015 California Department of Finance-P-1 and P-2, http://www.dof.ca.gov/researchdemographic/projections/#p-1 8/29/2015 City of Irvine Meals on Wheels, http://www.cityofirvine.org/senior-services/meals-wheels Community SeniorServ, http://communityseniorserv.com Council on Aging, http://coaoc.org Facts About California's Elderly - PSA 22, , http://www.aging.ca.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Docs/2015/Program_Statistical_Fact_Sheets_at_the_PSA-Level_(2015).pdf, 8/29/2015 National Care Planning Council, https://www.longtermcarelink.net, 9/30/2015 National Council on Aging-2016 Funding Table, https://www.ncoa.org/resources/federal-budget-fy16-aging-program-funding-table,10/5/2015 Office on Aging, https://officeonaging.ocgov.com,8/26/2015 Office on Aging Area Plan 2012-2016, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=24205, 8/31/2015 Office on Aging Area Plan Update, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=39128, 8/31/2015 Office on Aging FAQ, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/about/faq, 8/31/2015 Office on Aging Presentation South Senior Summit -2015, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/civicax/filebankblobdload.aspx?BlobID=46274, 8/26/15 Office on Aging Report Identification of Resources, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/resources/reports,8/26/2015 Orange County Quick Facts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/.../18117.html?..., 8/16/2015 Orange County Vital Aging Program, www.ocbrain.org, 8/16/2015 Public Policy Institute of California, www.ppic.org,10/15/2015 Senior Citizens Advisory Council, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/about/scac, 8/16/2015 US Census Population Projections, http://www.census.gov/population/projections, 8/16/2015 US Census-2010, www.census.gov/2010census, 8/16/2015 15 Appendix 1- Office on Aging Organization Chart DIRECTOR-ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY RESOURCES DIRECTOR-ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES -INTERIM DIVISION MANAGER OFFICE ON AGING/VETERANS SERVICES VACANT VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE POLICY AND PLANNING INFO AND CONTRACTS ASSISTANCE MANAGER 14 BILLETS ADMIN I ADMIN I ADMIN I STAFF SPECIALIST ADMIN I STAFF ASSISTANT ADMIN I ADMIN I SENIOR CITIZEN HEALTH VACANT REP II EDUCATOR SENIOR CITIZEN ADMIN I REP II VACANT SENIOR CITIZEN REP II ADMIN I VACANT SENIOR CITIZEN REP II VACANT STAFF SPECIALIST
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Funding from the Orange County General Fund in support of the Office on Aging has not kept pace with the rapid increase in senior population. Allocation to Office on Aging from the OC General Fund in 2005-2006, prior to the recession, was $2.20 per senior per year. Over the past five years the allocation dropped to only $1.32 per senior person per year in FY 2015-16.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Board of Supervisors should restore funding to the Office on Aging from Orange County General Funds or any other available and reliable, permanent source of at least $1,294,000 in FY 2016-2017, based upon the pre-recession amount of $2.20 per senior per year, to restore staffing levels, update the Call Center and reposition the Office on Aging as the county’s lead planner and advocate. (F1, F2)
R2:
The Office on Aging should apply any increased funds received above the current baseline to restore service levels and to provide strategic leadership countywide. (F1, F2)
F2:
Lack of resources for the Office on Aging hampers its ability to accomplish its mission and mandates as required by the California Code of Regulations-WIC 9400-9404. The Office on Aging is required to be the County’s lead planner and advocate for seniors, working with public and private partners to create an updated, coordinated countywide strategic plan to better leverage and integrate all available resources to address the rapidly growing senior population. Organizational Issues at the Office on Aging
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Board of Supervisors should restore funding to the Office on Aging from Orange County General Funds or any other available and reliable, permanent source of at least $1,294,000 in FY 2016-2017, based upon the pre-recession amount of $2.20 per senior per year, to restore staffing levels, update the Call Center and reposition the Office on Aging as the county’s lead planner and advocate. (F1, F2)
R2:
The Office on Aging should apply any increased funds received above the current baseline to restore service levels and to provide strategic leadership countywide. (F1, F2)
R3:
Add a position to serve as event coordinator at the Administrative Manager level 1 to Office on Aging to support OOA outreach and visibility by July 1, 2017. (F2)
F3:
The position of the Division Manager for the Office on Aging is only a part time position, shared with the Veteran’s Service Office. Increasing outreach and Call Center demand require full time management at this level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Increase Full Time Equivalent Division Manager of the Office of Aging from FTE 0.5 to FTE1.0 and separate the Veterans Service and the Office on Aging by January 1, 2017. (F3)
F4:
Limited funding to support staff positions results in chronic vacancies within the Office on Aging, negatively affecting service and responsiveness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Initiate a recruitment to fill one vacant longstanding Senior Citizen Representative position in the Information and Assistance Call Center by January 1, 2017 (F4)
F5:
Limited staffing resources prevent the pursuit of grants to support senior services. Information and Assistance
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Add a position to serve as grant writer at the Administrator II level by July 1, 2017. (F5)
F6:
The Office on Aging website is outdated and needs technological modernization immediately. There is no provision for access by mobile device or on-line chat capability. Senior Nutrition and Ombudsman Programs
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Update and upgrade the Office on Aging website to provide for mobile device access and an on-line chat function by December 31, 2017. (F6)
F7:
The County of Orange provides no on-going budgetary support beyond the original contract to non-profit subcontractors for the recruitment of volunteers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8:
Enter into a negotiation for a cost share with non-profit subcontractors in volunteer recruitment activity by December 31, 2016. (F7)
R10:
Institute an annual Board of Supervisors Volunteer of the Year Award for senior services rendered in the form of recognition and an award funded by the County by December 31, 2016. (F7)
F8:
Orange County provides no budgetary support to the non-profit agency that publishes the “Answers” publication beyond the cost of individual county department advertising. Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Enter into negotiations to cost share with the applicable non-profit agency to produce the book “Answers” by December 31, 2016. (F8)
F9:
Annual and semi-annual mechanical vehicle inspection is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, but no licensed mechanic is on staff to do this.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program to require the subcontractor to handle the physical and mechanical inspection of vehicles at subcontractor’s cost with documentation required by the Office on Aging that the inspection was conducted at the County’s Public Works/Fleet Services Division. (F9)
F10:
Mileage verification of each Senior Non-Emergency Medical trip is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, an inefficient, labor intensive effort requiring manual input of subcontractor supplied data.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program that the sub-contractor produce mileage verification data obtained through MapQuest or similar software and require contractors to submit mileage verifications with payment request. (F10)
F2000:
o r e b 1500 Inbound m u N 1000 Outbound 500 0 FY 2014-2015 The Office on Aging website has had a steady increase in users since January 2013. The online resource directory page is consistently the second most viewed OOA webpage every month, suggesting that the community is augmenting traditional phone usage with online resources. The website needs updating in content and technology to reflect that current users are more technologically proficient and expect current information to be posted. An on-line chat function would also enhance the functionality of the website. Staffing the Call Center The OOA software statistics shows that the Call Center handles an average of 80-90 calls per day. While the average length of each call is 3-4 minutes, some callers are on hold for half an hour or more, depending upon staffing levels. During peak periods, particularly at winter holiday time, it receives as many as 120 calls per day. A wall mounted screen displays a running total of the number of calls handled that day and also shows the number of calls which went unanswered. During a visit to the Call Center 40 calls were answered, while seven were unanswered for a 15% abandonment rate. Call Center personnel confirmed that this is typical, but that the target for unanswered calls is 10%. A key reason for dropped calls is unfilled staff positions. Of the five authorized staff positions available to operate this center one position has been vacant since 2012. Office on Aging Outreach One task of the OOA is educating the senior Orange County population about the host of services available to them. As a typical example, in the month of October, 2015, the OOA engaged in five local outreach events, attended by a total of 1,027 seniors. In order to reach as many seniors as possible, the OOA also cosponsors and coordinates large scale events with stakeholders, including the Board of Supervisors and non-profit organizations. Budget constraints hamper this very effective and efficient means of speaking to seniors. Funds are not available to enable the OOA to hold these large events every year in each of the county areas. In 2015 the Office on Aging participated in one large event, the South County Senior Summit, held in Laguna Woods, cosponsored by the District 5 Supervisor. Over 1000 seniors and other interested voters attended this event. A similar North County Senior Summit was held in 2014. Outreach efforts to this group of graying voters would be greatly improved if the Office on Aging coordinated an event with each of the Supervisors on the Board of Supervisors to hold an event in each district once a year utilizing the Board members’s office funds. However, these events are labor intensive and, without additional staff, impact the ability of the existing Office on Aging staff to perform their regular duties. Senior Nutrition Program The Senior Nutrition program targets “food insecure” seniors. There are nearly 80,000 adults age 60+ living alone in Orange County. Those numbers increase each year and it is expected that in just five years there will be 160,000. Many of those are insecure because of physical, mental, and/or financial limitations. These restrictions make it difficult or impossible for them to obtain food or meals on a regular basis, further impairing their health and safety. According to county providers, the Home Delivered Meals Program (sometimes known as Meals-on-Wheels) serves over 1,100,000 individual meals annually to more than 2700 individual Orange County seniors. The purpose is to provide healthy meals seven days a week to those medically qualified seniors who are homebound. While, meals are delivered five days a week, meals for the week-end are left with the Friday delivery. This program is a major tool in achieving the goal of stakeholders from all levels of government. That goal is encouraging aging-in-place. As a result of this valuable program, capable seniors have been able to avoid placement in expensive long term care facilities when they no longer have easy access to food. All clients in the Home Delivered Meals (Meals on Wheels) program are screened for eligibility, which includes physical limitations, age and self-care ability. Federal regulations prevent means testing of the recipients, although there is a requested “donation” of up to $ 6.50- 7.50 per day to help defray costs. Those unable to pay receive their meals free of charge. There is also a full pay program, at a cost of $10/ day, for those who do not qualify under the guidelines. Those who have sufficient mobility to visit local senior centers may take part in the Congregate Lunch program served at a total of 37 senior centers around Orange County. The Congregate Lunch program provides both a nutritious lunch and social interaction to those who are still mobile, but may no longer be willing or capable of preparing food for themselves on a regular basis. Waiting lists vary greatly. At present there is no waiting list in South County, but North Orange County has a wait list of 200 people, with most in Santa Ana and Anaheim. The federal and state governments hand down complex, demographic based funding formulas using the 2010 Census. They do not adjust for shifts in local senior populations between censuses. In addition, two charitable foundations in the North region redirected major grants away from senior care toward children in 2014. The loss of this money will exacerbate the situation in the North, impacting day-to-day planning and allocation of resources. Observations of the Home Delivered Meals Program Providers sub-contracted to the Office on Aging operate three central commercial kitchens to create and prepare the meals. One serves South County, one serves North County and the City of Irvine serves Irvine. A dietician at each site creates the menus and oversees compliance with nutrition regulations. From the commercial kitchens, the meals are dispersed by truck to senior centers throughout Orange County. Volunteer drivers pick up the meals at the senior centers and deliver them to individuals at home. Members of the Grand Jury accompanied volunteers from different regions in the county on their meal delivery routes. In one region, hot lunch meals packaged with cold dinner and breakfast meals are prepared at a subcontracted commercial kitchen and delivered to a local senior center in insulated bags. Volunteers then deliver the meals along an assigned route. Some customers on the route receive meals five days a week, while others choose only two or three times a week. In that same region, one senior center distributes meals to approximately 75 home-bound clients each day. There are nine routes with 6-9 clients in each route. The routes operate five days a week, requiring a total of 45 volunteer drivers. According to representatives of the non-profit organizations, it is sometimes a struggle to find enough volunteers. If a route is uncovered, clients do not receive their meals and are put on a waiting list. A member of the Grand Jury accompanied a driver to the six clients on his route. The clients visited included a 97 year old woman living with a home care provider and a couple consisting of a fragile husband and his wheel-chair bound wife. In this example, all of the clients had nothing but praise for the service. The only complaint heard had to do with the type of food provided – one client bemoaned the lack of sauerkraut in her meals. In another program, a microwaveable frozen dinner, prepared by the contactor’s own off-site commercial kitchen, is packaged with a cold lunch and breakfast. The Grand Jury visited the commercial kitchen which prepares the meals using purchased, not donated, food. The kitchen appeared to meet the strict cleanliness and documentation standards of a hospital kitchen. Several members of the Grand Jury took part in ride-alongs with drivers delivering meals. The City of Irvine operates its own on-site commercial kitchen at the Lakeside Senior Center. About 100,000 meals are prepared each year with over 54,000 meals served to 186 individual, unduplicated seniors provided through the Home Delivered Meals (Meals on Wheels) program. Over 1,000 home delivered meals are provided weekly by more than 150 volunteers, covering over 11 routes. Twenty thousand meals per year are provided for the very popular Congregate Lunch program at the Lakeview Senior Center and another 20,000 meals provided to the Adult Day Care Facility co-located with the Lakeview Senior Center. All meals are “ no added sugar”, low-sodium and meet the Nutritional Daily Allowance guidelines for older adults. It is obvious that clients not only trust their volunteer driver, since the doors were left open at most of the homes, but that the driver becomes a welcome friend and visitor to lonely, fragile aged. The driver is also another pair of eyes and ears monitoring the condition of the client, reporting any changes in physical and/or mental condition through the provider staff to the Office on Aging. The driver is also required to report any suspected elder abuse. This service allows many seniors to age at home, instead of needing to go to assisted living or nursing facilities. Long Term Care Ombudsman Program Ombudsmen investigate all complaints from residents in long-term care facilities. Ombudsmen work to resolve problems and concerns of individual residents by creating a presence through regular unannounced visits, monitoring conditions and care, and providing a voice for those unable to speak for themselves. The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program (LTCOP) serves 1,100 care facilities for the elderly in Orange County. These include 75 large assisted living facilities and nearly 1,000 six bed Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE). In 2015 there were three times as many Residential Care for Elderly homes (RCFEs) in Orange County than there were thirty years ago. Ten percent of all California RCFEs are located in Orange County. Only Los Angeles County has more. These state licensed RCFEs are located in single family homes throughout the county and are indistinguishable from any other residence in the neighborhood. A maximum of six residents live in each RCFE and receive around the clock care from a team of care providers. The team usually consists of two people, but there is no minimum number required by the State Licensing Board. Most residents are elderly with varying degrees of dementia and/or Alzheimer’s disease and are either alone with no relatives nearby or can no longer be cared for by family. These RCFEs are profit centered businesses, which depend upon reputation to be successful. (Non-profit ombudsman provider) In the past, most of the county’s facilities had an assigned Ombudsman making regular announced and unannounced visits, which included building relationships with the residents. As a result of funding deficiencies, 160 facilities with 960 residents did not have an assigned Ombudsman in 2013. The result was a decline in the complaint resolution rate from 82% in FY 2010-2011 to 66% in FY 2013-2104. (OOA Area Plan Update, 2015-16) As a state program, the Long-term Care Ombudsman Program has advocated two separate pieces of legislation. One bill would have increased the number of required inspections and oversight by the licensing agency. The second was to restore funding to the pre-2008 levels. Unfortunately, neither bill made it past the governor’s desk. At that time, a grant from a generous corporate sponsor allowed Orange County’s primary non-profit ombudsman provider to fill in that gap. In 2014, for the first time in the history of the program, 100% of the facilities in Orange County had a designated Ombudsman, up from 85% one year ago (Non-profit ombudsman provider). While the program has always been responsible for investigating complaints and abuse allegations, a designated Ombudsman in each facility insures a more persistent presence via announced and unannounced visits. The Long-term Care Ombudsman Program continues to be the only program protecting all the residents of Orange County in long-term care facilities. However, such corporate funding is not predictable or guaranteed and leaves a significant number of seniors vulnerable in its absence. Ombudsman Program Structure A single non-profit organization under subcontract to the Office on Aging is the only agency in the state providing countywide Ombudsman protection. It has been under contract since the inception of the program in 1973. This agency recruits, trains and monitors Ombudsman volunteers. Currently the Ombudsman program has 27 paid part time staff and a volunteer base of 78. Each Ombudsman, whether paid or volunteer, receives 36 hours of state- mandated training at the non-profit agency’s offices plus another ten hours of field training. Ombudsmen make unannounced visits to each facility once a month and attend regular resident council meetings at the assisted living facilities. Office on Aging Programs in Conjunction with the Ombudsman Program The Office on Aging is currently conducting a pilot Music Therapy Project. A small group of 25- 30 residents are being followed for six months to see if music therapy enhances their responsiveness and quality of life. If the pilot program is successful, the provider will apply for a grant to expand the program. The provider is also working with the State Ombudsman Office on a plan to reduce the use of psychotropic drugs in skilled nursing facilities. The Office on Aging is working with the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of California, Irvine (UCI) to bring education and training to assisted living facility staff on the care and well-being of residents with dementia. There is currently no specific program in place to educate the administrators and caregivers in the small 6 bed facilities about working with dementia residents. Observations of the Ombudsman Program Ombudsmen are indispensable eyes and ears, calling attention to below standard elder care. As a result of Ombudsman efforts, most recently two RCFEs in Anaheim, as reported by the Orange County Register on February 11, 2016, had their licenses revoked. The Orange County Grand Jury accompanied Ombudsmen on their routes to both RCFEs and assisted living facilities across Orange County. The Grand Jury observed how the Ombudsmen checked the physical condition of the facilities, the physical and emotional condition of the clients and how they conducted their inspections and reporting. The Ombudsmen were queried about their training and any barriers to the performance of their duties. One of the most frequent comments was the amount of paper work required. Since most of the Ombudsmen are volunteers, this was cited as one of the reasons that potential Ombudsmen who completed the initial training course did not continue to become Ombudsmen. The Office on Aging should partner with its non-profit ombudsman provider and the California Department of Aging to explore if the reporting system could be accessed from a tablet or mobile phone. This improvement would allow the Ombudsman to immediately write a report after a visit. The quality of volunteer Ombudsmen varies. At one end of the spectrum were dedicated, caring individuals, who connected with each resident in the facility. At the other end, the Grand Jury also found volunteers who followed their training with regard to compliance with paperwork and interaction with facility management, but, during the period of the Grand Jury’s observation, were observed to do little to cultivate a trusting relationship with their clients. The Ombudsman program is experiencing an attrition of volunteers because of relocation and retirement. A smaller pool of volunteers may make it increasingly difficult to maintain high volunteer standards. Much more needs to be done by the County of Orange to assist in the recruitment of Ombudsmen. Senior Reference Guide The Ombudsman non-profit agency contracted with OOA produces a senior services reference handbook called “Answers” outside of its county contract. This publication is an alternative to the Office on Aging Call Center and website, which sometimes can be challenging for seniors to use. The non-profit agency funds its production with no support from the Office on Aging other than a paid advertisement. Since it is basically an extension of the Office on Aging outreach function, it should be integrated with that effort and receive funding from the Office on Aging. Budget constraints at the non-profit agency prevent this publication from being more widely available. The OOA should partner with the non-profit agency to provide funding to produce sufficient copies of this resource for all seniors who are interested. Senior Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Program The Office on Aging administers the Senior Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (SNEMT) program, providing approximately 135,000 medical-related trips for approximately 2,000 unduplicated Orange County older adults who lack other transportation options. (OOA Area Plan Update 2015-16). Orange County is divided into three specific geographical SNEMT regions covering the entire county: North County, Central and South County. In accordance with standard county contracting procedures, the OOA selects a provider in each region to provide the transportation services. Providers can cover multiple regions. Fifty to sixty percent of Senior Non-Emergency Medical Transportation participants use the service for recurring dialysis appointments. Chemotherapy, physical therapy and doctor’s appointments account for the rest. Seniors can reserve transportation a month in advance. Because dialysis is often on a three day a week schedule, service is available from 4 AM six days a week, including Saturday. There is currently no waiting list for service, except for Saturday. There is a $2 fee, waived for low income clients. There is a 15 mile limit for trips, but there are exceptions on a case by case basis. The number of SNEMT trips in North and Central County has increased by a factor of six over the past three years. There were 20,000 trips in 2012 in Central and North areas; there were 120,000 in 2015. (SNEMT Contractor) According to the OOA, customer complaints are rare, amounting to less than five a year. There is a procedure for customers to report complaints to the subcontractor. The subcontractor investigates and attempts to resolve the issue. It is also required to report the complaint to OOA. Drivers originate some complaints, most often involving safety issues; such as, customers are not cooperating in wearing their seatbelts. Others originate with customers, who most often complain about pick- up times. Accidents are required to be reported to the County Risk Management Agency, but there were no accidents in 2015. The Office on Aging is required to physically inspect the vehicles used in the SNEMT program. Although this is a technical, mechanical inspection, it is currently assigned to an Administrative I level employee at the Office on Aging. Another duty of the Office on Aging is mileage verification of trips taken through the SNEMT program. Even though performed through sampling of 10% of the total trips, it remains a labor intensive effort, since the start and end location of each trip, as reported by the subcontractor, must be entered manually into MapQuest or similar software. As another example of the fragmentation of senior services, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) offers its own paratransit transportation program, ACCESS, funded by the Americans with Disabilities Act, for the disabled of any age, including qualified seniors. Although OCTA is the county’s public transit service, SNEMT is considered a social service program because of its funding source, and, therefore, is not administered by OCTA. The SNEMT program is funded by County Measure M2, Tobacco Settlement Revenue, and a grant through OCTA from the federal New Freedom Program. However, the New Freedom funds ended in September of 2015 for a loss of $171,184 to the SNEMT program. Although some seniors may be eligible for both programs, there is no coordination to maximize accessibility or service. Public – Private Partnership According to non-profit organizations, the revenue from governmental sources, including the OOA, does not meet the current expenditure necessary to meet current demand. The non-profit organizations attempt to bridge this gap with charitable donations from individuals, corporate sponsors and voluntary donations for service from clients. They report that it is difficult to fill the funding gap in the present environment and will be an even greater challenge as the client population increases, becomes older and more frail. The thinking is that since the economy has recovered and is doing well, less government help is needed. Those on fixed incomes have suffered in the low interest rate environment and are not benefitting from the improved economy. Service to seniors also has suffered recently as some major charities have prioritized their efforts away from senior programs toward children. In general, charitable gifts are considered easier to obtain for children’s services than for seniors. Volunteers are essential to the delivery of service in the Ombudsman and Nutrition Programs, yet there is virtually no funding available in the OOA budget to partner in the recruitment of these volunteers. Without enough volunteers there is an unavoidable reduction in service. There are waiting lists in some Home Delivered Meals programs. Ombudsman complaint resolution drops. Similarly, in the area of outreach, there is no specific funding available to partner in the production of a countywide directory of services, which is published by a non-profit agency. Only a fraction, 71,000 of the 500,000, or 14%, of seniors have received this resource guide. A public- private partnership, in which Orange County demonstrates its commitment to its senior citizens with substantial budgetary support, is necessary. The non-profit organizations leverage each dollar put forth by the County through the use of volunteers to carry out the programs. This multiplier effect cannot be undervalued. Orange County needs a comprehensive and visionary approach to bridge the increasing gap between the senior population growth and the declining services. Since the stated mission of the Office on Aging as an Area Agency is to provide that leadership, it must be given the resources it needs to accomplish that mission. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings represented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Gray Matters, A look at the Office on Aging,” the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes has arrived at ten principal findings, as follows: Orange County General Funds F1: Funding from the Orange County General Fund in support of the Office on Aging has not kept pace with the rapid increase in senior population. Allocation to Office on Aging from the OC General Fund in 2005-2006, prior to the recession, was $2.20 per senior per year. Over the past five years the allocation dropped to only $1.32 per senior person per year in FY 2015-16. F2. Lack of resources for the Office on Aging hampers its ability to accomplish its mission and mandates as required by the California Code of Regulations-WIC 9400-9404. The Office on Aging is required to be the County’s lead planner and advocate for seniors, working with public and private partners to create an updated, coordinated countywide strategic plan to better leverage and integrate all available resources to address the rapidly growing senior population. Organizational Issues at the Office on Aging F3: The position of the Division Manager for the Office on Aging is only a part time position, shared with the Veteran’s Service Office. Increasing outreach and Call Center demand require full time management at this level. F4: Limited funding to support staff positions results in chronic vacancies within the Office on Aging, negatively affecting service and responsiveness. F5: Limited staffing resources prevent the pursuit of grants to support senior services. Information and Assistance F6: The Office on Aging website is outdated and needs technological modernization immediately. There is no provision for access by mobile device or on-line chat capability. Senior Nutrition and Ombudsman Programs F7: The County of Orange provides no on-going budgetary support beyond the original contract to non-profit subcontractors for the recruitment of volunteers. F8: Orange County provides no budgetary support to the non-profit agency that publishes the “Answers” publication beyond the cost of individual county department advertising. Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program F9: Annual and semi-annual mechanical vehicle inspection is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, but no licensed mechanic is on staff to do this. F10: Mileage verification of each Senior Non-Emergency Medical trip is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, an inefficient, labor intensive effort requiring manual input of subcontractor supplied data. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Gray Matters, A look at the Office on Aging,” the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following twelve recommendations: R1: Board of Supervisors should restore funding to the Office on Aging from Orange County General Funds or any other available and reliable, permanent source of at least $1,294,000 in FY 2016-2017, based upon the pre-recession amount of $2.20 per senior per year, to restore staffing levels, update the Call Center and reposition the Office on Aging as the county’s lead planner and advocate. (F1, F2) R2: The Office on Aging should apply any increased funds received above the current baseline to restore service levels and to provide strategic leadership countywide. (F1, F2) R3: Add a position to serve as event coordinator at the Administrative Manager level 1 to Office on Aging to support OOA outreach and visibility by July 1, 2017. (F2) R4: Increase Full Time Equivalent Division Manager of the Office of Aging from FTE 0.5 to FTE1.0 and separate the Veterans Service and the Office on Aging by January 1, 2017. (F3) R5: Initiate a recruitment to fill one vacant longstanding Senior Citizen Representative position in the Information and Assistance Call Center by January 1, 2017 (F4) R6: Add a position to serve as grant writer at the Administrator II level by July 1, 2017. (F5) R7: Update and upgrade the Office on Aging website to provide for mobile device access and an on-line chat function by December 31, 2017. (F6) R8: Enter into a negotiation for a cost share with non-profit subcontractors in volunteer recruitment activity by December 31, 2016. (F7) R9: Enter into negotiations to cost share with the applicable non-profit agency to produce the book “Answers” by December 31, 2016. (F8) R10: Institute an annual Board of Supervisors Volunteer of the Year Award for senior services rendered in the form of recognition and an award funded by the County by December 31, 2016. (F7) R11: Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program to require the subcontractor to handle the physical and mechanical inspection of vehicles at subcontractor’s cost with documentation required by the Office on Aging that the inspection was conducted at the County’s Public Works/Fleet Services Division. (F9) R12: Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program that the sub-contractor produce mileage verification data obtained through MapQuest or similar software and require contractors to submit mileage verifications with payment request. (F10) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under the elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), detail, 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 authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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 or requested from: Responses Required: Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings 1-10, Recommendations 1-12) Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: Director, Orange County Community Resources (Findings 1-10, Recommendations 1-12) Works Consulted 2003-2004 Grand Jury Report, Senior Transportation in Orange County 2005-2006 Grand Jury Report, The Long Term Care Ombudsman Program: Are We Ready for the Coming “Age Tsunami”? 2010 US Census, Quick Facts for Orange County –website www.census.gov/2010census California Department of Aging, Population Data for Orange County -website 2015 OC Community Indicators Office on Aging- website https://officeonaging.ocgov.com 2012-2016 Office on Aging, Area Study and its annual updates Office on Aging, FY 2015-2016 Budget Subcontracts for Nutrition, Ombudsman and Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Programs Orange County, FY 2005-2006 Budget Summary for Office on Aging US Census Bureau, American FactFinder, Orange County, CA, website June, 2015 Works Consulted - Websites Abrazar, http://abrazarinc.com Age Well Senior Services, https://www.google.com/9/22/2015search?q=agewell+senior+services&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe= Age Well Senior Services Annual Report 2014, http://www.agewellseniorservices.org/html/downloads2014_annual_report%20(2),pdf, 9/22/2015 Age Well Senior Services Revenue-Expenses, http://www.agewellseniorservices.org/htmldownloads/PIE_fye%201213.pdf, 9/22/2015 AIRS- Alliance of Information and Referral Systems, www.airs.org,10/2/2015 AIRS –Taxonomy, http://www.airs.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3386,10/2/2015 Area Agencies on Aging, https://www.aging.ca.gov/ProgramsProviders/.../AAA_listing.a..., 10/10/15 California Department of Finance, www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic, 10/15/2015 California Department of Aging, http://www.aging.ca.gov, 8/23/2015 California Department of Finance-P-1 and P-2, http://www.dof.ca.gov/researchdemographic/projections/#p-1 8/29/2015 City of Irvine Meals on Wheels, http://www.cityofirvine.org/senior-services/meals-wheels Community SeniorServ, http://communityseniorserv.com Council on Aging, http://coaoc.org Facts About California's Elderly - PSA 22, , http://www.aging.ca.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Docs/2015/Program_Statistical_Fact_Sheets_at_the_PSA-Level_(2015).pdf, 8/29/2015 National Care Planning Council, https://www.longtermcarelink.net, 9/30/2015 National Council on Aging-2016 Funding Table, https://www.ncoa.org/resources/federal-budget-fy16-aging-program-funding-table,10/5/2015 Office on Aging, https://officeonaging.ocgov.com,8/26/2015 Office on Aging Area Plan 2012-2016, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=24205, 8/31/2015 Office on Aging Area Plan Update, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=39128, 8/31/2015 Office on Aging FAQ, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/about/faq, 8/31/2015 Office on Aging Presentation South Senior Summit -2015, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/civicax/filebankblobdload.aspx?BlobID=46274, 8/26/15 Office on Aging Report Identification of Resources, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/resources/reports,8/26/2015 Orange County Quick Facts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/.../18117.html?..., 8/16/2015 Orange County Vital Aging Program, www.ocbrain.org, 8/16/2015 Public Policy Institute of California, www.ppic.org,10/15/2015 Senior Citizens Advisory Council, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/about/scac, 8/16/2015 US Census Population Projections, http://www.census.gov/population/projections, 8/16/2015 US Census-2010, www.census.gov/2010census, 8/16/2015 15 Appendix 1- Office on Aging Organization Chart DIRECTOR-ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY RESOURCES DIRECTOR-ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES -INTERIM DIVISION MANAGER OFFICE ON AGING/VETERANS SERVICES VACANT VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE POLICY AND PLANNING INFO AND CONTRACTS ASSISTANCE MANAGER 14 BILLETS ADMIN I ADMIN I ADMIN I STAFF SPECIALIST ADMIN I STAFF ASSISTANT ADMIN I ADMIN I SENIOR CITIZEN HEALTH VACANT REP II EDUCATOR SENIOR CITIZEN ADMIN I REP II VACANT SENIOR CITIZEN REP II ADMIN I VACANT SENIOR CITIZEN REP II VACANT STAFF SPECIALIST
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Funding from the Orange County General Fund in support of the Office on Aging has not kept pace with the rapid increase in senior population. Allocation to Office on Aging from the OC General Fund in 2005-2006, prior to the recession, was $2.20 per senior per year. Over the past five years the allocation dropped to only $1.32 per senior person per year in FY 2015-16.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Board of Supervisors should restore funding to the Office on Aging from Orange County General Funds or any other available and reliable, permanent source of at least $1,294,000 in FY 2016-2017, based upon the pre-recession amount of $2.20 per senior per year, to restore staffing levels, update the Call Center and reposition the Office on Aging as the county’s lead planner and advocate. (F1, F2)
R2:
The Office on Aging should apply any increased funds received above the current baseline to restore service levels and to provide strategic leadership countywide. (F1, F2)
F2:
Lack of resources for the Office on Aging hampers its ability to accomplish its mission and mandates as required by the California Code of Regulations-WIC 9400-9404. The Office on Aging is required to be the County’s lead planner and advocate for seniors, working with public and private partners to create an updated, coordinated countywide strategic plan to better leverage and integrate all available resources to address the rapidly growing senior population. Organizational Issues at the Office on Aging
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Board of Supervisors should restore funding to the Office on Aging from Orange County General Funds or any other available and reliable, permanent source of at least $1,294,000 in FY 2016-2017, based upon the pre-recession amount of $2.20 per senior per year, to restore staffing levels, update the Call Center and reposition the Office on Aging as the county’s lead planner and advocate. (F1, F2)
R2:
The Office on Aging should apply any increased funds received above the current baseline to restore service levels and to provide strategic leadership countywide. (F1, F2)
R3:
Add a position to serve as event coordinator at the Administrative Manager level 1 to Office on Aging to support OOA outreach and visibility by July 1, 2017. (F2)
F3:
The position of the Division Manager for the Office on Aging is only a part time position, shared with the Veteran’s Service Office. Increasing outreach and Call Center demand require full time management at this level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Increase Full Time Equivalent Division Manager of the Office of Aging from FTE 0.5 to FTE1.0 and separate the Veterans Service and the Office on Aging by January 1, 2017. (F3)
F4:
Limited funding to support staff positions results in chronic vacancies within the Office on Aging, negatively affecting service and responsiveness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Initiate a recruitment to fill one vacant longstanding Senior Citizen Representative position in the Information and Assistance Call Center by January 1, 2017 (F4)
F5:
Limited staffing resources prevent the pursuit of grants to support senior services. Information and Assistance
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Add a position to serve as grant writer at the Administrator II level by July 1, 2017. (F5)
F6:
The Office on Aging website is outdated and needs technological modernization immediately. There is no provision for access by mobile device or on-line chat capability. Senior Nutrition and Ombudsman Programs
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Update and upgrade the Office on Aging website to provide for mobile device access and an on-line chat function by December 31, 2017. (F6)
F7:
The County of Orange provides no on-going budgetary support beyond the original contract to non-profit subcontractors for the recruitment of volunteers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8:
Enter into a negotiation for a cost share with non-profit subcontractors in volunteer recruitment activity by December 31, 2016. (F7)
R10:
Institute an annual Board of Supervisors Volunteer of the Year Award for senior services rendered in the form of recognition and an award funded by the County by December 31, 2016. (F7)
F8:
Orange County provides no budgetary support to the non-profit agency that publishes the “Answers” publication beyond the cost of individual county department advertising. Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Enter into negotiations to cost share with the applicable non-profit agency to produce the book “Answers” by December 31, 2016. (F8)
F9:
Annual and semi-annual mechanical vehicle inspection is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, but no licensed mechanic is on staff to do this.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program to require the subcontractor to handle the physical and mechanical inspection of vehicles at subcontractor’s cost with documentation required by the Office on Aging that the inspection was conducted at the County’s Public Works/Fleet Services Division. (F9)
F10:
Mileage verification of each Senior Non-Emergency Medical trip is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, an inefficient, labor intensive effort requiring manual input of subcontractor supplied data.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program that the sub-contractor produce mileage verification data obtained through MapQuest or similar software and require contractors to submit mileage verifications with payment request. (F10)
F2000:
o r e b 1500 Inbound m u N 1000 Outbound 500 0 FY 2014-2015 The Office on Aging website has had a steady increase in users since January 2013. The online resource directory page is consistently the second most viewed OOA webpage every month, suggesting that the community is augmenting traditional phone usage with online resources. The website needs updating in content and technology to reflect that current users are more technologically proficient and expect current information to be posted. An on-line chat function would also enhance the functionality of the website. Staffing the Call Center The OOA software statistics shows that the Call Center handles an average of 80-90 calls per day. While the average length of each call is 3-4 minutes, some callers are on hold for half an hour or more, depending upon staffing levels. During peak periods, particularly at winter holiday time, it receives as many as 120 calls per day. A wall mounted screen displays a running total of the number of calls handled that day and also shows the number of calls which went unanswered. During a visit to the Call Center 40 calls were answered, while seven were unanswered for a 15% abandonment rate. Call Center personnel confirmed that this is typical, but that the target for unanswered calls is 10%. A key reason for dropped calls is unfilled staff positions. Of the five authorized staff positions available to operate this center one position has been vacant since 2012. Office on Aging Outreach One task of the OOA is educating the senior Orange County population about the host of services available to them. As a typical example, in the month of October, 2015, the OOA engaged in five local outreach events, attended by a total of 1,027 seniors. In order to reach as many seniors as possible, the OOA also cosponsors and coordinates large scale events with stakeholders, including the Board of Supervisors and non-profit organizations. Budget constraints hamper this very effective and efficient means of speaking to seniors. Funds are not available to enable the OOA to hold these large events every year in each of the county areas. In 2015 the Office on Aging participated in one large event, the South County Senior Summit, held in Laguna Woods, cosponsored by the District 5 Supervisor. Over 1000 seniors and other interested voters attended this event. A similar North County Senior Summit was held in 2014. Outreach efforts to this group of graying voters would be greatly improved if the Office on Aging coordinated an event with each of the Supervisors on the Board of Supervisors to hold an event in each district once a year utilizing the Board members’s office funds. However, these events are labor intensive and, without additional staff, impact the ability of the existing Office on Aging staff to perform their regular duties. Senior Nutrition Program The Senior Nutrition program targets “food insecure” seniors. There are nearly 80,000 adults age 60+ living alone in Orange County. Those numbers increase each year and it is expected that in just five years there will be 160,000. Many of those are insecure because of physical, mental, and/or financial limitations. These restrictions make it difficult or impossible for them to obtain food or meals on a regular basis, further impairing their health and safety. According to county providers, the Home Delivered Meals Program (sometimes known as Meals-on-Wheels) serves over 1,100,000 individual meals annually to more than 2700 individual Orange County seniors. The purpose is to provide healthy meals seven days a week to those medically qualified seniors who are homebound. While, meals are delivered five days a week, meals for the week-end are left with the Friday delivery. This program is a major tool in achieving the goal of stakeholders from all levels of government. That goal is encouraging aging-in-place. As a result of this valuable program, capable seniors have been able to avoid placement in expensive long term care facilities when they no longer have easy access to food. All clients in the Home Delivered Meals (Meals on Wheels) program are screened for eligibility, which includes physical limitations, age and self-care ability. Federal regulations prevent means testing of the recipients, although there is a requested “donation” of up to $ 6.50- 7.50 per day to help defray costs. Those unable to pay receive their meals free of charge. There is also a full pay program, at a cost of $10/ day, for those who do not qualify under the guidelines. Those who have sufficient mobility to visit local senior centers may take part in the Congregate Lunch program served at a total of 37 senior centers around Orange County. The Congregate Lunch program provides both a nutritious lunch and social interaction to those who are still mobile, but may no longer be willing or capable of preparing food for themselves on a regular basis. Waiting lists vary greatly. At present there is no waiting list in South County, but North Orange County has a wait list of 200 people, with most in Santa Ana and Anaheim. The federal and state governments hand down complex, demographic based funding formulas using the 2010 Census. They do not adjust for shifts in local senior populations between censuses. In addition, two charitable foundations in the North region redirected major grants away from senior care toward children in 2014. The loss of this money will exacerbate the situation in the North, impacting day-to-day planning and allocation of resources. Observations of the Home Delivered Meals Program Providers sub-contracted to the Office on Aging operate three central commercial kitchens to create and prepare the meals. One serves South County, one serves North County and the City of Irvine serves Irvine. A dietician at each site creates the menus and oversees compliance with nutrition regulations. From the commercial kitchens, the meals are dispersed by truck to senior centers throughout Orange County. Volunteer drivers pick up the meals at the senior centers and deliver them to individuals at home. Members of the Grand Jury accompanied volunteers from different regions in the county on their meal delivery routes. In one region, hot lunch meals packaged with cold dinner and breakfast meals are prepared at a subcontracted commercial kitchen and delivered to a local senior center in insulated bags. Volunteers then deliver the meals along an assigned route. Some customers on the route receive meals five days a week, while others choose only two or three times a week. In that same region, one senior center distributes meals to approximately 75 home-bound clients each day. There are nine routes with 6-9 clients in each route. The routes operate five days a week, requiring a total of 45 volunteer drivers. According to representatives of the non-profit organizations, it is sometimes a struggle to find enough volunteers. If a route is uncovered, clients do not receive their meals and are put on a waiting list. A member of the Grand Jury accompanied a driver to the six clients on his route. The clients visited included a 97 year old woman living with a home care provider and a couple consisting of a fragile husband and his wheel-chair bound wife. In this example, all of the clients had nothing but praise for the service. The only complaint heard had to do with the type of food provided – one client bemoaned the lack of sauerkraut in her meals. In another program, a microwaveable frozen dinner, prepared by the contactor’s own off-site commercial kitchen, is packaged with a cold lunch and breakfast. The Grand Jury visited the commercial kitchen which prepares the meals using purchased, not donated, food. The kitchen appeared to meet the strict cleanliness and documentation standards of a hospital kitchen. Several members of the Grand Jury took part in ride-alongs with drivers delivering meals. The City of Irvine operates its own on-site commercial kitchen at the Lakeside Senior Center. About 100,000 meals are prepared each year with over 54,000 meals served to 186 individual, unduplicated seniors provided through the Home Delivered Meals (Meals on Wheels) program. Over 1,000 home delivered meals are provided weekly by more than 150 volunteers, covering over 11 routes. Twenty thousand meals per year are provided for the very popular Congregate Lunch program at the Lakeview Senior Center and another 20,000 meals provided to the Adult Day Care Facility co-located with the Lakeview Senior Center. All meals are “ no added sugar”, low-sodium and meet the Nutritional Daily Allowance guidelines for older adults. It is obvious that clients not only trust their volunteer driver, since the doors were left open at most of the homes, but that the driver becomes a welcome friend and visitor to lonely, fragile aged. The driver is also another pair of eyes and ears monitoring the condition of the client, reporting any changes in physical and/or mental condition through the provider staff to the Office on Aging. The driver is also required to report any suspected elder abuse. This service allows many seniors to age at home, instead of needing to go to assisted living or nursing facilities. Long Term Care Ombudsman Program Ombudsmen investigate all complaints from residents in long-term care facilities. Ombudsmen work to resolve problems and concerns of individual residents by creating a presence through regular unannounced visits, monitoring conditions and care, and providing a voice for those unable to speak for themselves. The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program (LTCOP) serves 1,100 care facilities for the elderly in Orange County. These include 75 large assisted living facilities and nearly 1,000 six bed Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE). In 2015 there were three times as many Residential Care for Elderly homes (RCFEs) in Orange County than there were thirty years ago. Ten percent of all California RCFEs are located in Orange County. Only Los Angeles County has more. These state licensed RCFEs are located in single family homes throughout the county and are indistinguishable from any other residence in the neighborhood. A maximum of six residents live in each RCFE and receive around the clock care from a team of care providers. The team usually consists of two people, but there is no minimum number required by the State Licensing Board. Most residents are elderly with varying degrees of dementia and/or Alzheimer’s disease and are either alone with no relatives nearby or can no longer be cared for by family. These RCFEs are profit centered businesses, which depend upon reputation to be successful. (Non-profit ombudsman provider) In the past, most of the county’s facilities had an assigned Ombudsman making regular announced and unannounced visits, which included building relationships with the residents. As a result of funding deficiencies, 160 facilities with 960 residents did not have an assigned Ombudsman in 2013. The result was a decline in the complaint resolution rate from 82% in FY 2010-2011 to 66% in FY 2013-2104. (OOA Area Plan Update, 2015-16) As a state program, the Long-term Care Ombudsman Program has advocated two separate pieces of legislation. One bill would have increased the number of required inspections and oversight by the licensing agency. The second was to restore funding to the pre-2008 levels. Unfortunately, neither bill made it past the governor’s desk. At that time, a grant from a generous corporate sponsor allowed Orange County’s primary non-profit ombudsman provider to fill in that gap. In 2014, for the first time in the history of the program, 100% of the facilities in Orange County had a designated Ombudsman, up from 85% one year ago (Non-profit ombudsman provider). While the program has always been responsible for investigating complaints and abuse allegations, a designated Ombudsman in each facility insures a more persistent presence via announced and unannounced visits. The Long-term Care Ombudsman Program continues to be the only program protecting all the residents of Orange County in long-term care facilities. However, such corporate funding is not predictable or guaranteed and leaves a significant number of seniors vulnerable in its absence. Ombudsman Program Structure A single non-profit organization under subcontract to the Office on Aging is the only agency in the state providing countywide Ombudsman protection. It has been under contract since the inception of the program in 1973. This agency recruits, trains and monitors Ombudsman volunteers. Currently the Ombudsman program has 27 paid part time staff and a volunteer base of 78. Each Ombudsman, whether paid or volunteer, receives 36 hours of state- mandated training at the non-profit agency’s offices plus another ten hours of field training. Ombudsmen make unannounced visits to each facility once a month and attend regular resident council meetings at the assisted living facilities. Office on Aging Programs in Conjunction with the Ombudsman Program The Office on Aging is currently conducting a pilot Music Therapy Project. A small group of 25- 30 residents are being followed for six months to see if music therapy enhances their responsiveness and quality of life. If the pilot program is successful, the provider will apply for a grant to expand the program. The provider is also working with the State Ombudsman Office on a plan to reduce the use of psychotropic drugs in skilled nursing facilities. The Office on Aging is working with the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of California, Irvine (UCI) to bring education and training to assisted living facility staff on the care and well-being of residents with dementia. There is currently no specific program in place to educate the administrators and caregivers in the small 6 bed facilities about working with dementia residents. Observations of the Ombudsman Program Ombudsmen are indispensable eyes and ears, calling attention to below standard elder care. As a result of Ombudsman efforts, most recently two RCFEs in Anaheim, as reported by the Orange County Register on February 11, 2016, had their licenses revoked. The Orange County Grand Jury accompanied Ombudsmen on their routes to both RCFEs and assisted living facilities across Orange County. The Grand Jury observed how the Ombudsmen checked the physical condition of the facilities, the physical and emotional condition of the clients and how they conducted their inspections and reporting. The Ombudsmen were queried about their training and any barriers to the performance of their duties. One of the most frequent comments was the amount of paper work required. Since most of the Ombudsmen are volunteers, this was cited as one of the reasons that potential Ombudsmen who completed the initial training course did not continue to become Ombudsmen. The Office on Aging should partner with its non-profit ombudsman provider and the California Department of Aging to explore if the reporting system could be accessed from a tablet or mobile phone. This improvement would allow the Ombudsman to immediately write a report after a visit. The quality of volunteer Ombudsmen varies. At one end of the spectrum were dedicated, caring individuals, who connected with each resident in the facility. At the other end, the Grand Jury also found volunteers who followed their training with regard to compliance with paperwork and interaction with facility management, but, during the period of the Grand Jury’s observation, were observed to do little to cultivate a trusting relationship with their clients. The Ombudsman program is experiencing an attrition of volunteers because of relocation and retirement. A smaller pool of volunteers may make it increasingly difficult to maintain high volunteer standards. Much more needs to be done by the County of Orange to assist in the recruitment of Ombudsmen. Senior Reference Guide The Ombudsman non-profit agency contracted with OOA produces a senior services reference handbook called “Answers” outside of its county contract. This publication is an alternative to the Office on Aging Call Center and website, which sometimes can be challenging for seniors to use. The non-profit agency funds its production with no support from the Office on Aging other than a paid advertisement. Since it is basically an extension of the Office on Aging outreach function, it should be integrated with that effort and receive funding from the Office on Aging. Budget constraints at the non-profit agency prevent this publication from being more widely available. The OOA should partner with the non-profit agency to provide funding to produce sufficient copies of this resource for all seniors who are interested. Senior Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Program The Office on Aging administers the Senior Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (SNEMT) program, providing approximately 135,000 medical-related trips for approximately 2,000 unduplicated Orange County older adults who lack other transportation options. (OOA Area Plan Update 2015-16). Orange County is divided into three specific geographical SNEMT regions covering the entire county: North County, Central and South County. In accordance with standard county contracting procedures, the OOA selects a provider in each region to provide the transportation services. Providers can cover multiple regions. Fifty to sixty percent of Senior Non-Emergency Medical Transportation participants use the service for recurring dialysis appointments. Chemotherapy, physical therapy and doctor’s appointments account for the rest. Seniors can reserve transportation a month in advance. Because dialysis is often on a three day a week schedule, service is available from 4 AM six days a week, including Saturday. There is currently no waiting list for service, except for Saturday. There is a $2 fee, waived for low income clients. There is a 15 mile limit for trips, but there are exceptions on a case by case basis. The number of SNEMT trips in North and Central County has increased by a factor of six over the past three years. There were 20,000 trips in 2012 in Central and North areas; there were 120,000 in 2015. (SNEMT Contractor) According to the OOA, customer complaints are rare, amounting to less than five a year. There is a procedure for customers to report complaints to the subcontractor. The subcontractor investigates and attempts to resolve the issue. It is also required to report the complaint to OOA. Drivers originate some complaints, most often involving safety issues; such as, customers are not cooperating in wearing their seatbelts. Others originate with customers, who most often complain about pick- up times. Accidents are required to be reported to the County Risk Management Agency, but there were no accidents in 2015. The Office on Aging is required to physically inspect the vehicles used in the SNEMT program. Although this is a technical, mechanical inspection, it is currently assigned to an Administrative I level employee at the Office on Aging. Another duty of the Office on Aging is mileage verification of trips taken through the SNEMT program. Even though performed through sampling of 10% of the total trips, it remains a labor intensive effort, since the start and end location of each trip, as reported by the subcontractor, must be entered manually into MapQuest or similar software. As another example of the fragmentation of senior services, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) offers its own paratransit transportation program, ACCESS, funded by the Americans with Disabilities Act, for the disabled of any age, including qualified seniors. Although OCTA is the county’s public transit service, SNEMT is considered a social service program because of its funding source, and, therefore, is not administered by OCTA. The SNEMT program is funded by County Measure M2, Tobacco Settlement Revenue, and a grant through OCTA from the federal New Freedom Program. However, the New Freedom funds ended in September of 2015 for a loss of $171,184 to the SNEMT program. Although some seniors may be eligible for both programs, there is no coordination to maximize accessibility or service. Public – Private Partnership According to non-profit organizations, the revenue from governmental sources, including the OOA, does not meet the current expenditure necessary to meet current demand. The non-profit organizations attempt to bridge this gap with charitable donations from individuals, corporate sponsors and voluntary donations for service from clients. They report that it is difficult to fill the funding gap in the present environment and will be an even greater challenge as the client population increases, becomes older and more frail. The thinking is that since the economy has recovered and is doing well, less government help is needed. Those on fixed incomes have suffered in the low interest rate environment and are not benefitting from the improved economy. Service to seniors also has suffered recently as some major charities have prioritized their efforts away from senior programs toward children. In general, charitable gifts are considered easier to obtain for children’s services than for seniors. Volunteers are essential to the delivery of service in the Ombudsman and Nutrition Programs, yet there is virtually no funding available in the OOA budget to partner in the recruitment of these volunteers. Without enough volunteers there is an unavoidable reduction in service. There are waiting lists in some Home Delivered Meals programs. Ombudsman complaint resolution drops. Similarly, in the area of outreach, there is no specific funding available to partner in the production of a countywide directory of services, which is published by a non-profit agency. Only a fraction, 71,000 of the 500,000, or 14%, of seniors have received this resource guide. A public- private partnership, in which Orange County demonstrates its commitment to its senior citizens with substantial budgetary support, is necessary. The non-profit organizations leverage each dollar put forth by the County through the use of volunteers to carry out the programs. This multiplier effect cannot be undervalued. Orange County needs a comprehensive and visionary approach to bridge the increasing gap between the senior population growth and the declining services. Since the stated mission of the Office on Aging as an Area Agency is to provide that leadership, it must be given the resources it needs to accomplish that mission. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings represented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Gray Matters, A look at the Office on Aging,” the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes has arrived at ten principal findings, as follows: Orange County General Funds F1: Funding from the Orange County General Fund in support of the Office on Aging has not kept pace with the rapid increase in senior population. Allocation to Office on Aging from the OC General Fund in 2005-2006, prior to the recession, was $2.20 per senior per year. Over the past five years the allocation dropped to only $1.32 per senior person per year in FY 2015-16. F2. Lack of resources for the Office on Aging hampers its ability to accomplish its mission and mandates as required by the California Code of Regulations-WIC 9400-9404. The Office on Aging is required to be the County’s lead planner and advocate for seniors, working with public and private partners to create an updated, coordinated countywide strategic plan to better leverage and integrate all available resources to address the rapidly growing senior population. Organizational Issues at the Office on Aging F3: The position of the Division Manager for the Office on Aging is only a part time position, shared with the Veteran’s Service Office. Increasing outreach and Call Center demand require full time management at this level. F4: Limited funding to support staff positions results in chronic vacancies within the Office on Aging, negatively affecting service and responsiveness. F5: Limited staffing resources prevent the pursuit of grants to support senior services. Information and Assistance F6: The Office on Aging website is outdated and needs technological modernization immediately. There is no provision for access by mobile device or on-line chat capability. Senior Nutrition and Ombudsman Programs F7: The County of Orange provides no on-going budgetary support beyond the original contract to non-profit subcontractors for the recruitment of volunteers. F8: Orange County provides no budgetary support to the non-profit agency that publishes the “Answers” publication beyond the cost of individual county department advertising. Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program F9: Annual and semi-annual mechanical vehicle inspection is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, but no licensed mechanic is on staff to do this. F10: Mileage verification of each Senior Non-Emergency Medical trip is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, an inefficient, labor intensive effort requiring manual input of subcontractor supplied data. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Gray Matters, A look at the Office on Aging,” the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following twelve recommendations: R1: Board of Supervisors should restore funding to the Office on Aging from Orange County General Funds or any other available and reliable, permanent source of at least $1,294,000 in FY 2016-2017, based upon the pre-recession amount of $2.20 per senior per year, to restore staffing levels, update the Call Center and reposition the Office on Aging as the county’s lead planner and advocate. (F1, F2) R2: The Office on Aging should apply any increased funds received above the current baseline to restore service levels and to provide strategic leadership countywide. (F1, F2) R3: Add a position to serve as event coordinator at the Administrative Manager level 1 to Office on Aging to support OOA outreach and visibility by July 1, 2017. (F2) R4: Increase Full Time Equivalent Division Manager of the Office of Aging from FTE 0.5 to FTE1.0 and separate the Veterans Service and the Office on Aging by January 1, 2017. (F3) R5: Initiate a recruitment to fill one vacant longstanding Senior Citizen Representative position in the Information and Assistance Call Center by January 1, 2017 (F4) R6: Add a position to serve as grant writer at the Administrator II level by July 1, 2017. (F5) R7: Update and upgrade the Office on Aging website to provide for mobile device access and an on-line chat function by December 31, 2017. (F6) R8: Enter into a negotiation for a cost share with non-profit subcontractors in volunteer recruitment activity by December 31, 2016. (F7) R9: Enter into negotiations to cost share with the applicable non-profit agency to produce the book “Answers” by December 31, 2016. (F8) R10: Institute an annual Board of Supervisors Volunteer of the Year Award for senior services rendered in the form of recognition and an award funded by the County by December 31, 2016. (F7) R11: Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program to require the subcontractor to handle the physical and mechanical inspection of vehicles at subcontractor’s cost with documentation required by the Office on Aging that the inspection was conducted at the County’s Public Works/Fleet Services Division. (F9) R12: Add a requirement in the next Request for Proposal for the Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program that the sub-contractor produce mileage verification data obtained through MapQuest or similar software and require contractors to submit mileage verifications with payment request. (F10) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under the elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), detail, 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 authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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 or requested from: Responses Required: Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings 1-10, Recommendations 1-12) Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: Director, Orange County Community Resources (Findings 1-10, Recommendations 1-12) Works Consulted 2003-2004 Grand Jury Report, Senior Transportation in Orange County 2005-2006 Grand Jury Report, The Long Term Care Ombudsman Program: Are We Ready for the Coming “Age Tsunami”? 2010 US Census, Quick Facts for Orange County –website www.census.gov/2010census California Department of Aging, Population Data for Orange County -website 2015 OC Community Indicators Office on Aging- website https://officeonaging.ocgov.com 2012-2016 Office on Aging, Area Study and its annual updates Office on Aging, FY 2015-2016 Budget Subcontracts for Nutrition, Ombudsman and Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Programs Orange County, FY 2005-2006 Budget Summary for Office on Aging US Census Bureau, American FactFinder, Orange County, CA, website June, 2015 Works Consulted - Websites Abrazar, http://abrazarinc.com Age Well Senior Services, https://www.google.com/9/22/2015search?q=agewell+senior+services&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe= Age Well Senior Services Annual Report 2014, http://www.agewellseniorservices.org/html/downloads2014_annual_report%20(2),pdf, 9/22/2015 Age Well Senior Services Revenue-Expenses, http://www.agewellseniorservices.org/htmldownloads/PIE_fye%201213.pdf, 9/22/2015 AIRS- Alliance of Information and Referral Systems, www.airs.org,10/2/2015 AIRS –Taxonomy, http://www.airs.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3386,10/2/2015 Area Agencies on Aging, https://www.aging.ca.gov/ProgramsProviders/.../AAA_listing.a..., 10/10/15 California Department of Finance, www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic, 10/15/2015 California Department of Aging, http://www.aging.ca.gov, 8/23/2015 California Department of Finance-P-1 and P-2, http://www.dof.ca.gov/researchdemographic/projections/#p-1 8/29/2015 City of Irvine Meals on Wheels, http://www.cityofirvine.org/senior-services/meals-wheels Community SeniorServ, http://communityseniorserv.com Council on Aging, http://coaoc.org Facts About California's Elderly - PSA 22, , http://www.aging.ca.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Docs/2015/Program_Statistical_Fact_Sheets_at_the_PSA-Level_(2015).pdf, 8/29/2015 National Care Planning Council, https://www.longtermcarelink.net, 9/30/2015 National Council on Aging-2016 Funding Table, https://www.ncoa.org/resources/federal-budget-fy16-aging-program-funding-table,10/5/2015 Office on Aging, https://officeonaging.ocgov.com,8/26/2015 Office on Aging Area Plan 2012-2016, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=24205, 8/31/2015 Office on Aging Area Plan Update, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=39128, 8/31/2015 Office on Aging FAQ, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/about/faq, 8/31/2015 Office on Aging Presentation South Senior Summit -2015, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/civicax/filebankblobdload.aspx?BlobID=46274, 8/26/15 Office on Aging Report Identification of Resources, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/resources/reports,8/26/2015 Orange County Quick Facts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/.../18117.html?..., 8/16/2015 Orange County Vital Aging Program, www.ocbrain.org, 8/16/2015 Public Policy Institute of California, www.ppic.org,10/15/2015 Senior Citizens Advisory Council, http://officeonaging.ocgov.com/about/scac, 8/16/2015 US Census Population Projections, http://www.census.gov/population/projections, 8/16/2015 US Census-2010, www.census.gov/2010census, 8/16/2015 15 Appendix 1- Office on Aging Organization Chart DIRECTOR-ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY RESOURCES DIRECTOR-ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES -INTERIM DIVISION MANAGER OFFICE ON AGING/VETERANS SERVICES VACANT VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE POLICY AND PLANNING INFO AND CONTRACTS ASSISTANCE MANAGER 14 BILLETS ADMIN I ADMIN I ADMIN I STAFF SPECIALIST ADMIN I STAFF ASSISTANT ADMIN I ADMIN I SENIOR CITIZEN HEALTH VACANT REP II EDUCATOR SENIOR CITIZEN ADMIN I REP II VACANT SENIOR CITIZEN REP II ADMIN I VACANT SENIOR CITIZEN REP II VACANT STAFF SPECIALIST
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Failure to follow procedures Some OCSD staff allowed prohibited behavior by inmates and failed to follow written procedures, including:
• Properly conducting inmate counts
• Adequately searching plumbing tunnels, if at all
• Conducting comprehensive roof searches
• Requiring inmates remove and cease the use of tenting and ratlines
• Adequately searching inside the cells themselves
• Accounting for all prison-issued sheets and clothing
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should continue to provide funding as outlined in the five year plan and provide additional funding in the FY 2017-18 budget as detailed in the OCSD Jail Hardening Report to complete the long term hardening requirements requested by OCSD.
F2:
Lack of funding Several past Grand Jury reports noted inadequacies in the video monitoring of inmates in the CMJ and recommended funding to update the systems. Such funding was not approved by the Board of Supervisors until the 2014-2015 fiscal year. In addition to the need to update video equipment, the OCSD has identified, and this Grand Jury agrees, that there is a crucial need to fund the following:
• An updated computer system to facilitate the completion of RFI throughout all of the jails
• Full body scanners and/or additional metal detectors
• Additional CCTV systems including coverage of all roof areas and an employee who monitors the screens in real time
• Additional fencing on the CMJ roof Funding of these additional security components will greatly enhance security. Failure to provide funding for these needed upgrades will severely impact the OCSD’s ability to prevent future escapes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Within 6 months of the publication of this report, the executive staff of the OCSD should develop and implement guidelines to hold all staff accountable for conducting their jobs in compliance with policy and procedures manual.
F3:
Lack of supervision/oversight There was a lack of consistent supervision at the CMJ to ensure that counts, searches, and logs required by the policy and procedures manual were completed and conducted according to procedure. There was an overall lack of consistent supervision regarding plumbing tunnel checks, tenting and ratlines, inmate counts, etc. Additionally, inmate count issues raised by sergeants and lieutenants were not acted upon by executive jail management. Subsequently, OCSD has adequately addressed the personnel issues that led to the escape.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The OCSD should continue to review the department’s policy and procedures manual on at least an annual basis, update it when necessary, and expeditiously inform all personnel of changes to the manual.
F4:
Confusion within the policy and procedures manual The OCSD policy and procedures manual regarding inmate counts was confusing. Proper count procedure was defined in an inconsistent manner in the manual. The improper count procedure contributed to the escape and the approximately 15 hour delay in discovering the missing inmates. The escapees’ awareness of insufficient accounting for inmates’ whereabouts may have played a part in the inmate’s planning the escape. It should be noted that the OCSD is in the process of revising appropriate sections of the policy and procedures manual to eliminate any confusion and inconsistencies regarding proper count procedure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Within 6 months of the publication of this report, the OCSD should put additional security guidelines in place to provide security screening for visitors, vendors and staff. This may include full body scans, additional metal detectors, bag searches, and additional drug detection dogs.
F5:
Inadequate security measures The security measures in place at the CMJ were inadequate. Non-sworn employees, vendors, and visitors entering the facility were not searched on a regular basis, nor were their belongings; sworn deputies are never searched. With proper search and security measures in place and in practice, including searching all non-sworn employees and visitors, accounting for tools brought in by maintenance workers and vendors, and documenting the disposal of contraband, the tools that aided in the January 2016 escape would likely not have been smuggled into the jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Within 6 months of the publication of this report, the OCSD should institute a policy of on-going training of all staff members to ensure understanding of jail policy and procedures. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control 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 authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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 are required from the following governing body within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Finding 2; Recommendation 1) Responses are required from the following elected agency or department head within 60 days of the date of publication of this report: Orange County Sheriff/Coroner (Findings 1, 3-7; Recommendations 2-5)
F6:
Training All deputies receive additional training upon assignment to the CMJ. Because of inconsistencies within the policy and procedures manual regarding inmate counts and a long-standing practice of conducting “paper counts”, incoming deputies to the CMJ were trained improperly. Changes to the manual were not adequately emphasized. Regular reminders of appropriate security and safety procedures were likewise inadequate.
F7:
Unanswered Questions The Grand Jury is concerned that there are key elements that remain unanswered about the escape, such as the silence of the 38 inmates who shared housing with the escapees, and what tools were used and how they were brought in, leaving doubts as to whether the current upgrades will prevent future escapes. 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 2016-2017 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 the jailhouse escape of 2016 in Orange County, the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
25 findings
F1:
The Public Guardian’s Office does not work with Human Resources to fill vacancies for permanent and temporary positions in a timely manner. This results in some tasks not being completed, as well as placing an additional workload on existing staff to ensure all conserved individuals receive mandated services.
F2:
Behavioral Health Services/Public Guardian leadership does not have a process in place to ensure managers and supervisors adhere to the Performance Incentive Plan (PIP) Manual standards for conducting quality performance appraisals.
F3:
The Public Guardian Policy 1.12, Performance Evaluation, provided to the Grand Jury, is not included in the current Public Guardian policy manual and therefore, the Public Guardian managers and supervisors lack clear direction on the elements of an effective performance evaluation.
F4:
The Public Guardian’s Office does not utilize the County of Orange Disciplinary Process Manual, which includes specific progressive steps of discipline to ensure mid-level managers and supervisors hold staff accountable. This has resulted in incidents of unprofessional staff conduct and inconsistent compliance with established protocols.
F5:
The Public Guardian’s Office has not ensured that all supervisors consistently follow established Policy 10.1 Supervisor Review of Cases to conduct quality reviews of deputy casework.
F6:
Health Care Agency/Behavioral Health Services has failed to fully organizationally integrate the Public Guardian function, resulting in a fragmented and isolated Public Guardian Office.
F7:
Some Health Care Agency/Behavioral Health Service/Public Guardian leadership staff do not effectively communicate with Public Guardian staff, resulting in mistrust, in-fighting, and low morale. REPORT 6 Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F8:
The Public Guardian Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) supervisory unit operates as two independent groups serving the same purpose, resulting in ongoing office conflicts and interpersonal issues. Public Administrator Hiring Practices
F9:
The Office of the District Attorney/Public Administrator did not ensure that one candidate who was hired met minimum qualifications when filling Extra Help positions by not conducting an investigation of past employment or experience.
F10:
The District Attorney Human Resources Department does not have a process in place to verify that a candidate meets all minimum qualifications (MQs), nor do they verify employment history that qualifies candidates for a position in the District Attorney’s office.
F11:
The Office of the District Attorney/Public Administrator violated County Merit Selection Rules (MSR) when an employee was reassigned from one temporary position to another within the Public Administrator’s Office.
F12:
The Office of the District Attorney demonstrated questionable leadership when a newly hired temporary employee was promoted into a leadership position, resulting in the new hire managing the staff members who were still providing orientation training for the new hire.
F13:
The Public Administrator’s Office has no established mentorship training or leadership program in place for developing talented current employees. This has resulted in experienced Public Administrator employees being passed over for promotional and leadership opportunities. Case Management System (E-CMDS)
F14:
The E-CMDS case management system is antiquated, unreliable, does not have the ability to quickly and accurately cull reliable data, and does not meet the current business needs of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian deputies. Although there have been several attempts to replace the current E-CMDS, each has failed to produce tangible results.
F15:
The Public Administrator’s Office is considering pursuing the purchase of a case management system that will be completely separate from whatever case management system the Public Guardian pursues, which has the potential to result in fragmented communication and duplicative processes when cases are handed over from the Public Guardian to the Public Administrator. Training and Certification: REPORT 6 Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F16:
The Public Guardian’s Office does not have a reliable system for tracking Public Guardian deputy training and membership status to ensure guardians maintain certification as stated in Probate Code.
F17:
The Public Guardian’s Office does not hold deputy staff accountable for adhering to Policy 1.01- Public Guardian Certification and Continuing Education. This has resulted in the majority of deputies being out of compliance with certification which could have negative consequences and/or impact their ability to best serve their clients.
F18:
The Public Guardian’s Office has not provided clear guidance or assistance to ensure deputies understand the financial reimbursement process, resulting in deputies not pursuing recertification. Policy & Procedure
F19:
The Public Guardian’s Office has worked diligently to update policies and procedures, however, some of the staff responsible for implementing these policies do not agree with some of the content, are not aware that they have been completed, and/or do not intend to comply with the policies.
F20:
The Public Guardian’s Office has not effectively communicated the expectation that deputy staff are required to adhere to updated Public Guardian policies.
F21:
Behavioral Health Services has a policy review structure in place. Although it is the intention to integrate the Public Guardian Office into Behavioral Health Services processes, two years have gone by without this integration occurring. Behavioral Health Services is not knowledgeable about Public Guardian processes and can only review Public Guardian specific policies for style and format compliance.
F22:
Public Guardian policies are not reviewed and revised on a regular basis and there is no clear system in place for distribution of new or revised policies.
F23:
The Public Guardian staff is expected to follow general Behavioral Health Services policies, which address over-arching expectations for all Behavioral Health Services staff. However, some Public Guardian staff do not feel like they are an integral part of the Behavioral Health Services culture and do not acknowledge that Behavioral Health Services policies are relevant to their job. The Public Guardian manual, which is the primary reference for deputies, does not include several policies that would be considered as staples for most organizations. Quality Assurance:
F24:
The Public Guardian’s Office has no internal Quality Assurance unit, and the department is not represented or included in Behavioral Health Services quality assurance activities REPORT 6 Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury two years after the reorganization of the Public Guardian Office. The Public Guardian’s Office depends upon external audits to evaluate their performance.
F25:
The Public Guardian’s Office does not initiate any internal quality assurance activities to measure job performance, or adherence to Probate Codes and Best Practices to ensure excellent customer service.
Additional Recommendations
24
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Public Guardian’s Office should coordinate monthly meetings with Human Resources to discuss and take action on personnel needs, including anticipated short-term and actual vacancies, as well as opportunities for promotion to be initiated by December 31, 2016. (F.1)
R2:
The Public Guardian’s Office should provide training to all managers and supervisors related to the expectations for and mechanics of writing Performance Appraisals. Upon completion of this training the Public Guardian should incorporate implementation and adherence into a Quality Assurance process to ensure compliance with expected standards all to be initiated by December 31, 2016. (F.2)
R3:
The Public Guardian’s Office should re-evaluate Policy & Procedure 1.12 Performance Evaluations for potential inclusion into the current Public Guardian Policy Manual by December 31, 2016. (F.3)
R4:
The Public Guardian’s Office should develop curricula and initiate training for all levels of Public Guardian staff regarding the Health Care Association’s mission and vision statement and the Health Care Association’s Code of Conduct, with emphasis on how these topics relate to the role of the Public Guardian and the need to follow established protocol, by December 31, 2016. (F.4)
R5:
The Public Guardian’s Office should develop and initiate training for all managers and supervisors related to the County of Orange Disciplinary Manual by December 31, 2016. (F.4) REPORT 6 Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R6:
Senior Executive Public Guardian personnel should meet with managers and supervisors individually monthly to discuss and take action on disciplinary issues within the department with these meetings to be initiated by December 31, 2016. (F.4)
R7:
The Public Guardian’s Office should implement a consistent process for objectively evaluating Public Guardian casework that includes a standardized audit form to objectively measure Public Guardian deputy performance with implementation to be initiated by December 31, 2016. (F.5)
R8:
The Health Care Agency/Behavioral Health Services should have a management representative attend monthly Public Guardian staff meetings to directly communicate the Health Care Agency’s vision and mission, as well as to address any Public Guardian concerns with such meetings to be initiated by December 31, 2016. (F.6, F.7)
R9:
The Public Guardian’s Office should ensure minutes from Public Guardian staff meetings are made available to all Public Guardian staff on the internal Public Guardian portal by December 31, 2016. (F.6, F.7)
R10:
The Public Guardian’s Office should establish quarterly team meetings with Public Guardian staff, which should incorporate a positive recognition program, state of the business, and team building events with such meetings to be started by December 31, 2016. (F.6, F.7)
R11:
The Public Guardian’s Office should have one supervisor directing a consolidated Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) team by December 31, 2016. (F.8)
R12:
The District Attorney’s Office should coordinate with County Centralized Human Resources to develop and initiate training to ensure the District Attorney Human Resources Department complies with the Merit Selection Rules (MSR) for both temporary and permanent positions by December 31, 2016. (F.9, F.11)
R13:
The District Attorney’s Office should instruct the District Attorney Human Resources Department to develop and implement a formal process for validating that candidates meet all minimum qualifications for any Public Administrator position advertised, as well as validating work experience relevant to any Public Administrator position advertised, regardless of whether the position is temporary or permanent with such process to be in place by December 31, 2016. (F.10)
R14:
The District Attorney’s Office should develop a plan to implement a mentorship/leadership program for Public Administrator deputies by December 31, 2016. (F.13)
R15:
The Public Administrator and Public Guardian Offices, in conjunction with the IT Project Manager, should meet with the County Executive Office (CEO) by December 31, 2016 to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the purchase of a new case management system REPORT 6 Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury that will meet the business needs and interface with both the Public Administrator and Public Guardian deputy staff. (F.14)
R16:
The Public Administrator and Public Guardian Offices should re-establish a steering committee, with a designated Project Manager, by December 31, 2016 to acquire a replacement case management system. (F.14, F.15)
R17:
The Public Administrator and Public Guardian Offices should work together with the IT Project Manager to ensure the new case management system meets the Public Administrator and Public Guardian business needs through a comprehensive report function that can accurately track data and produce meaningful reports by June 30, 2017. (F.14)
R18:
The Public Guardian Office should initiate a process to ensure Public Guardian training records coincide with the California Association of Public Administrators Public Guardians Public Conservators Association (CAPAPGPC) records, that deputies are current with their training and certification, and that consequences for not being in compliance are clearly communicated and addressed by December 31, 2016. (F.16, F.17)
R19:
The Public Guardian Office should develop clear guidelines, with examples, for Public Guardian deputies to utilize when requesting reimbursement for training and membership dues. The Public Guardian Office should provide training on the guidelines and provide a designated manager to assist in the process by December 31, 2016. (F.18)
R20:
The Public Guardian Office should develop a process to reimburse Public Guardian staff within 30 working days of submission for reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs for training and membership dues by December 31, 2016. (F.18)
R21:
The Public Guardian Office should provide immediate training on all new and revised Public Guardian policies as well as Behavioral Health Services policies that pertain to Public Guardian staff. Training should include management expectations on adherence to policies, along with a question and answer period for deputies to express any concerns about the accuracy of policies or their ability to carry out the policies. The training should be implemented by December 31, 2016. (F.19, F.20)
R22:
The Public Guardian Office should ensure Public Guardian policies are reviewed and revised on a regular basis, including solicitation of knowledgeable staff input to ensure accuracy. The assigned manager/supervisor should ensure communication of new or revised policies, as well as initiate documented Public Guardian staff training on new and revised policies to ensure understanding and compliance by December 31, 2016. (F.21, F.22)
R23:
The Public Guardian Office should ensure that Behavioral Health Services policies that pertain to Public Guardian deputies are easily accessible to them by December 31, 2016. (F.23) REPORT 6 Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R24:
The Public Guardian Office should integrate a Public Guardian manager or supervisor into the Behavioral Health Services quality assurance structure, with a defined role of initiating quality assurance and risk management activities, including regularly conducted internal audits specific to the Public Guardian role by December 31, 2016. (F.24, F.25)
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
All but one of Orange County’s twenty-eight school districts have (encapsulated) asbestos present at one or more its schools.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Each school district should request the Orange County Department of Education to devote, in the year following publication of this Grand Jury report, one or more of its monthly “all districts” meetings to discussion and advice on handling hazardous materials. Representatives from each school district should participate in these meetings, and discussions should cover, AHERA compliance, resources available for in-depth AHERA training, and contract management. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8)
R6:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report create a plan, identifying funding sources, to remove all asbestos from schools and other facilities in their district within twenty years or sooner and report progress on this plan annually at its board meetings. If the removal of asbestos would include removal of other hazardous materials as part of the same effort, the plan should describe this. (F1, F2, F10) REPORT 10 Dealing with Asbestos in Orange County Public Schools 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F2:
Although current EPA standards provide that encapsulated asbestos does not present an immediate hazard to people who come near it, any physical disturbance and/or weathering which damages that encapsulation and releases asbestos fibers into the air will present an immediate hazard to anyone exposed to those fibers. Hence, broad-based awareness of where encapsulated asbestos is located is essential to avoid disturbing it such that it does become a threat to students and staff.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Each school district should request the Orange County Department of Education to devote, in the year following publication of this Grand Jury report, one or more of its monthly “all districts” meetings to discussion and advice on handling hazardous materials. Representatives from each school district should participate in these meetings, and discussions should cover, AHERA compliance, resources available for in-depth AHERA training, and contract management. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8)
R6:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report create a plan, identifying funding sources, to remove all asbestos from schools and other facilities in their district within twenty years or sooner and report progress on this plan annually at its board meetings. If the removal of asbestos would include removal of other hazardous materials as part of the same effort, the plan should describe this. (F1, F2, F10) REPORT 10 Dealing with Asbestos in Orange County Public Schools 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F3:
Many school districts are not in full compliance with the AHERA regulatory requirement to have applicable AHERA reports available in the main offices of each school for public review.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Each school district should request the Orange County Department of Education to devote, in the year following publication of this Grand Jury report, one or more of its monthly “all districts” meetings to discussion and advice on handling hazardous materials. Representatives from each school district should participate in these meetings, and discussions should cover, AHERA compliance, resources available for in-depth AHERA training, and contract management. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8)
R8:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report document and implement requirements to make available at the main office of each school in its district the AHERA reports applicable to that school. (F3, F6)
F4:
Many school districts are not in full compliance with the AHERA regulatory requirement to identify at each school in their district a “Designated Person” and to train each Designated Person to EPA-defined standards.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Each school district should request the Orange County Department of Education to devote, in the year following publication of this Grand Jury report, one or more of its monthly “all districts” meetings to discussion and advice on handling hazardous materials. Representatives from each school district should participate in these meetings, and discussions should cover, AHERA compliance, resources available for in-depth AHERA training, and contract management. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8)
R9:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report appoint an EPA-defined “Designated Person” at each school, and provide the EPA-required training for those persons. (F4, F6)
F5:
Although nearly all school districts train their facilities and maintenance staff on hazardous materials management, many fail to provide hazardous materials training to their teaching and administrative staff.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Each school district should request the Orange County Department of Education to devote, in the year following publication of this Grand Jury report, one or more of its monthly “all districts” meetings to discussion and advice on handling hazardous materials. Representatives from each school district should participate in these meetings, and discussions should cover, AHERA compliance, resources available for in-depth AHERA training, and contract management. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8)
R10:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report identify the hazardous materials training requirements for management, facilities (including maintenance contractors if they are used), and administrative personnel, and teaching staff in its district. Each district should maintain records on the training provided, including content, to whom it was provided, when it was provided, who provided it, qualifications of trainer(s). (F5)
F6:
Orange County public schools are subject to very infrequent EPA inspections for AHERA compliance.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Each school district should request the Orange County Department of Education to devote, in the year following publication of this Grand Jury report, one or more of its monthly “all districts” meetings to discussion and advice on handling hazardous materials. Representatives from each school district should participate in these meetings, and discussions should cover, AHERA compliance, resources available for in-depth AHERA training, and contract management. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8)
R7:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report document and implement requirements to budget for and perform AHERA inspections every three years. (F6)
R8:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report document and implement requirements to make available at the main office of each school in its district the AHERA reports applicable to that school. (F3, F6)
R9:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report appoint an EPA-defined “Designated Person” at each school, and provide the EPA-required training for those persons. (F4, F6)
F7:
Inadequately managed construction efforts at more than one Orange County public school have led to expensive and disruptive hazardous materials events. Many Orange County school districts lack one or more documented requirements for contracting for construction Note that the Findings below often make general assertions about Orange County school districts. Each District should respond to these general findings only as each Finding applies to their district and not speculate as to the applicability of the Finding to other districts. REPORT 10 Dealing with Asbestos in Orange County Public Schools 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury that implement generally recognized best practices for dealing with hazardous materials. Such written best practices include: a. Performing all work at schools that deals with, or potentially deals with, hazardous materials at times when students and staff are not present, b. Controlling the scope of construction/modernization/major repairs undertaken in any one year to remain within the district’s ability to manage the efforts, c. Separately contracting for hazardous materials inspection, abatement, and construction work once hazardous materials are abated, d. Including clear schedule performance requirements in every contract, e. Defining intermediate schedule milestones for all construction-related work that is expected to take over one month to complete, and f. Requiring monitoring by district senior staff of progress on construction work via personal walkthroughs of the work in progress.
Related Recommendations (6)
R1:
Each school district should request the Orange County Department of Education to devote, in the year following publication of this Grand Jury report, one or more of its monthly “all districts” meetings to discussion and advice on handling hazardous materials. Representatives from each school district should participate in these meetings, and discussions should cover, AHERA compliance, resources available for in-depth AHERA training, and contract management. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8)
R11:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report document and implement requirements to schedule and complete any work involving hazardous materials for days when students and staff are not present in the affected areas. (F7)
R12:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report document and implement requirements for district schools to contract separately for hazardous materials inspections, remediation/abatement of those materials, and the actual construction in areas requiring remediation . (F7)
R13:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report document and implement requirements for district schools to include schedule performance requirements in every contract for repairs, modernization, and/or new construction. Intermediate schedule milestones should be defined in every contract for all work anticipated to take longer than one month to complete. (F7)
R14:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report document and implement requirements for district schools to monitor contractor schedule performance. Such monitoring should be via personal staff walk-throughs of work in progress. Procedure should require every contractor to report monthly on that contractor’s performance in meeting schedule milestones and report on the current estimated date of completion of all work. (F7) REPORT 10 Dealing with Asbestos in Orange County Public Schools 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R16:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report share all site specific AHERA inspection data with all prospective bidders on repair, modernization, and/or new construction at that site. (F7)
F8:
Many school districts with public charter schools approved and financed by their district, lack, and have not provided their charter schools with, written definitions of the respective roles and responsibilities of the district and the charter school in dealing with hazardous materials and with AHERA regulatory compliance.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Each school district should request the Orange County Department of Education to devote, in the year following publication of this Grand Jury report, one or more of its monthly “all districts” meetings to discussion and advice on handling hazardous materials. Representatives from each school district should participate in these meetings, and discussions should cover, AHERA compliance, resources available for in-depth AHERA training, and contract management. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8)
R19:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report prepare written procedures for district charter schools clearly defining roles and responsibilities for facilities maintenance including the handling of hazardous materials. The procedures should address how district charter schools will pay for, achieve, and maintain AHERA compliance (e.g., AHERA inspections, identification and training of AHERA Designated Person(s), and availability of AHERA reports), (F8)
R20:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report prepare and implement written procedures defining roles and responsibilities for contracting for and monitoring performance of all construction activities at district charter schools. (F8)
F9:
Many school districts rely on paper documents for recording key information such as facilities data, facilities construction and repair plans, and AHERA reports.
Related Recommendations (5)
R3:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report create and have a process in place to use and keep up-to-date their web site communications with parents and stakeholders of that district. (F9, F10, F11)
R4:
Each school district should develop and maintain a computerized database listing all district buildings and structures and post that information on its web site. The database should contain the following for each building: date and types of construction, dates and costs of major repairs and modernization, numbers and sizes of classrooms, lists of other facilities including offices, lounges, gyms, cafeterias, laboratories, computers and other data processing equipment, and playground equipment. (F9, F10)
R5:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report create a comprehensive baseline plan for school facilities construction including new construction, retirement of schools or buildings at schools, modernization, hazardous materials abatement, and major repairs. Each effort should include estimated cost, planned funding source and status, and schedule for start and completion of work. This plan should be updated annually and posted on the district’s web site. (F9, F10)
R17:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report document and implement requirements to maintain all current AHERA reports electronically with a backup at one remote location, and not rely exclusively on paper copies. (F9, F10)
R18:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report document and implement requirements to make its AHERA reports available on that district’s web site. (F9)
F10:
Some school districts have no documented facilities plans, and many districts that have plans lack key information in their plans such as estimated costs, funding sources, and schedules for work initiation and completion.
Related Recommendations (7)
R2:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report develop and document a communications plan for parents and other stakeholders and post the plan on its web site. The plan should identify what information will be provided and by what means this communication will be accomplished. The plan should address how issues relating to hazardous materials will be communicated, and in what languages, to ensure effective communication. (F10, F11, F12)
R3:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report create and have a process in place to use and keep up-to-date their web site communications with parents and stakeholders of that district. (F9, F10, F11)
R4:
Each school district should develop and maintain a computerized database listing all district buildings and structures and post that information on its web site. The database should contain the following for each building: date and types of construction, dates and costs of major repairs and modernization, numbers and sizes of classrooms, lists of other facilities including offices, lounges, gyms, cafeterias, laboratories, computers and other data processing equipment, and playground equipment. (F9, F10)
R5:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report create a comprehensive baseline plan for school facilities construction including new construction, retirement of schools or buildings at schools, modernization, hazardous materials abatement, and major repairs. Each effort should include estimated cost, planned funding source and status, and schedule for start and completion of work. This plan should be updated annually and posted on the district’s web site. (F9, F10)
R6:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report create a plan, identifying funding sources, to remove all asbestos from schools and other facilities in their district within twenty years or sooner and report progress on this plan annually at its board meetings. If the removal of asbestos would include removal of other hazardous materials as part of the same effort, the plan should describe this. (F1, F2, F10) REPORT 10 Dealing with Asbestos in Orange County Public Schools 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R15:
Each district with current plans for modernization and/or major repairs to school facilities which lack schedules for completion, which lack cost estimates, and/or which fail to identify funding sources should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report update its plans to include these data. (F10)
R17:
Each district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report document and implement requirements to maintain all current AHERA reports electronically with a backup at one remote location, and not rely exclusively on paper copies. (F9, F10)
F11:
Many school districts fail to post key safety-related information on their web sites such as upcoming activities at school facilities involving the abatement of hazardous materials.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report develop and document a communications plan for parents and other stakeholders and post the plan on its web site. The plan should identify what information will be provided and by what means this communication will be accomplished. The plan should address how issues relating to hazardous materials will be communicated, and in what languages, to ensure effective communication. (F10, F11, F12)
R3:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report create and have a process in place to use and keep up-to-date their web site communications with parents and stakeholders of that district. (F9, F10, F11)
F12:
Despite the fact that all Orange County school districts serve highly language-diverse communities, several districts have no provision for communicating with their community in any language other than English.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each school district should within nine months of the publication of this Grand Jury report develop and document a communications plan for parents and other stakeholders and post the plan on its web site. The plan should identify what information will be provided and by what means this communication will be accomplished. The plan should address how issues relating to hazardous materials will be communicated, and in what languages, to ensure effective communication. (F10, F11, F12)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Recreational drones have greatly increased in number since December 2015 and it is probable their unregulated use will pose significant threats to public safety and privacy in Orange County cities and unincorporated areas.
F2:
With the exception of the recent Federal Aviation Administration registration rule, recreational drone owners are largely self-policed, which leads to a wide range of behavior.
F3:
Most of the cities and unincorporated areas of the County of Orange do not have a drone ordinance, nor do they have any immediate plans to enact an ordinance in the near future.
F4:
Most of the cities provide no educational programs for public awareness of the safety issues connected to recreational drones.
F5:
Some Orange County cities, despite recognizing potential issues with drones, are awaiting drone-related legislative action or other guidance by the State of California or FAA before enacting local ordinances.
F6:
The FAA-required registration of recreational drones provides a useful tool for local enforcement of drone ordinances. REPORT 7 Drones: Know Before You Fly 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F7:
Orange County cities have not established a procedure for reporting drone incidents, which results in under-reporting of drone safety and privacy events. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Drones: Know Before You Fly”, the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following nine recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Each City Council should direct its City Attorney to provide a report to the city’s police department and City Council on existing laws that can be applied to the use of recreational drones in the city’s jurisdiction by December 30, 2016. (F.2., F.3., F.5., F.6.)
R2:
Each City should adopt a recreational drone ownership and operation ordinance, with regulations similar to those found in Los Angeles City ordinance #183912, by March 31, 2017, to the extent not preempted or superseded by Federal law or Federal regulations. (F.1., F.2., F.3.,
R3:
Each City should inform its citizens about laws and ordinances that apply to recreational drone operators through print media, city-related web sites, social media sites and/or public forums by March 31, 2017. (F.4., F.6.)
R4:
Each City should establish and publish on its website a point of contact for drone-related citizen complaints by December 30, 2016. (F.7.)
R5:
Each City should post FAA drone ownership and operation educational links on city-related websites, newsletters, and flyers by December 30, 2016. (F.4.)
R6:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should direct County Counsel to provide a report to the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department and the Board of Supervisors on existing laws that can be applied to the use of recreational drones in county-governed parks and unincorporated areas by December 30, 2016. (F.2., F.3., F.6.)
R7:
The County should adopt a recreational drone ownership and operation ordinance similar to Los Angeles City Ordinance #183912 for the parks and unincorporated areas under its jurisdiction by March 31, 2017, to the extent not preempted or superseded by Federal law or Federal regulations. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.6.) REPORT 7 Drones: Know Before You Fly 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R8:
The County should inform its citizens about laws and ordinances that apply to recreational drone operators through print media, County-related web sites, social media sites and/or public forums by March 31, 2017. (F.4., F.6.)
R9:
The County and each City should formally gather data on recreational drone incidents within their jurisdictions and review these data annually and report the results publicly. The first analysis and publication should occur within 1 year of the publication of this report. (F.1., F.2.,
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Orange County has a shortage of foster families and this shortage will become more acute with the implementation of AB403. The shortage is particularly acute for special populations such as teens, sibling sets, and children with special medical or psychological needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Identify effective strategies and prepare and approve a plan to increase the number of active County placements for large sibling sets, teens, and youth with high needs by a minimum of 30 by July 1, 2017. (F1)
F2:
Current Children and Family Services recruitment and retention efforts are inadequate and ineffective as evidenced by zero growth in available foster homes.
Related Recommendations (6)
R3:
Dedicate available AB403 funds to enable foster parents to participate in recruitment efforts, serve as mentors and attend professional events beginning in County Fiscal Year 2016-2017. (F2, F4)
R5:
Provide foster parents with timely access to information and identify and adopt strategies to make them respected, equal and integral parts of the child’s team as mandated by AB403 and according to the principles of the Quality Parenting Initiative. (F2, F4)
R6:
Document the use of the County Efforts to Outcomes database to track and evaluate the success of foster parent recruitment and retention efforts. (F2, F3)
R13:
Use AB403 funds to contract with a professional marketing agency to assist in foster home recruitment efforts. (F2)
R14:
Develop a process to provide accurate and current information on Children and Family Services websites by January, 2017. (F2, F10)
R15:
Upgrade technology to reflect current industry standards by July 1, 2017. Upgrades may include, but are not limited to, websites offering agent chats, user blogs and case management systems. (F2, F10)
F3:
Children and Family Services does not collect, analyze, or track data on the success of foster parent recruitment and retention efforts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Document the use of the County Efforts to Outcomes database to track and evaluate the success of foster parent recruitment and retention efforts. (F2, F3)
F4:
Children and Family Services has not implemented the principles of the Quality Parenting Initiative in spite of its four year involvement in the project.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Dedicate available AB403 funds to enable foster parents to participate in recruitment efforts, serve as mentors and attend professional events beginning in County Fiscal Year 2016-2017. (F2, F4)
R5:
Provide foster parents with timely access to information and identify and adopt strategies to make them respected, equal and integral parts of the child’s team as mandated by AB403 and according to the principles of the Quality Parenting Initiative. (F2, F4)
F5:
Children and Family Services does not adequately serve the needs of hard to place populations such as teens, large sibling sets and children with medical and psychological disabilities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
Prepare and approve a plan to reduce to two the average annual number of placements for teens and other children in long term foster care by July 1, 2017. (F5) REPORT 4 Fostering a Better Foster Care System 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R8:
Prepare and approve a plan to increase the percentage of sibling sets placed together by 20% by July 1, 2017. (F5)
F6:
Children and Family Services has not utilized Samueli Academy as a resource to enhance educational opportunities for foster teens because they have not proactively promoted the school or provided transportation to the school.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
Prepare and approve a plan to triple enrollment of foster youth to Samueli Academy for the 2016-2017 academic year and provide transportation to the academy as needed. (F6) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that REPORT 4 Fostering a Better Foster Care System 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) detail, 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 authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 4 Fostering a Better Foster Care System 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are required or requested from: Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings 1-10, Recommendation 1 – 17). Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: Orange County Social Services, Department of Children and Family Services (Findings 1-10, Recommendations 1 -17). REPORT 4 Fostering a Better Foster Care System 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CITED “California Child and Family Services Review County Self- Assessment Report,” July 2009. Orange County Social Services Agency, Children and Family Services Division. Web February 17, 2016. “California Child and Family Services Review County Self-Assessment Report,” January, 2014. Orange County Social Services Agency, Children and Family Services Division. Print. “County of Orange System Improvement Plan Annual Progress Report, 2014-2019. Orange County Social Services, Children and Family Services Division. Web February 17, 2016. “System Improvement Plan, (SIP),” November 7, 2009 Orange County Children and Family Services Agency, Children and Family Services Division. Web February 17 2016. “The Current State of Foster Care, the Latest Statistics from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS). Foster Club Newsletter. Foster Club Inc., 2015 Web February 2, 2016. “The Mockingbird Family Model (MFM).” The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, October, 2013. Web 3/4/16. Assem. Bill 403, 2015 -2016, Section111. Brown,Waln. “The Psychological Consequences of Separating Siblings in Foster Care.” The Chronicle of Social Change, June 3, 2013, Web. February, 2016. Children and Families Commission of Orange County, Conditions of Children in Orange County, 19th Annual Report, 2013. p85. Print. County of Orange Social Services Agency. “2015 Foster and Relative Caregiver Recruitment, Retention and Support County Plan.” November 2015. Print. Foster Club, Inc, 2015. “Statistics on Foster Care,” statistics from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). Web February 2, 2016. Herrick, M.A., and Piccus,W. “Sibling Connections: the Importance of Nurturing Sibling Bonds in the Foster Care System,” 2005. As quoted in Cohn, Michelle. “Sibling Placement: the Importance of the Sibling Relationship for Children in Foster Care, April 2008, June 2012. Web March 3, 2016. Leathers, S.J. “Placement Disruptions and Negative Placement Outcomes Among Adolescents in Long-Term Foster Care: The Role of Behavior Problems.” Child Abuse and Neglect, 30(3), 307-324.2006.Print. REPORT 4 Fostering a Better Foster Care System 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Lewis, E.E., Dozier,M., Ackerman ,J. and Sepulveda-Kozakowski,S. “The Effect of Placement Instability on Adopted Children’s Inhibitory Control Abilities and Oppositional Behavior.” Developmental Psychology, 2007 43(6), 1415-1426. Print. , 2016. -/2007. “Orangewood Children’s Home: Overstaffed and Underutilized?” Web, February 17, 2016. , 2016. , 2016. Spotlight, Directed by McCarthy, Tom, and written by McCarthy Tom and Singer, Josh. Open Road Films. 2015. Film. Therolf, Garret. “Private Foster Care System, Intended to Save Children, Endangers Some.” The Los Angeles Times, December 18, 2013. Web, January 19, 2016. Walker, Theresa. “Wanted: More Foster Parents.” The Orange County Register, January 10, 2016 A1+. Print. Webster,D., Armijo,M., Lee,S., Dawson,W., Magruder,J., Exel,M., Cuccaro-Alamin,S., Putnam- Hornstein,E., King,B., Rezvani,G., Wagstaff,K., Sandoval, A., Yee,H., Xiong,B., Benton,C., Hoerl,C., and Romero,R. California Child Welfare Indicators Report from University of California at Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project, 2015 Web, January 4, 2016. REPORT 4 Fostering a Better Foster Care System 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CONSULTED Children and Families Commission of Orange County. Conditions of Children in Orange County, 21st Annual Report, 2015. Print. Cohn, Michelle. “Sibling Placement: The Importance of the Sibling Relationship for Children in Foster Care,” April 2008 and update by Ariyakulkan, Lyn June, 2012. National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections. Print. Honomichi, Ryan and Brooks, Susan. “Predictors and Outcomes of Long Term Foster Care, A Literature Review,” February, 2010. UC Davis Extension, Center for Human Services. Web 1/9/16. Steiner, William. “Will Reforms Aid Victimized Children?” The Orange County Register, January 20, 2016, Opinion 7. Print. REPORT 4 Fostering a Better Foster Care System 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F7:
Children and Family Services has failed to clarify the role of Foster Family Agencies contracted by the County.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
Rewrite Foster Family Agency contracts to clarify their specific role and limit contracts to those that provide intensive and specialized care in compliance with AB403. (F7)
R16:
Complete a study to determine the comparative cost of services provided by County homes versus Foster Family Agencies by January, 2017. (F7)
F8:
Children and Family Services does not adequately monitor the 51 Foster Family Agencies contracted by the County to ensure that they are adequately meeting the needs of the children in their care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Reinstate a unit of social workers to monitor Foster Family Agencies by July, 2017. (F8)
F9:
The current caseload of Orange County social workers exceeds industry standards and will hamper efforts to implement AB403. REPORT 4 Fostering a Better Foster Care System 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
Reduce the caseload of social workers to a maximum average of 16 (the national recommendation) by July 1, 2017. (F9)
R12:
Prepare and approve a plan for an employee retention program to achieve a goal of reducing the turnover of County social workers to 10% per year by January 2018. (F9)
F10:
Effective outreach is hampered by limited and outdated technology. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Fostering a Better Foster Care System,” the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 17 recommendations. Children and Family Services should
Related Recommendations (2)
R14:
Develop a process to provide accurate and current information on Children and Family Services websites by January, 2017. (F2, F10)
R15:
Upgrade technology to reflect current industry standards by July 1, 2017. Upgrades may include, but are not limited to, websites offering agent chats, user blogs and case management systems. (F2, F10)
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
– 17). Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: Orange County Social Services, Department of Children and Family Services (Findings 1-10, Recommendations 1 -17). REPORT 4 Fostering a Better Foster Care System 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R4:
Use available AB403 funds to provide additional transportation services for foster youth to appointments, visitations, court dates, etc. beginning in County Fiscal Year 2016-2017. (F2, F4,)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The lack of development of second-generation light rail in Orange County can be closely linked to the reality of different transit priorities for the thirty-four diverse cities in the county.
F2:
Orange County would benefit from the examples of Los Angeles and San Diego Counties with their history of promoting centrally organized and run light rail systems. As a result, these counties were well-positioned to plan for and develop second generation light rail systems expansion in the 1980’s. REPORT 3 Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F3:
Approval of OCTA as implementer and owner/operator of the OC Streetcar Project, and as subsequent grantee for the Federal New Starts Program, has created the basis for enabling further light rail development in Orange County to include public outreach and marketing/promotion efforts.
F4:
Creation by OCTA of a draft light rail Master Plan for Orange County that includes both intra and inter county transit connectivity options would be of considerable value to the public.
F5:
Board of Directors, OCTA: X X X X X City Council, City of Santa Ana: X City Council, City of Garden Grove: X City Council, City of Anahiem: X City Council, City of Fullerton: X 90 Day Required Responses:
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
OCTA should initiate another “Go Local” effort in FY 16/17 encouraging more Orange County cities to advocate for light rail or other transit connections to assist Metrolink ridership. (F.1., F.3.)
R2:
OCTA should organize and lead focus groups during FY 16/17 to gauge public reaction to transportation options for Orange County that will be affected by the changes in working and population centers forecast for the next 20 years. (F.1., F.3.)
R3:
OCTA should use multi-lingual (English, Spanish, Korean and Vietnamese) Web and printed marketing materials to highlight Metrolink Transportation Center and light rail connectivity efforts in Orange County. (F.1., F.3.)
R4:
OCTA should create a draft phased light rail Master Plan during FY 16/17 that links the County’s high density urban areas and connects with Metrolink and Los Angeles County’s Metro light rail system. (F.4.)
R5:
OCTA should publish this Master Plan on its Website once it is created and provide a Website progress update every six months. (F.4.) REPORT 3 Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R6:
Santa Ana and Garden Grove should create links on their Websites within six months of receipt of this report that show their efforts to complete the OC Streetcar Project and then update these Websites every three months. (F.5.)
R7:
R8 Board of Directors, OCTA: X X X X X City Council, City of Santa Ana: X City Council, City of Garden Grove: X City Council, City of Anahiem: X City Council, City of Fullerton: X REPORT 3 Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R8:
Fullerton should create a link on the city’s Website that describes the Fullerton City Council’s policy decision process concerning the best transit option to support the College Connector Plan, and then update this Website every three months. (F.5.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County Official shall comment on the findings and recommendation pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), detail, 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. REPORT 3 Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury (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 authority. The response of the elected official or department head shall address all 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 are required from the following governing bodies with 90 days of the date of publication of this report: 90 Day Required Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Board of Directors, OCTA: X X X X X City Council, City of Santa Ana: X City Council, City of Garden Grove: X City Council, City of Anahiem: X City Council, City of Fullerton: X 90 Day Required Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 Board of Directors, OCTA: X X X X X City Council, City of Santa Ana: X City Council, City of Garden Grove: X City Council, City of Anahiem: X City Council, City of Fullerton: X REPORT 3 Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CITED City of Anaheim. Anaheim Go Local Transit Master Plan Final Report. Irvine, CA. Dec. 2007. Print. City of Anaheim. Initial Study for the Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC) Fixed Guideway CSUF. Daily Titan. May 2014. Web. Jan. 2016. Delong, James V. Myths of Light Rail Transit Policy Study No. 244. Reason Public Policy Institute. Reason Foundation. reason.org. Sep. 1998. Web. Dec. 12. 2015. Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro). Wikipedia. Oct. 2015. Web.27 Oct. 2015 Light Rail in the United States.Wikipedia.24 Aug. 2015.Web.1 Sep. 2015. Mallinckrodt, Jack. Centerline Light Rail Unveiled. Urbantransport.org. Aug. 2004. Web. Jan. 2016. OC Streetcar. Projects-and-Programs/All-Projects/Rail-Projects. octa.net. Web. Sep. 2015. Orange County Transportation Authority. Wikipedia.15 Jun. 2015.Web. Jul. 2015. Pacific Electric. Wikipedia. Oct. 2015.Web.12 Oct. 2015. Passenger Rail Terminology. Wikipedia. Oct. 2015. Web. Nov. 2015. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. Wikipedia. Jun. 2015.Web. Sep. 2015. San Diego Trolley. Wikipedia. Jul. 2015.Web. Jul. 2015. Santa Ana Streetcar Project: A Study in Local Transit Planning. ocgrandjury.org. May 2010. Web. Nov. 2015. Sprinter. Wikipedia. Dec. 2015. Web. Jan. 2015. Transit Extensions to Metrolink. Projects and Programs/All Projects/Rail-Projects.octa.net. Web.27 Oct.2015. United States, Department of the Treasury with the Council of Economic Advisors. An Economic Analysis of Infrastructure Investment. Washington DC: 11 Oct. 2010. Print. United States. Department of Transportation. Budget Highlights, Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Budget. Washington DC: Dec. 2016. Print. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. Final Interim Policy Guidance Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant Program. Washington DC: 20 Aug. 2015. Print. REPORT 3 Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Urban Cores, Core Cities and Principal Cities. Newgeography.com. Web. Dec. 2015. Van Stratten, Gina. City Studying Public Transportation Project to Connect Downtown with CSUF. Daily Titan. May 2014. Web. Jan. 2016. Weikel, Dan. Rail Could Make a Comeback in OC. Daily Pilot. Tradvisors.com/resources/news. Web. Aug. 2015. REPORT 3 Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CONSULTED Anaheim Streetcar Economic Impact & Development Study. GB Place Making. E.D. Hovee and Company. Aug 2013. Print. Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. anaheimchamber.org. 2014. Web. Dec. 2015. Board Actions 8 Aug. 2014. octa.net. Aug. 2014.Web. Oct. 2015. City of Anaheim. Council Agenda Report. Department of Public Works. Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC) Fixed-Guideway Project Update. Anaheim, CA. April 2012. Print. City of Anaheim. Council Agenda Report. Department of Public Works. Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC) Fixed-Guideway Project-Selection of Locally Preferred Alternate and Acceptance of Anaheim Transportation Improvement District (ATID) Transportation Funds. Anaheim, CA: 23 Oct 2012. Print. Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-0692 between OCTA and City of Santa Ana. City Initiated Transit Extensions to Metrolink w/Amendment. Santa Ana, CA. Mar. 2007. Print. Cooperative Agreement No. C-8-1157 between OCTA and City of Santa Ana. City of Santa Ana Fixed-Guideway Project w/Amendments. Santa Ana, CA. Mar. 2015. Print. Felgenbaum, Baruch. Southern California Mobility Plan. reason.org.news/show. Nov. 2015. Web. Nov. 2015. Freemark, Yonah. Have U.S. Light Rail Systems Been Worth the Investment? Blog. @yfreemark. Apr. 2014. Web. Oct. 2015. Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce. gardengrovechamber.com. 2012. Web. Dec. 2015. Harris, Marlys. When it Comes to Public Subsidies, Twin Cities Light Rail Seems a Bargain. minnpost.com/cityscape. Jun. 2012. Web. Oct. 2015. Moving into the Future at Hyper drive. Orange County Register. Dec. 2015:News 1,10. Print. North Orange County Chamber. nocchamber.com. 2015. Web. Dec. 2015. Orange County Transportation Authority 2015-2016 Approved Budget. Santa Ana, CA. Jul. 2015. Print. Pacific Electric Right-of-Way Study Update Power Point. Orange County Transportation Authority. Santa Ana, Ca. 2010. Print. Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce. SantaAnaChamber.com. 2015. Web. Dec. 2015. REPORT 3 Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Southern California Association of Governments. Scag.ca.gov/about. 2015. Web. Jan. 2016. REPORT 3 Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury APPENDICES
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
By changing the employment relationship for the revised OIR’s Executive Director and professional staff from independent contractor to County employee, the Board of Supervisors appears to have made the 2015 version of the Office of Independent Review less independent of the Board and more vulnerable to the Board exerting politically- motivated influence on the five covered agencies and/or their leadership through the OIR.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should: (1) request the Special Counsel to provide a comparative analysis between using employees or independent contractors to staff the OIR, with particular emphasis on the potential vulnerability of the OIR to politically-motivated influence, and to provide recommendations, should the County use employed staff, for limiting the vulnerability of the OIR to such influence and (2) based on such analysis, consider either amending the 2015 OIR ordinance to ensure the Executive Director and all professional staff are independent contractors or, implement recommendations of the Special Counsel with respect to limiting the vulnerability of the OIR to political influence, all to be completed by December 31, 2016. (F1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to consider other models for independent oversight of law enforcement, in addition to the three presented to them by Special Counsel, and make recommendations to the Board as to any elements from such models that could augment the model chosen by the Board and that would be useful and necessary to implement an efficient and effective OIR, all to be completed within six months of the Executive Director being hired. Among other concerns, the OIR Executive Director should consider whether and how the OIR, as currently designed, can meet the Board’s desire for the OIR to engage in independent investigations and recommend specific elements that could be integrated into the model chosen by the Board, including explicit authority, budget, and staffing provisions, to support the Board’s desire for independent OIR investigations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
F2:
Some members of the Board of Supervisors were dissatisfied with the OIR’s performance from 2008-2015. Some of the dissatisfaction appeared to be the result of a mismatch between Supervisors’ expectations and the OIR mandate as described in the 2008 OIR ordinance and the OIR Executive Director’s contract.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to consider other models for independent oversight of law enforcement, in addition to the three presented to them by Special Counsel, and make recommendations to the Board as to any elements from such models that could augment the model chosen by the Board and that would be useful and necessary to implement an efficient and effective OIR, all to be completed within six months of the Executive Director being hired. Among other concerns, the OIR Executive Director should consider whether and how the OIR, as currently designed, can meet the Board’s desire for the OIR to engage in independent investigations and recommend specific elements that could be integrated into the model chosen by the Board, including explicit authority, budget, and staffing provisions, to support the Board’s desire for independent OIR investigations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
F3:
Although the 2015 OIR ordinance calls for the OIR to “conduct substantive systemic audits and reviews,” there is no explicit provision of authority or resources for the OIR to conduct them independently, a recurring supervisorial expectation. Without the authority or resources to conduct its own independent audit investigations, the 2015 version of the OIR REPORT 11 REPORT 11 Office of Independent Review: What’s Next? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury would have to act only as reviewer of audits and reviews performed by Performance Audit, and/or Internal Audit, and/or the agencies themselves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to consider other models for independent oversight of law enforcement, in addition to the three presented to them by Special Counsel, and make recommendations to the Board as to any elements from such models that could augment the model chosen by the Board and that would be useful and necessary to implement an efficient and effective OIR, all to be completed within six months of the Executive Director being hired. Among other concerns, the OIR Executive Director should consider whether and how the OIR, as currently designed, can meet the Board’s desire for the OIR to engage in independent investigations and recommend specific elements that could be integrated into the model chosen by the Board, including explicit authority, budget, and staffing provisions, to support the Board’s desire for independent OIR investigations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
F4:
The OIR could easily cost upwards of $3 million/year due to expansion to five agencies plus jail monitors.
Related Recommendations (5)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to provide the Board, within three months of the Executive Director being hired, with a plan, budget, and measureable performance outcomes for launching and operating the new OIR. The measurable performance outcomes should be traceable to the responsibilities defined in the 2015 OIR ordinance. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F10, F11)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to consider other models for independent oversight of law enforcement, in addition to the three presented to them by Special Counsel, and make recommendations to the Board as to any elements from such models that could augment the model chosen by the Board and that would be useful and necessary to implement an efficient and effective OIR, all to be completed within six months of the Executive Director being hired. Among other concerns, the OIR Executive Director should consider whether and how the OIR, as currently designed, can meet the Board’s desire for the OIR to engage in independent investigations and recommend specific elements that could be integrated into the model chosen by the Board, including explicit authority, budget, and staffing provisions, to support the Board’s desire for independent OIR investigations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should implement the 2015 ordinance in phases, one agency at a time, with incremental process improvements after each phase. (F4, F5, F6) REPORT 11 REPORT 11 Office of Independent Review: What’s Next? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R5:
As a pilot project, the Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to staff, within one year of the hiring of the Executive Director, at least one well-defined, short-term, closed-end review or audit with a skilled independent contractor acting as a short-term consultant or “special counsel.” The Board should direct the OIR Executive Director to provide a written report to the Board, three months after the review or audit is completed, comparing the cost and effectiveness of using a short-term special counsel with deep subject matter expertise, versus the cost and effectiveness of using and maintaining permanent staff. (F4, F5, F6)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the OIR Executive Director to work with each of the five agencies to negotiate specific, and possibly narrow, initial scopes for OIR involvement with each agency, all to be completed within three months of the Executive Director being hired. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
F5:
It will be a challenge to find and retain a permanent staff with the qualifications and sufficient subject matter expertise to identify best practices and to review the broad range of services provided by the five agencies identified in the 2015 ordinance.
Related Recommendations (5)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to provide the Board, within three months of the Executive Director being hired, with a plan, budget, and measureable performance outcomes for launching and operating the new OIR. The measurable performance outcomes should be traceable to the responsibilities defined in the 2015 OIR ordinance. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F10, F11)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to consider other models for independent oversight of law enforcement, in addition to the three presented to them by Special Counsel, and make recommendations to the Board as to any elements from such models that could augment the model chosen by the Board and that would be useful and necessary to implement an efficient and effective OIR, all to be completed within six months of the Executive Director being hired. Among other concerns, the OIR Executive Director should consider whether and how the OIR, as currently designed, can meet the Board’s desire for the OIR to engage in independent investigations and recommend specific elements that could be integrated into the model chosen by the Board, including explicit authority, budget, and staffing provisions, to support the Board’s desire for independent OIR investigations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should implement the 2015 ordinance in phases, one agency at a time, with incremental process improvements after each phase. (F4, F5, F6) REPORT 11 REPORT 11 Office of Independent Review: What’s Next? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R5:
As a pilot project, the Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to staff, within one year of the hiring of the Executive Director, at least one well-defined, short-term, closed-end review or audit with a skilled independent contractor acting as a short-term consultant or “special counsel.” The Board should direct the OIR Executive Director to provide a written report to the Board, three months after the review or audit is completed, comparing the cost and effectiveness of using a short-term special counsel with deep subject matter expertise, versus the cost and effectiveness of using and maintaining permanent staff. (F4, F5, F6)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the OIR Executive Director to work with each of the five agencies to negotiate specific, and possibly narrow, initial scopes for OIR involvement with each agency, all to be completed within three months of the Executive Director being hired. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
F6:
The increase in OIR purview from the 2008 ordinance to the 2015 amended ordinance, from just the OCSD to the OCSD plus four other agencies, is so large in the breadth of services offered by the five agencies, the number of County employees covered, and the number of OIR staff to be hired, that a phased implementation will be required.
Related Recommendations (5)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to provide the Board, within three months of the Executive Director being hired, with a plan, budget, and measureable performance outcomes for launching and operating the new OIR. The measurable performance outcomes should be traceable to the responsibilities defined in the 2015 OIR ordinance. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F10, F11)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to consider other models for independent oversight of law enforcement, in addition to the three presented to them by Special Counsel, and make recommendations to the Board as to any elements from such models that could augment the model chosen by the Board and that would be useful and necessary to implement an efficient and effective OIR, all to be completed within six months of the Executive Director being hired. Among other concerns, the OIR Executive Director should consider whether and how the OIR, as currently designed, can meet the Board’s desire for the OIR to engage in independent investigations and recommend specific elements that could be integrated into the model chosen by the Board, including explicit authority, budget, and staffing provisions, to support the Board’s desire for independent OIR investigations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should implement the 2015 ordinance in phases, one agency at a time, with incremental process improvements after each phase. (F4, F5, F6) REPORT 11 REPORT 11 Office of Independent Review: What’s Next? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R5:
As a pilot project, the Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to staff, within one year of the hiring of the Executive Director, at least one well-defined, short-term, closed-end review or audit with a skilled independent contractor acting as a short-term consultant or “special counsel.” The Board should direct the OIR Executive Director to provide a written report to the Board, three months after the review or audit is completed, comparing the cost and effectiveness of using a short-term special counsel with deep subject matter expertise, versus the cost and effectiveness of using and maintaining permanent staff. (F4, F5, F6)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the OIR Executive Director to work with each of the five agencies to negotiate specific, and possibly narrow, initial scopes for OIR involvement with each agency, all to be completed within three months of the Executive Director being hired. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
F7:
The strenuous opposition of the OCDA to its inclusion in the OIR’s purview could pose a serious threat to the ability of the OIR to provide an effective review of the OCDA as required by the 2015 ordinance.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to provide the Board, within three months of the Executive Director being hired, with a plan, budget, and measureable performance outcomes for launching and operating the new OIR. The measurable performance outcomes should be traceable to the responsibilities defined in the 2015 OIR ordinance. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F10, F11)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to consider other models for independent oversight of law enforcement, in addition to the three presented to them by Special Counsel, and make recommendations to the Board as to any elements from such models that could augment the model chosen by the Board and that would be useful and necessary to implement an efficient and effective OIR, all to be completed within six months of the Executive Director being hired. Among other concerns, the OIR Executive Director should consider whether and how the OIR, as currently designed, can meet the Board’s desire for the OIR to engage in independent investigations and recommend specific elements that could be integrated into the model chosen by the Board, including explicit authority, budget, and staffing provisions, to support the Board’s desire for independent OIR investigations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the OIR Executive Director to work with each of the five agencies to negotiate specific, and possibly narrow, initial scopes for OIR involvement with each agency, all to be completed within three months of the Executive Director being hired. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
F8:
The willingness of the OCSD to work cooperatively with the OIR was crucial to allowing the original 2008 OIR to be effective as an independent reviewer of OSCD’s internal investigations.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the OIR Executive Director to work with each of the five agencies to negotiate specific, and possibly narrow, initial scopes for OIR involvement with each agency, all to be completed within three months of the Executive Director being hired. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
R7:
For three years starting with the hiring of the new OIR Executive Director, the OCSD should provide the revised OIR with open access to the Sheriff’s internal processes for defining, and insuring adherence to, its policies and procedures on the legal use of jailhouse informants, so that the OIR could help recommend reforms consistent with evolving best practices. This requires a continuation of the existing attorney-client relationship between the OIR and the OCSD. (F8, F9, F11)
F9:
With the OIR’s newly-expanded role to review the policies and practices of the OCSD and recommend reforms consistent with evolving best practices, the OCSD has an opportunity to take advantage of the new OIR to assist the OCSD in recovering from the current jailhouse informant controversy. This would require the continued voluntary cooperation of the OCSD with the new OIR.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to provide the Board, within three months of the Executive Director being hired, with a plan, budget, and measureable performance outcomes for launching and operating the new OIR. The measurable performance outcomes should be traceable to the responsibilities defined in the 2015 OIR ordinance. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F10, F11)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the OIR Executive Director to work with each of the five agencies to negotiate specific, and possibly narrow, initial scopes for OIR involvement with each agency, all to be completed within three months of the Executive Director being hired. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
R7:
For three years starting with the hiring of the new OIR Executive Director, the OCSD should provide the revised OIR with open access to the Sheriff’s internal processes for defining, and insuring adherence to, its policies and procedures on the legal use of jailhouse informants, so that the OIR could help recommend reforms consistent with evolving best practices. This requires a continuation of the existing attorney-client relationship between the OIR and the OCSD. (F8, F9, F11)
F10:
With the OIR’s newly-expanded role to review the policies and practices of the OCDA and recommend reforms consistent with evolving best practices, the OCDA has an opportunity to take advantage of the new OIR to assist the OCDA in recovering from the current jailhouse informant controversy, and in particular, implementing IPPEC recommendation #2. This would require the voluntary cooperation of the OCDA with the new OIR.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to provide the Board, within three months of the Executive Director being hired, with a plan, budget, and measureable performance outcomes for launching and operating the new OIR. The measurable performance outcomes should be traceable to the responsibilities defined in the 2015 OIR ordinance. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F10, F11)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the OIR Executive Director to work with each of the five agencies to negotiate specific, and possibly narrow, initial scopes for OIR involvement with each agency, all to be completed within three months of the Executive Director being hired. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
F11:
The assurance of confidentiality, through attorney-client privilege between the five relevant County agencies and the OIR, is essential to the effective implementation of the 2015 OIR ordinance. Still, even attorney-client privilege may be insufficient for allowing access to some confidential documents, like juvenile records and personnel files that are very tightly controlled by the courts. Office of Independent Review: What’s Next? 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to provide the Board, within three months of the Executive Director being hired, with a plan, budget, and measureable performance outcomes for launching and operating the new OIR. The measurable performance outcomes should be traceable to the responsibilities defined in the 2015 OIR ordinance. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F10, F11)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the OIR Executive Director to work with each of the five agencies to negotiate specific, and possibly narrow, initial scopes for OIR involvement with each agency, all to be completed within three months of the Executive Director being hired. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
R7:
For three years starting with the hiring of the new OIR Executive Director, the OCSD should provide the revised OIR with open access to the Sheriff’s internal processes for defining, and insuring adherence to, its policies and procedures on the legal use of jailhouse informants, so that the OIR could help recommend reforms consistent with evolving best practices. This requires a continuation of the existing attorney-client relationship between the OIR and the OCSD. (F8, F9, F11)
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
The OCDA should add an OIR staff attorney as an “outside” or independent member of the OCDA’s Confidential Informant Review Committee, in keeping with IPPEC
R14:
— the OIR should submit a written progress report on a quarterly basis as contractually required. Response to recommendation 14 (OIR) — recommendation has been implemented. Three update reports submitted so far; OIR will provide quarterly presentations to the Board. 2010-2011 Review of Orange County Detention Facilities
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Funding from the Orange County General Fund in support of the Office on Aging has not kept pace with the rapid increase in senior population. Allocation to Office on Aging from the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The County, in part, is responsible for the unfunded pension liabilities to increase from a surplus of $130,000 in 2000 to $4.5 billion as of December 2012. This represents an increase of more than 4,500% since year 2000.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The County should encourage the OCERS Board of Retirement to maintain financially sound assumptions and to oppose any relaxation of current assumptions. (F1)(F3)
R2:
The County should establish and adopt a plan, working with OCERS, to increase the pension percent funded liability to 80% from its current level of 70% by making additional payments to OCERS. This plan should be developed as part of the County Strategic Financial Plan is being updated in late summer 2016. As the 2017-2018 budget is being developed, the first advance payment of the Plan should be included. (F1) (F2)
R5:
The County should conduct a thorough analysis including the financial impact of implementing a Defined Contribution Retirement Plan or a hybrid plan, replacing the current Defined Benefit Plan, before January 2017. (F1) (F7) REPORT 9 Orange County’s $4.5 Billion Unfunded Pension Liability & Retirement Plans 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F2:
The County should have developed a plan to curb the growth in unfunded pension liability independent of OCERS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County should establish and adopt a plan, working with OCERS, to increase the pension percent funded liability to 80% from its current level of 70% by making additional payments to OCERS. This plan should be developed as part of the County Strategic Financial Plan is being updated in late summer 2016. As the 2017-2018 budget is being developed, the first advance payment of the Plan should be included. (F1) (F2)
F3:
The County and OCERS have taken recent actions to control and slightly reduce the unfunded liabilities by 11% from $4.5 billion in 2012 to $3.8 billion in 2015, but the County could be more aggressive.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should encourage the OCERS Board of Retirement to maintain financially sound assumptions and to oppose any relaxation of current assumptions. (F1)(F3)
F4:
Issuing short term Pension Obligation Bonds (7 of past 10 years) to achieve taxpayer’s savings of over $100 million during the past decade was a good decision by the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should develop a policy to continue issuing short term Pension Obligation Bonds, so long as the discount from OCERS is available and there is enough net savings (which should be defined) after paying for cost of issuance and underwriter’s discount. (F4)
F5:
OCERS Board of Retirement made a solid financial decision to reduce the amortization period of the UAAL from 30 years down to its current period of 20 years, resulting in increased annual payments from the County.
F6:
Passage of the state Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 should improve the financial stability of the County’s retirement system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should direct its lobbyists or work through the California State Association to find support in the legislature for a bill with additional pension reforms, beginning with the next legislative session that would further reduce the impact of unfunded pension liabilities. (F6)
F7:
The State and local governments have the ability to implement Defined Contribution Plans, or hybrid plans, instead of the traditional Defined Benefit Plan. Much of the private sector has transitioned to the Defined Contribution Plans such as 401K plans and more than 30 jurisdictions in California use Defined Contribution Retirement Plans, including Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should conduct a thorough analysis including the financial impact of implementing a Defined Contribution Retirement Plan or a hybrid plan, replacing the current Defined Benefit Plan, before January 2017. (F1) (F7) REPORT 9 Orange County’s $4.5 Billion Unfunded Pension Liability & Retirement Plans 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F8:
County employees are not treated equally as relates to retirement benefits. Orange County utilizes and contributes to several Defined Contribution Plans as supplemental retirement REPORT 9 Orange County’s $4.5 Billion Unfunded Pension Liability & Retirement Plans 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury plans to OCERS and one of the plans is restricted to “select” employees and all elected County officials. Additionally, the County has eight non-County employees in the exclusive 401(a) plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County should review the current practice of using taxpayer money to benefit eight non-County employees through the 401(a) retirement plan by the end of 2016. (Executive Director LAFCO; Executive Manager- Children & Family Commission and six OCERS executives). (F8)
F9:
Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X 90 Day Required Responses:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X REPORT 9 Orange County’s $4.5 Billion Unfunded Pension Liability & Retirement Plans 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department head: Requested Responses:
R73-93:
San Bernardino County 82 City of San Diego 70 San Diego County 75 City and County of San Francisco 80 *Reported separately by each Riverside County Department. Other information extracted from 2013-2014 Financial Reports. Does not take into account any long term Pension Obligation Bonds that may have been issued. . Table 1. Percent of Pension Liabilities Funded by Jurisdictions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
Mod L, located in the Intake and Release Center, has an insufficient number of beds to accommodate all mentally ill inmates who would benefit from regular interaction with medical, psychiatric, nursing, and case management services. The lack of bed space for the number of mentally ill inmates who need acute services supports the Department of Justice concern that the jail needs to act to prevent mental health crises and provide adequate transition programs, not just to deal with the most immediate urgent needs.
F2:
Correctional Health Services provides minimal mental health treatment services in the form of therapy groups to less than 1% of the total jail population diagnosed with some type of mental illness, which precludes therapeutic treatment to most mentally ill inmates.
F3:
The Intake and Release Center has no system for ensuring humane treatment of an inmate in a safety cell. Examples include: the inmates are cold, they sleep next to a grate that is used as a toilet, and no water is available for the inmate to wash hands after the use of the toilet and prior to eating meals.
F4:
Correctional Health Services uses the safety cell as a substitute for treatment. There are no measurable and observable criteria for moving someone into a safety cell, or immediately removing inmates when they are no longer a threat to themselves or others, which has the potential to result in the use of safety cells for disciplinary purposes.
F5:
A psychiatrist is the only person authorized to remove an inmate from a safety cell, however, one is not always available to do so, which may result in a longer term of confinement than necessary.
F6:
Correctional Health Services staff does not hold a debriefing meeting after each use of the safety cell. Therefore, CHS is unable to identify how the treatment failure occurred and to help prevent future occurrences, including suicide attempts. REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F7:
Neither Correctional Health Services nor Sheriff’s Department staff collects or analyzes data related to safety cell usage other than how often it is used, and therefore, neither has any quality improvement or risk management activities to assist in reducing safety cell use.
F8:
The Orange County Jail does not have a Restoration of Competency treatment program, to the detriment of inmates declared incompetent to stand trial by the courts. Wait time for transfer to a state hospital does not meet the directive of the court system to transfer within 30-35 days.
F9:
Data demonstrates that the Collaborative and Community Courts provide effective treatment services for mentally ill offenders who qualify for the programs.
F10:
Collaborative Courts save the County a significant amount of money in decreased incarceration and recidivism rates.
F11:
The current number of jail psychiatrists is not sufficient to meet the needs of the general inmate population diagnosed with mental illness. This shortage has resulted in extended periods of time inmates spend in safety cells, as well as a lack of psychiatric services in all but a very small portion of the Orange County Jails. The Department of Justice findings support the concern that therapeutic treatment may not reach prisoners who may be quite ill, but are not the most obviously in need of mental health care.
F12:
Orange County has become a model for successful implementation of Laura’s Law in the State of California. Behavioral Health Services keeps comprehensive statistics on all aspects of Laura’s Law and therefore can effectively analyze the program’s strengths and weaknesses.
F13:
Correctional Health Services does not provide therapeutic treatment services to inmates with a chronic mental health diagnosis in most parts of Mod L or in any of the general jail housing. This small concentration of service supports the Department of Justice concern that the jail does not provide for a cohesive system of therapy and treatment.
F14:
There is a lack of adequate classroom space to conduct educational classes for inmates who would benefit from participation in inmate services programs.
F15:
Correctional Health Services has no written guidelines, no formal course of study, and no specific training for case managers or nursing staff who conduct group therapy sessions on Mod L Crisis Stabilization Unit. REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F16:
Sixteen beds in Ward D are insufficient to meet the needs of the large number of inmates with chronic mental health issues outside of Mod L.
F17:
Although the Sheriff’s Department has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Health Care Agency to provide mental health care services to Orange County jail inmates, the two entities do not have a formal system in place for sharing mental health data that affects both entities.
F18:
The Jail Compliance and Training Team, made up of Sheriff’s Department personnel, does not include anyone with a Quality Assurance background. Although the Jail Compliance and Training Team completes standard reports and provides them to Sheriff’s Command staff, it does not consistently collect and analyze data over time to identify trends.
F19:
R.17. The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should review its quality management committee structure by December 31, 2016 to ensure issues identified in reports are thoroughly analyzed. Trends should be identified and addressed through quality improvement activities. The minutes of the meeting should reflect committee discussion and decisions regarding trends. Minutes should also reflect follow-up actions taken to ensure resolution of identified issues.
F20:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services collects health care related grievance data and presents it to the Quality Management Committee on a regular basis, however, the data is not formally analyzed to identify trends and the Quality Management Committee minutes do not demonstrate discussion on the implementation of quality improvement activities based on the data presented.
F21:
Neither the Sheriff’s Department or Correctional Health Services has developed and initiated a formal process to address or track lingering issues identified in the 2014 Department of Justice correspondence. Additionally, they do not have a formal system in place to track improvement plans that may have been put into place to correct Department of Justice concerns.
F22:
The Crisis Stabilization Unit does not have a system in place to collect or analyze data. Additionally, they do not have any formal quality improvement activities specific to Mod L treatment services, and therefore are unable to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of therapy groups. REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails,” the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 17 recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department should establish an ad hoc committee by December 31, 2016 to review space utilization in the Intake and Release Center with the goal of establishing additional units where inmates with mental health issues can be housed in closer proximity. F1, F16, F21
R2:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should develop a therapeutic program by October 31, 2017 that includes a formal course of studies to include all inmates in Mod L, and provide training to facilitators to ensure consistency. F2, F13, F15, F21
R3:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should develop a process by December 31, 2016 to ensure that safety cell entrance and exit criteria are clearly defined, measurable, and observable. F4, F5, F6, F21
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should implement a protocol to ensure an inmate in a safety cell has access to water for washing hands after using the toilet and before and after meals by September 30, 2016. F3, F21
R5:
The Sheriff’s Department should develop a plan to eliminate the environmental issue of inmates being excessively cold in safety cells by December 31, 2016.
R6:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should develop a protocol by December 31, 2016 to authorize nurse practitioners to release inmates from a safety cell. F5, F21
R7:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should establish a debriefing protocol by December 31, 2016 to address each safety cell use in order to properly evaluate REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury any treatment failure and put a plan in place to reduce reoccurrence. F6, F21
R8:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should collaborate on a process by December 31, 2016 to collect and analyze the following safety cell data:
• the average length of stay
• the number of times an inmate is moved to the safety cell more than once
• the day and times safety cells are most utilized
• any injury sustained on the way to, or inside the safety cell
• the use of forced medication in conjunction with safety cell use Data should be incorporated into risk reduction activities that are monitored by the Sheriff’s Department and the Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services. F7, F17, F18, F21
R9:
The County should provide financial assistance through the budgetary process, or some other means such as the Mental Health Services Act (Prop 63) by June 30, 2017, for additional Collaborative Court services that can reduce the current wait list and serve a greater number and variety of mentally ill offenders. F9, F10
R10:
The Health Care Agency should develop a recruitment strategy for hiring additional full time psychiatrists by December 31, 2016, in order to better meet the needs of mentally ill inmates throughout the Orange County jails. F11, F21
R11:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should develop and implement therapeutic and educational curricula specific to the needs of mentally ill inmates in all parts of the Orange County jails by June 30, 2017. F2, F13, F15, F21
R12:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Health Care Agency should collaborate to initiate Thinking for a Change, or a similar therapeutic program, in all areas of the jail, including Mod L, by June 30, 2017, and give first priority to inmates with a mental health diagnosis. F2, F13, F14, F21
R13:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should integrate quality assurance data into their regular standing meetings, or establish a new standing committee by December 31, 2016, where the data includes:
• use of safety cells REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
• the effectiveness of transfers out of Mod L into the general jail population
• inmate grievances F17, F19, F20, F21
R14:
The Sheriff’s Department should expand the S.A.F.E. division to include a quality risk management team that will collect and analyze data throughout the jail, with a component that will address services provided to mentally ill inmates by June 30, 2017. Consideration of expansion should include incorporating the Jail Compliance and Training Team(JCATT) into S.A.F.E. F18, F21
R15:
The Sheriff’s Department should establish a standing quality management committee that meets at least quarterly to review and analyze data with the goal of improving inmate services by December 31, 2016. The Committee should include representatives from Command Staff, S.A.F.E., JCATT, and Mod L medical, nursing, and case management staff. F18, F19, F21
R16:
The Sheriff’s Department should develop and implement a plan by December 31, 2016 to ensure that the jail grievance policy and procedure is followed. F19
R17:
The Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services should review its quality management committee structure by December 31, 2016 to ensure issues identified in reports are thoroughly analyzed. Trends should be identified and addressed through quality improvement activities. The minutes of the meeting should reflect committee discussion and decisions regarding trends. Minutes should also reflect follow-up actions taken to ensure resolution of identified issues. F20, F21, F22 REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), detail, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) is to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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: REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Responses Required: Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report: 90 Day Response F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Required: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 90 Day Response R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Required: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X Responses are required from the following elected agency or department head within 60 days of the date of the publication of this report: 60 Day Response F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Required: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Sheriff/Coroner X X X X X X X X X X X X 60 Day Response R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Required: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 OC Sheriff X X X X X X X X X Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: Response F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Requested: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Health Care Agency X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Response R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Requested: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Health Care Agency X X X X X X X X X X X REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CITED California Code of Regulations, Title 15 (§1073 – Inmate Grievance Process, §1083 – Limitations on Disciplinary Actions, and §1055 – Use of Safety Cell). Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Crime Prevention and Corrections. Web. California Corrections Standards Authority: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Council on Mentally Ill Offenders. (2009), “Jails and the Mentally Ill: Issues and Analysis.” Web. Sept. 2015. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Cornerstone of California’s Solution to Reduce Overcrowding, Costs, and Recidivism. AB109. Web. 2011. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. What You Need to Know About Proposition 47. Web. Nov. 2014. California Department of Mental Health. October 2010 (revised). “The Forensic Conditional Release Program: An Orientation Guide.” Web. Sept. 2015. California Legislative Information. Assembly Bill (AB) -1907, Chapter 814 “Inmates: Psychiatric Medication.” (Laura’s Law) Web. September 30, 2012. California Legislative Information. Welfare and Institution Code Division 5, Part 1 the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act [5000 - 5550]. Chapter 2. Involuntary Treatment [5150 - 5349.5]. California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). Learning Domain 37. Print. Crime Solution.gov. Office of Justice Programs. Program Profile. Thinking for a Change. Web. 2016. Department of Justice /Civil Rights Division. Correspondence. March 4, 2014. “Investigation of the Orange County Jail.” DJ 168-12C-90. Print. Dusky v United States: 362 U.S. 402 (1960). Gerda, Nick. “Orange County Adopts Laura’s Law” Voice of OC. 5/14/14. Web. Gerda, Nick. “Supervisors Get an Earful on County Mental Health System Deficiencies.” Voice of OC. 3/29/16. Web. Human Resource Services. Current Salary Schedules. OCgov.com. 2016. REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury IN RE MILLE. Cal.App.4th 635 (2010), 105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 859. In re FREDDY MILLE on Habeas Corpus. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three. March 3, 2010. Jackson v Indiana: 406 U.S. 715 (1972). Joint Settlement Agreement Regarding the Los Angeles County Jails; and Stipulated Order of Resolution. Filed August 5, 2015. Case 2:15-cv-05903 Web. Nov. 2015. Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Law, Restraint and Seclusion, Web. Bazelon.org. 2016. Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). January 3, 2012.” An Alternative Approach: Treating the Incompetent to Stand Trial.” Web. Nov. 2015. National Alliance on Mental Health (NAMI). Mental Health Conditions. Web. 2016. Orange County Grand Jury - 2012-2013. “To Protect And To Serve: A Look at Tools to Assist Law Enforcement in Achieving Positive Outcomes With the Homeless Mentally Ill.” Print. 2013. Orange County Health Care Agency. “Assisted Outpatient Treatment.” Print. 2016. Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department/S.A.F.E. Division. “SAFE – Strategy. Accountability. Focus. Evaluation.” Web. Sept. 2015. Robinson v California. U.S. 660 (1962). Sell v United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). Steinberg, Darrell, et al. Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project (2014). “When did prisons become acceptable mental healthcare facilities?” Web. Sept. 2015. Stepping Up Initiative. Web. May 2016. Superior Court of California, County of Orange. 2014. “Collaborative Courts 2014 Annual Report.” Print. Superior Court of California, County of Orange. 2015. “Collaborative Courts 2015 Annual Report.” Print. Treatment Advocacy Center. “The Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness in Prisons and Jails: A State Survey.” April 8, 2014. P. 9-12. United States of America v County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonald, in his Official Capacity. Joint Settlement Agreement regarding the Los REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Angeles County Jails; and Stipulated (Proposed) Order of Resolution. C.V No. 15-5903. 2015. Urban Institute. Research Report. The Processing and Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons in the Criminal Justice System. A Scan of Practice and Background Analysis. Web. 2015. Vo, Thy. “County Leaders to Attend Summit on Reducing Incarceration of Mentally Ill.” Voice of OC. March 2016. Web. REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CONSULTED Auerback, Alfred, M.D. The Short-Doyle Act. Web. Nov. 2015. Assembly Bill 1907. California Legislature. 2011-12 regular session. California Code of Regulations, Title 9, Division 1, Chapter 4 - Community Mental Health Services Under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. Web. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Armstrong v Brown Board of Parole Hearings Remedial Plan. Web. Amended December 1, 2010. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Proposition 47. “Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative (November 2014). California Legislative Information. Assembly Bill 1907 (Penal Code 1602 and 1603). Inmates: Psychiatric Medication. September 30, 2012. California Penal Code, Section 13515.25. Print. California Penal Code, Section 1368. Print. California Welfare and Institutions Codes 5325.2. “Persons subject to detention pursuant to 5150, 5250, 5260, 5270.15; right to refuse psychiatric medication.” Print. Connolly, Stephen, Stephen J. County of Orange Office of the Performance Audit Director. Annual Audit Recommendations Follow-Up: Health Care Agency/Correctional Health Services. Web (ocgov.com). December 16, 2014. Connolly, Stephen J. County of Orange Office of Independent Review. “Department of Justice Investigation Update.” Web (OC gov.com). May 21, 2014. Connolly, Stephen J., County of Orange Office of the Performance Audit Director. “Follow-up Audit of Health Care Agency/Correctional Medical Services. Web (OCgov.com). January 24, 2012. Correctional Services Assistant (CSA) Academy and Continuing Professional Training. “Training Curriculum for Basic Academy.” Orange County Sheriff’s Department, CA. Web. Unit 15. Dalton, Rex. “County Seeking State Money for Jail Rebuild.” Voice of OC. Web. Nov. 2015. Disability Rights California (DRC). “Placement of Individuals Found Incompetent to Stand Trial: A Review of Competency Programs and Recommendations.” Publication #CM52.01. Web. Oct. 2015. REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Fillman, Terry. CSAC 119th Annual Meeting Healthy Counties – Healthy California. “Restoration of Competency Jail Based Program Saves Time and Money.” Web (www.docfoc.com). Fillman, Terry. “Mental Health Treatment: Award Winning Innovation.” San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. 2014. Keyhea v Rushen. Cal. App. 3d 531. Little Hoover Commission. “Commission Calls for Stronger Oversight, Better Financial Reporting to Document Impact of ‘Millionaire’s Tax’ on Mental Health in California.” Print. January 27, 2015. Loewy, Arnold. “Criminal Law in a Nutshell, Fourth Edition.” West Group. Print. 2003. Los Angeles Times. “Settlement Calls for More Training, Scrutiny.” August 6, 2014. Web. Dec. 2015. Moodlan, Margaret. “The Shameful State of the Mentally Ill in Our Jail System.” Huffington Post. Web. Dec. 2015. National Alliance on Mental Health State Advocacy. “The High Cost of Cutting Mental Health.” Web. Oct. 2015. Napa State Hospital Court Competency Packet. Web. Oct. 2015. Orange County Grand Jury – 2014-2015. “The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem For Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency.” Orange County Register. “County Answers Plea for More Mental Health Care.” June 6, 2015. Orange County Register. “Inmate Programs Concern Grand Jury,” June 9, 2013. Web. Oct. 2015. Pace Law School Library Research Guides. “Prisoners’ Rights Law Resources: Mental Health. 2015. Web. Dec. 2015. Pierce v County of Orange. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 24, 2008. Rehinge. “Paton’s Story.” Web. January 2016. Souse California Law Group. “Competency to Stand Trial in California Criminal Law.” Web. January 2015. St. John, Paige. “Report Faults Prison Care of State’s Mentally Ill Inmate.” Los Angeles Times, 2016. Web. October 2015. REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury “State Divides $500 Million Among County Jails For Rehabilitation Programs.” November 11, 2015. Web. November 2015. Superior Court of California County of Orange. Community Court Programs and Services. StudyLib. Riese Hearing Basics. Codes and Regulations related to Capacity Hearings. Welfare and Institutions Codes. Web. 2016. Taylor, Mac. “An Alternative Approach: Treating the Incompetent to Stand Trial.” 2012. Legislative Analyst’s Office. Web. Nov. 2015. Telecare Corporation. Web. Oct. 2015. Tenorio, Gina. The Patch. San Bernardino Sheriff’s Honored for Work with Inmates. Web. March 21, 2013. Treatment Advocacy Center. “California.” 2012. Web. Oct. 2015. Treatment Advocacy Center. “The Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness in Prisons and Jails: A State Survey 2014.” Oct. 2015. United States Attorney’s Office Department of Justice. Justice Department Reaches Agreement with Los Angeles County To Implement Sweeping Reforms on Mental Health Care and Use of Force throughout the County Jail System. Web. Aug 5, 2015. Wood, Tracy. “Moorlach Bill Would Boost Local Access to Mental Health Funds.” Voice of OC. Web. Mar. 2016. REPORT 8 Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
For several years the Orange County Procurement Office and the County’s procurement functions have not been prioritized to bring about necessary changes to achieve an efficient and cost effective operation despite numerous recommendations from Grand Juries and auditors.
Related Recommendations (5)
R2:
The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should define a process to base the next County Purchasing Agent appointment on a nationwide recruitment, job related testing, and thorough vetting by January 1, 2017. (F1, F12, F18)
R3:
The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should reclassify and transfer all employees in procurement functions to the County Procurement Office, and all future procurement staff be recruited and hired directly into the County Procurement Office and into a job classification within the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series, managed and supervised by the CPO, by March 1, 2017. (F1, F3, F13, F16)
R4:
Beginning November 30, 2016, the County Procurement Office should train all employees who have procurement duties immediately upon hire or assignment, and before they are permitted to work independently on procurement tasks.(F1, F2)
R12:
The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should conduct a salary survey and make recommendations for compensation modifications to make Orange County competitive in the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series by February 1, 2017. (F1, F13)
R14:
The County Procurement Office should, by January 15, 2017, lead each County agency through a process to develop function-specific Procurement Procedure Manuals, and all Manuals be reviewed and updated annually. (F1, F2, F8, F17) REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury 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). Additionally, 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 elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under that elected official’s control 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 REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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 Requested: 90 Day Required Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 90 Day Required Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CPO X X X X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CPO X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CPA X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CPA X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 HR X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 HR X X X X REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 County Executive Office X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 County Executive Office X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CFO X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CFO X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CEO/Information Technology Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CEO/Information Technology X x REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CITED Anklesaria, Jimmy. “Centralized vs. Decentralized Procurement: The Ongoing Balancing Act”, Supply & Demand Chain Executive. August 1, 2014, Web. http://www.sdcexec.com/article/11604760/centralized-vs-decentralized-procurement-the- ongoing-balancing-act, May 2016. Anklesaria, Jimmy. “Centralize or Decentralize Procurement? No Longer a Clear-Cut Choice”, My Purchasing Center. August 30, 2014. Web. May 2016. http://www.mypurchasingcenter.com/purchasing/industry-articles/centralize-or- decentralize-procurement-no-longer-clear-cut-choice. Bianca, Audra et.al. “What Do Silos Mean in Business Culture.” Web. May 2016. http://yourbusiness.a.com/silos-mean-business-culture-3448.html. “Best Practices for Performance-Based Contracting”, Office of Management and Budget. Web. https://whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_guide/phsc. April 2016. Brinkman, J.E., CPPO. “Resolution 1002 – Centralized Purchasing,” National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. Web. nigp.org/eweb. October 27, 2015. California Counties by Population, California Demographics by Cubit. Web. California demographics.com/counties - by – population. November 14, 2015. Candidate Applications, Human Services Agency, County of Orange. Web. March 18, 2016. Consolidated Board Policies on Agreements/Contracts Approved by the Board, no author or agency listed. unidentifiable website. May 14, 2015. County Executive Office, Agenda Staff Report #10-000734. May 18, 2010. Print. County of Orange, CEO Procurement Office, Navigating the Request for Proposal (RFP) Process, January 2012. County of Orange Department of Human Resources, Purchasing Manager – Administrative Manager III, Recruitment flyer, issued December 31, 2005. County Procurement Office, 2014 Calendar of Training Topics. County Procurement Office, 2016 Goals. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Summary of NIGP Report Recommendations, County Executive Office. May 18, 2010. Print. CPO KPI 4th quarter report 2016. Web.ocgov.com. May 2016. Deputy Purchasing Agent (DPA) List 11/19/2015-12/17/2015, County Procurement Office Web. ocgov.com, March 31, 2016. deCourcy, P., Warn, D., Hogg, R., and Shaw, J., “Ten Strategies for Best-in-Class Public Sector Procurement,” Bravo Solution. Chicago, Il. June 2012. Duft, Ken D., “Agribusiness Management”, Washington State University & US Department of Agriculture. Web. http://www.agribusiness-mgmt.wsu.edu/ExtensionNewsletters/mgmt/ MgmtObjective.pdf. May 2016. E-Myth Business Coach, “The Danger of Silos in Your Business.” November 24, 2010. Web. e- myth.com. May 6, 2016. Engel, Bob, C.P.M, “10 best practices you should be doing now”. Web. http://www.supplychainquarterly.com/topics/Procurement/scq201101bestpractices/. Quarter 1, 2011. November 4, 2015. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit OCPublic Works, Bid & Proposal Processes, Audit No. 1225-A, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit – OC Public Works Change Order and Contract Amendment Processes Audit No. 1225-B, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit – OC Public Works Sole Source Contracts, Audit 1225-C, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Final Close-Out, OC Public Works Bid &Proposal Processes, Audit No. 1225-F1, June 24, 2015. Master Services Agreement for IT Services by and Between County of Orange and Science Applications International Corporation, 2013. Web. April 2016 http//bos.ocgov.com/itms/docs/SAIC Master Services Agreement.pdf. ocgov.com, Human Resources, Job Titles. Web. Ocgov.com. March 2016. OC Procurement, Key Performance Indicators Final quarter 2016. Orange County, CA. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Office of the Performance Audit Director, Performance Audit of Countywide Purchasing - Final November 11, 2009. Draft Report (#131404). June 17, 2014. County of Orange, CA Web.ocgov.com. O’Neill II, J.B., McCarthy, D., Brady, W.D., and Pitzer, J.T., “Procurement Policy Study.” County of Orange, CA. October 8, 2009. Orange County – Class Specification Bulletin, various job titles. Web. April 2016. Ocgov.com/agency.governmentjobs.com/oc. Orange County, California – Organizational Chart. Web. ocgov.com/gov/ceo/resources/orgchart. Orange County Grand Jury – 1997-1998, Study of Orange County Procurement System, Santa Ana, Ca. Web. Ocgov.org. Orange County Grand Jury – 2002-2003, Questionable Contract Management. Print Orange County Grand Jury – 2013-2014, Improving the County of Orange Government’s Multi- Billion Dollar Contracting Operations. Print. Orange County Public Works, Design & Construction Procurement Policy Manual (DCP) 2015. Approved January 27, 2015. Overby, Stephanie, “What Matters Most in Outsourcing: Outcomes vs. Tasks.” Web. May 2016. http://www.cio.com.au/article/326009/what_matters_most_outsourcing_outcome_vs_tas ks/ CIO.com. November 16, 2009. Performance Based Contracting, Principles and Practices of Public Procurement, Partnership for Public Procurement, NIGP/CIPS, 2012. Web. http://216.22.26.112/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/PerformanceBased.pdf. June 1, 2016. Procurement Quarterly Reports 2015, County Procurement Office. SAIC Contract Amendment #1. Web. May 6, 2016. http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/Agenda07_30_2013_files/images/O01313- 000824A.PDF, July 30, 2013. Sessoms, Gail, What are Organizational Silos? Web. May 2016. http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/organizational-silos-8237.html. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Unattributed. Centralized Purchasing – Good or Bad? Web. May 19, 2016. www.purchasing-procurement-center.com/centralized-purchasing. Warn, Dan. Best Practices for Government Procurement, November 15, 2005, Government Information Division, Office of the State Auditor, State of Minnesota. Web. http//strategicsourcing.com/2014/11/05best-practices-for-government-procurement. What’s the Difference Between Policies and Procedures? Web. April 25, 2016. www. bizmanualz.com/write- better-policies. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CONSULTED American Bar Association, Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments. February 1979. Print. Consolidated Board Policies on Agreements/Contracts Approved by the Board, IT Managed Services – Transition & Transformation, OCIT. Wed. bos.ocgov/itms/faq.asp. Print. County Executive Office, County Procurement Office, Memorandum, Retroactive Contract Approval Request Form Instructions, January 13, 2016. Print. County Procurement Office, DEPUTY PURCHASING AGENT (DPA LIST), 11/19/2015 – 12/17/2015. Print. Gerda, Nick. “Medical contract approved amid protest,” Orange County Register. September 9, 2014. Web. Gilroy, Leonard. “Competitive contracting helps taxpayers,” Orange County Register. January 23, 2015. Web. Muir, Jennifer. “OC feels dangers of IT contracting”, Orange County Register, April 10, 2015. Web. OCIT, IT Shared Services Pilot Overview. October 26, 2015. Web. Orange County Procurement Support Center (OCPSC), Closed Tickets by month and Year-to- Date., document, May 31, 2016. “Board of Supervisors Set for Big Vote on Huge Computer Contract”, Orange County Register. June 27 2008. Web. May 2016. “County Exploring New Computer System,” Orange County Register. September 22, 2011. Web. May 2016. Richardson, Rob, County Executive Office/County Procurement Office, OC Procurement Support Center. Letter, January 14, 2016. Richardson, Rob, Procurement Office Goals – 2015, Santa Ana, California. Print. Richardson, Rob, Procurement Office Goals – 2016, Santa Ana, California. Print. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Sample Size Calculator – Confidence and Interval Level, Creative Research Systems. Web. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm, May 2016. San Juan Capistrano Patch, County Bigwigs Rant about multimillion Dollar Cost Overruns. June 3, 2011. Web. May 2016. Sforza, Terry. “OC watchdog: Report validates doubts on county contracting,” Orange County Register. June 16, 2014. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F2:
Training requirements for new and experienced Deputy Procurement Agents is inadequate. Further, the inconsistent enforcement of training compliance, and confusing training and certification timelines is a high risk practice because it allows untrained and/or uncertified employees to perform procurement tasks. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (4)
R4:
Beginning November 30, 2016, the County Procurement Office should train all employees who have procurement duties immediately upon hire or assignment, and before they are permitted to work independently on procurement tasks.(F1, F2)
R5:
The County Purchasing Agent should enforce standard DPA training requirements and not allow any DPA to work on procurement tasks if their DPA certification has lapsed beginning December 1, 2016. (F2, F7) REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R6:
The County Executive Officer should hire a procurement Training Consultant to assess the training needs of procurement staff and submit a plan for training of new and veteran procurement employees by January 15, 2017.(F2, F7)
R14:
The County Procurement Office should, by January 15, 2017, lead each County agency through a process to develop function-specific Procurement Procedure Manuals, and all Manuals be reviewed and updated annually. (F1, F2, F8, F17) REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury 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). Additionally, 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 elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under that elected official’s control 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 REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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 Requested: 90 Day Required Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 90 Day Required Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CPO X X X X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CPO X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CPA X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CPA X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 HR X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 HR X X X X REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 County Executive Office X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 County Executive Office X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CFO X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CFO X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CEO/Information Technology Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CEO/Information Technology X x REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CITED Anklesaria, Jimmy. “Centralized vs. Decentralized Procurement: The Ongoing Balancing Act”, Supply & Demand Chain Executive. August 1, 2014, Web. http://www.sdcexec.com/article/11604760/centralized-vs-decentralized-procurement-the- ongoing-balancing-act, May 2016. Anklesaria, Jimmy. “Centralize or Decentralize Procurement? No Longer a Clear-Cut Choice”, My Purchasing Center. August 30, 2014. Web. May 2016. http://www.mypurchasingcenter.com/purchasing/industry-articles/centralize-or- decentralize-procurement-no-longer-clear-cut-choice. Bianca, Audra et.al. “What Do Silos Mean in Business Culture.” Web. May 2016. http://yourbusiness.a.com/silos-mean-business-culture-3448.html. “Best Practices for Performance-Based Contracting”, Office of Management and Budget. Web. https://whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_guide/phsc. April 2016. Brinkman, J.E., CPPO. “Resolution 1002 – Centralized Purchasing,” National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. Web. nigp.org/eweb. October 27, 2015. California Counties by Population, California Demographics by Cubit. Web. California demographics.com/counties - by – population. November 14, 2015. Candidate Applications, Human Services Agency, County of Orange. Web. March 18, 2016. Consolidated Board Policies on Agreements/Contracts Approved by the Board, no author or agency listed. unidentifiable website. May 14, 2015. County Executive Office, Agenda Staff Report #10-000734. May 18, 2010. Print. County of Orange, CEO Procurement Office, Navigating the Request for Proposal (RFP) Process, January 2012. County of Orange Department of Human Resources, Purchasing Manager – Administrative Manager III, Recruitment flyer, issued December 31, 2005. County Procurement Office, 2014 Calendar of Training Topics. County Procurement Office, 2016 Goals. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Summary of NIGP Report Recommendations, County Executive Office. May 18, 2010. Print. CPO KPI 4th quarter report 2016. Web.ocgov.com. May 2016. Deputy Purchasing Agent (DPA) List 11/19/2015-12/17/2015, County Procurement Office Web. ocgov.com, March 31, 2016. deCourcy, P., Warn, D., Hogg, R., and Shaw, J., “Ten Strategies for Best-in-Class Public Sector Procurement,” Bravo Solution. Chicago, Il. June 2012. Duft, Ken D., “Agribusiness Management”, Washington State University & US Department of Agriculture. Web. http://www.agribusiness-mgmt.wsu.edu/ExtensionNewsletters/mgmt/ MgmtObjective.pdf. May 2016. E-Myth Business Coach, “The Danger of Silos in Your Business.” November 24, 2010. Web. e- myth.com. May 6, 2016. Engel, Bob, C.P.M, “10 best practices you should be doing now”. Web. http://www.supplychainquarterly.com/topics/Procurement/scq201101bestpractices/. Quarter 1, 2011. November 4, 2015. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit OCPublic Works, Bid & Proposal Processes, Audit No. 1225-A, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit – OC Public Works Change Order and Contract Amendment Processes Audit No. 1225-B, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit – OC Public Works Sole Source Contracts, Audit 1225-C, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Final Close-Out, OC Public Works Bid &Proposal Processes, Audit No. 1225-F1, June 24, 2015. Master Services Agreement for IT Services by and Between County of Orange and Science Applications International Corporation, 2013. Web. April 2016 http//bos.ocgov.com/itms/docs/SAIC Master Services Agreement.pdf. ocgov.com, Human Resources, Job Titles. Web. Ocgov.com. March 2016. OC Procurement, Key Performance Indicators Final quarter 2016. Orange County, CA. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Office of the Performance Audit Director, Performance Audit of Countywide Purchasing - Final November 11, 2009. Draft Report (#131404). June 17, 2014. County of Orange, CA Web.ocgov.com. O’Neill II, J.B., McCarthy, D., Brady, W.D., and Pitzer, J.T., “Procurement Policy Study.” County of Orange, CA. October 8, 2009. Orange County – Class Specification Bulletin, various job titles. Web. April 2016. Ocgov.com/agency.governmentjobs.com/oc. Orange County, California – Organizational Chart. Web. ocgov.com/gov/ceo/resources/orgchart. Orange County Grand Jury – 1997-1998, Study of Orange County Procurement System, Santa Ana, Ca. Web. Ocgov.org. Orange County Grand Jury – 2002-2003, Questionable Contract Management. Print Orange County Grand Jury – 2013-2014, Improving the County of Orange Government’s Multi- Billion Dollar Contracting Operations. Print. Orange County Public Works, Design & Construction Procurement Policy Manual (DCP) 2015. Approved January 27, 2015. Overby, Stephanie, “What Matters Most in Outsourcing: Outcomes vs. Tasks.” Web. May 2016. http://www.cio.com.au/article/326009/what_matters_most_outsourcing_outcome_vs_tas ks/ CIO.com. November 16, 2009. Performance Based Contracting, Principles and Practices of Public Procurement, Partnership for Public Procurement, NIGP/CIPS, 2012. Web. http://216.22.26.112/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/PerformanceBased.pdf. June 1, 2016. Procurement Quarterly Reports 2015, County Procurement Office. SAIC Contract Amendment #1. Web. May 6, 2016. http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/Agenda07_30_2013_files/images/O01313- 000824A.PDF, July 30, 2013. Sessoms, Gail, What are Organizational Silos? Web. May 2016. http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/organizational-silos-8237.html. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Unattributed. Centralized Purchasing – Good or Bad? Web. May 19, 2016. www.purchasing-procurement-center.com/centralized-purchasing. Warn, Dan. Best Practices for Government Procurement, November 15, 2005, Government Information Division, Office of the State Auditor, State of Minnesota. Web. http//strategicsourcing.com/2014/11/05best-practices-for-government-procurement. What’s the Difference Between Policies and Procedures? Web. April 25, 2016. www. bizmanualz.com/write- better-policies. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CONSULTED American Bar Association, Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments. February 1979. Print. Consolidated Board Policies on Agreements/Contracts Approved by the Board, IT Managed Services – Transition & Transformation, OCIT. Wed. bos.ocgov/itms/faq.asp. Print. County Executive Office, County Procurement Office, Memorandum, Retroactive Contract Approval Request Form Instructions, January 13, 2016. Print. County Procurement Office, DEPUTY PURCHASING AGENT (DPA LIST), 11/19/2015 – 12/17/2015. Print. Gerda, Nick. “Medical contract approved amid protest,” Orange County Register. September 9, 2014. Web. Gilroy, Leonard. “Competitive contracting helps taxpayers,” Orange County Register. January 23, 2015. Web. Muir, Jennifer. “OC feels dangers of IT contracting”, Orange County Register, April 10, 2015. Web. OCIT, IT Shared Services Pilot Overview. October 26, 2015. Web. Orange County Procurement Support Center (OCPSC), Closed Tickets by month and Year-to- Date., document, May 31, 2016. “Board of Supervisors Set for Big Vote on Huge Computer Contract”, Orange County Register. June 27 2008. Web. May 2016. “County Exploring New Computer System,” Orange County Register. September 22, 2011. Web. May 2016. Richardson, Rob, County Executive Office/County Procurement Office, OC Procurement Support Center. Letter, January 14, 2016. Richardson, Rob, Procurement Office Goals – 2015, Santa Ana, California. Print. Richardson, Rob, Procurement Office Goals – 2016, Santa Ana, California. Print. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Sample Size Calculator – Confidence and Interval Level, Creative Research Systems. Web. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm, May 2016. San Juan Capistrano Patch, County Bigwigs Rant about multimillion Dollar Cost Overruns. June 3, 2011. Web. May 2016. Sforza, Terry. “OC watchdog: Report validates doubts on county contracting,” Orange County Register. June 16, 2014. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F3:
The current de-centralized Procurement organizational structure is outdated and not consistent with other large California counties or current procurement Best Practices and deprives the County of the ability to leverage its collective buying power to reduce costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should reclassify and transfer all employees in procurement functions to the County Procurement Office, and all future procurement staff be recruited and hired directly into the County Procurement Office and into a job classification within the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series, managed and supervised by the CPO, by March 1, 2017. (F1, F3, F13, F16)
F4:
The County does not appear to have an in-house expert on centralization who could design and implement the transition to centralized procurement.
F5:
The automated procurement tracking system is outdated and thereby difficult to use and appears to contribute to errors and additional costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That the CEO should authorize OCIT to assist the County Procurement Office in conducting an IT needs assessment, and submit a plan and timeline for improvement, updating or replacement by March 1, 2017. (F5)
F6:
) R.12. The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should conduct a salary survey and make
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By October 1, 2016, the CEO should direct agencies to revise the practice of recommending the awarding of multi-year contracts, one year at a time, with possible four - 1 year extensions, by directing agency staff to submit contracts of three to five years; and direct contract managers to exercise the 30 day cancellation clause when warranted by poor vendor performance.(F6)
F7:
Advanced training and professional certification are not encouraged and are not credited in hiring or promotion of employees with procurement duties.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The County Purchasing Agent should enforce standard DPA training requirements and not allow any DPA to work on procurement tasks if their DPA certification has lapsed beginning December 1, 2016. (F2, F7) REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
R6:
The County Executive Officer should hire a procurement Training Consultant to assess the training needs of procurement staff and submit a plan for training of new and veteran procurement employees by January 15, 2017.(F2, F7)
F8:
The Request for Proposal (RFP) process has a number of correctable technical operational issues such as inconsistencies in solicitation packets, conflict of interest, uncorrected errors and bidder qualifications
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The County Procurement Office should, by January 15, 2017, lead each County agency through a process to develop function-specific Procurement Procedure Manuals, and all Manuals be reviewed and updated annually. (F1, F2, F8, F17) REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury 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). Additionally, 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 elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under that elected official’s control 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 REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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 Requested: 90 Day Required Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 90 Day Required Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CPO X X X X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CPO X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CPA X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CPA X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 HR X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 HR X X X X REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 County Executive Office X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 County Executive Office X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CFO X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CFO X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CEO/Information Technology Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CEO/Information Technology X x REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CITED Anklesaria, Jimmy. “Centralized vs. Decentralized Procurement: The Ongoing Balancing Act”, Supply & Demand Chain Executive. August 1, 2014, Web. http://www.sdcexec.com/article/11604760/centralized-vs-decentralized-procurement-the- ongoing-balancing-act, May 2016. Anklesaria, Jimmy. “Centralize or Decentralize Procurement? No Longer a Clear-Cut Choice”, My Purchasing Center. August 30, 2014. Web. May 2016. http://www.mypurchasingcenter.com/purchasing/industry-articles/centralize-or- decentralize-procurement-no-longer-clear-cut-choice. Bianca, Audra et.al. “What Do Silos Mean in Business Culture.” Web. May 2016. http://yourbusiness.a.com/silos-mean-business-culture-3448.html. “Best Practices for Performance-Based Contracting”, Office of Management and Budget. Web. https://whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_guide/phsc. April 2016. Brinkman, J.E., CPPO. “Resolution 1002 – Centralized Purchasing,” National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. Web. nigp.org/eweb. October 27, 2015. California Counties by Population, California Demographics by Cubit. Web. California demographics.com/counties - by – population. November 14, 2015. Candidate Applications, Human Services Agency, County of Orange. Web. March 18, 2016. Consolidated Board Policies on Agreements/Contracts Approved by the Board, no author or agency listed. unidentifiable website. May 14, 2015. County Executive Office, Agenda Staff Report #10-000734. May 18, 2010. Print. County of Orange, CEO Procurement Office, Navigating the Request for Proposal (RFP) Process, January 2012. County of Orange Department of Human Resources, Purchasing Manager – Administrative Manager III, Recruitment flyer, issued December 31, 2005. County Procurement Office, 2014 Calendar of Training Topics. County Procurement Office, 2016 Goals. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Summary of NIGP Report Recommendations, County Executive Office. May 18, 2010. Print. CPO KPI 4th quarter report 2016. Web.ocgov.com. May 2016. Deputy Purchasing Agent (DPA) List 11/19/2015-12/17/2015, County Procurement Office Web. ocgov.com, March 31, 2016. deCourcy, P., Warn, D., Hogg, R., and Shaw, J., “Ten Strategies for Best-in-Class Public Sector Procurement,” Bravo Solution. Chicago, Il. June 2012. Duft, Ken D., “Agribusiness Management”, Washington State University & US Department of Agriculture. Web. http://www.agribusiness-mgmt.wsu.edu/ExtensionNewsletters/mgmt/ MgmtObjective.pdf. May 2016. E-Myth Business Coach, “The Danger of Silos in Your Business.” November 24, 2010. Web. e- myth.com. May 6, 2016. Engel, Bob, C.P.M, “10 best practices you should be doing now”. Web. http://www.supplychainquarterly.com/topics/Procurement/scq201101bestpractices/. Quarter 1, 2011. November 4, 2015. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit OCPublic Works, Bid & Proposal Processes, Audit No. 1225-A, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit – OC Public Works Change Order and Contract Amendment Processes Audit No. 1225-B, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit – OC Public Works Sole Source Contracts, Audit 1225-C, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Final Close-Out, OC Public Works Bid &Proposal Processes, Audit No. 1225-F1, June 24, 2015. Master Services Agreement for IT Services by and Between County of Orange and Science Applications International Corporation, 2013. Web. April 2016 http//bos.ocgov.com/itms/docs/SAIC Master Services Agreement.pdf. ocgov.com, Human Resources, Job Titles. Web. Ocgov.com. March 2016. OC Procurement, Key Performance Indicators Final quarter 2016. Orange County, CA. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Office of the Performance Audit Director, Performance Audit of Countywide Purchasing - Final November 11, 2009. Draft Report (#131404). June 17, 2014. County of Orange, CA Web.ocgov.com. O’Neill II, J.B., McCarthy, D., Brady, W.D., and Pitzer, J.T., “Procurement Policy Study.” County of Orange, CA. October 8, 2009. Orange County – Class Specification Bulletin, various job titles. Web. April 2016. Ocgov.com/agency.governmentjobs.com/oc. Orange County, California – Organizational Chart. Web. ocgov.com/gov/ceo/resources/orgchart. Orange County Grand Jury – 1997-1998, Study of Orange County Procurement System, Santa Ana, Ca. Web. Ocgov.org. Orange County Grand Jury – 2002-2003, Questionable Contract Management. Print Orange County Grand Jury – 2013-2014, Improving the County of Orange Government’s Multi- Billion Dollar Contracting Operations. Print. Orange County Public Works, Design & Construction Procurement Policy Manual (DCP) 2015. Approved January 27, 2015. Overby, Stephanie, “What Matters Most in Outsourcing: Outcomes vs. Tasks.” Web. May 2016. http://www.cio.com.au/article/326009/what_matters_most_outsourcing_outcome_vs_tas ks/ CIO.com. November 16, 2009. Performance Based Contracting, Principles and Practices of Public Procurement, Partnership for Public Procurement, NIGP/CIPS, 2012. Web. http://216.22.26.112/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/PerformanceBased.pdf. June 1, 2016. Procurement Quarterly Reports 2015, County Procurement Office. SAIC Contract Amendment #1. Web. May 6, 2016. http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/Agenda07_30_2013_files/images/O01313- 000824A.PDF, July 30, 2013. Sessoms, Gail, What are Organizational Silos? Web. May 2016. http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/organizational-silos-8237.html. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Unattributed. Centralized Purchasing – Good or Bad? Web. May 19, 2016. www.purchasing-procurement-center.com/centralized-purchasing. Warn, Dan. Best Practices for Government Procurement, November 15, 2005, Government Information Division, Office of the State Auditor, State of Minnesota. Web. http//strategicsourcing.com/2014/11/05best-practices-for-government-procurement. What’s the Difference Between Policies and Procedures? Web. April 25, 2016. www. bizmanualz.com/write- better-policies. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CONSULTED American Bar Association, Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments. February 1979. Print. Consolidated Board Policies on Agreements/Contracts Approved by the Board, IT Managed Services – Transition & Transformation, OCIT. Wed. bos.ocgov/itms/faq.asp. Print. County Executive Office, County Procurement Office, Memorandum, Retroactive Contract Approval Request Form Instructions, January 13, 2016. Print. County Procurement Office, DEPUTY PURCHASING AGENT (DPA LIST), 11/19/2015 – 12/17/2015. Print. Gerda, Nick. “Medical contract approved amid protest,” Orange County Register. September 9, 2014. Web. Gilroy, Leonard. “Competitive contracting helps taxpayers,” Orange County Register. January 23, 2015. Web. Muir, Jennifer. “OC feels dangers of IT contracting”, Orange County Register, April 10, 2015. Web. OCIT, IT Shared Services Pilot Overview. October 26, 2015. Web. Orange County Procurement Support Center (OCPSC), Closed Tickets by month and Year-to- Date., document, May 31, 2016. “Board of Supervisors Set for Big Vote on Huge Computer Contract”, Orange County Register. June 27 2008. Web. May 2016. “County Exploring New Computer System,” Orange County Register. September 22, 2011. Web. May 2016. Richardson, Rob, County Executive Office/County Procurement Office, OC Procurement Support Center. Letter, January 14, 2016. Richardson, Rob, Procurement Office Goals – 2015, Santa Ana, California. Print. Richardson, Rob, Procurement Office Goals – 2016, Santa Ana, California. Print. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Sample Size Calculator – Confidence and Interval Level, Creative Research Systems. Web. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm, May 2016. San Juan Capistrano Patch, County Bigwigs Rant about multimillion Dollar Cost Overruns. June 3, 2011. Web. May 2016. Sforza, Terry. “OC watchdog: Report validates doubts on county contracting,” Orange County Register. June 16, 2014. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F9:
F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 90 Day Required Responses:
F10:
There are Procurement best practices readily available for consideration that could be adopted to improve Orange County Procurement performance.
F11:
The number of contracts annually reviewed for compliance with the Contract Policy Manual is insufficient for a dependable assessment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The County Purchasing Agent should complete annual contract compliance reviews on at least 15% of each County agencies’ active contracts, and release/publish the violation findings within 60 days of review, beginning October 1, 2016. (F11)
F12:
There are no current specific minimum qualifications for County Purchasing Agent or a selection/testing procedure to identify and appoint the most qualified candidate.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The CEO in cooperation with Human Resources should establish by December 31, 2016 a specific Job Classification and description for County Purchasing Agent which includes professional, minimum qualifications in education, procurement certification, job-related experience, and progressive management duties. (F12, F18)
R2:
The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should define a process to base the next County Purchasing Agent appointment on a nationwide recruitment, job related testing, and thorough vetting by January 1, 2017. (F1, F12, F18)
F13:
Orange County does not offer competitive compensation for the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series (and related positions) and pays up to 30% below the average of three like-sized California counties.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should reclassify and transfer all employees in procurement functions to the County Procurement Office, and all future procurement staff be recruited and hired directly into the County Procurement Office and into a job classification within the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series, managed and supervised by the CPO, by March 1, 2017. (F1, F3, F13, F16)
R12:
The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should conduct a salary survey and make recommendations for compensation modifications to make Orange County competitive in the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series by February 1, 2017. (F1, F13)
F14:
There has been no action taken on many of the recommendations made by 1997-1998, 2002-2003 and 2013-2014 OC Grand Juries, the 2009 Procurement Policy Study, and the 2014 Performance Auditor and the Internal Auditor.
F15:
The Contract Policy Manual – 2012 is outdated. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F16:
There are no consistent hiring standards and qualifications for employees working in Procurement assignments, and most procurement staff are hired by agencies other than County Procurement into job titles outside the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should reclassify and transfer all employees in procurement functions to the County Procurement Office, and all future procurement staff be recruited and hired directly into the County Procurement Office and into a job classification within the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series, managed and supervised by the CPO, by March 1, 2017. (F1, F3, F13, F16)
F17:
The County lacks approved procedure manuals for procurement functions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The County Procurement Office should, by January 15, 2017, lead each County agency through a process to develop function-specific Procurement Procedure Manuals, and all Manuals be reviewed and updated annually. (F1, F2, F8, F17) REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury 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). Additionally, 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 elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under that elected official’s control 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 REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all 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 Requested: 90 Day Required Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 90 Day Required Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CPO X X X X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CPO X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CPA X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CPA X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 HR X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 HR X X X X REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 County Executive Office X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 County Executive Office X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CFO X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CFO X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CEO/Information Technology Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CEO/Information Technology X x REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CITED Anklesaria, Jimmy. “Centralized vs. Decentralized Procurement: The Ongoing Balancing Act”, Supply & Demand Chain Executive. August 1, 2014, Web. http://www.sdcexec.com/article/11604760/centralized-vs-decentralized-procurement-the- ongoing-balancing-act, May 2016. Anklesaria, Jimmy. “Centralize or Decentralize Procurement? No Longer a Clear-Cut Choice”, My Purchasing Center. August 30, 2014. Web. May 2016. http://www.mypurchasingcenter.com/purchasing/industry-articles/centralize-or- decentralize-procurement-no-longer-clear-cut-choice. Bianca, Audra et.al. “What Do Silos Mean in Business Culture.” Web. May 2016. http://yourbusiness.a.com/silos-mean-business-culture-3448.html. “Best Practices for Performance-Based Contracting”, Office of Management and Budget. Web. https://whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_guide/phsc. April 2016. Brinkman, J.E., CPPO. “Resolution 1002 – Centralized Purchasing,” National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. Web. nigp.org/eweb. October 27, 2015. California Counties by Population, California Demographics by Cubit. Web. California demographics.com/counties - by – population. November 14, 2015. Candidate Applications, Human Services Agency, County of Orange. Web. March 18, 2016. Consolidated Board Policies on Agreements/Contracts Approved by the Board, no author or agency listed. unidentifiable website. May 14, 2015. County Executive Office, Agenda Staff Report #10-000734. May 18, 2010. Print. County of Orange, CEO Procurement Office, Navigating the Request for Proposal (RFP) Process, January 2012. County of Orange Department of Human Resources, Purchasing Manager – Administrative Manager III, Recruitment flyer, issued December 31, 2005. County Procurement Office, 2014 Calendar of Training Topics. County Procurement Office, 2016 Goals. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Summary of NIGP Report Recommendations, County Executive Office. May 18, 2010. Print. CPO KPI 4th quarter report 2016. Web.ocgov.com. May 2016. Deputy Purchasing Agent (DPA) List 11/19/2015-12/17/2015, County Procurement Office Web. ocgov.com, March 31, 2016. deCourcy, P., Warn, D., Hogg, R., and Shaw, J., “Ten Strategies for Best-in-Class Public Sector Procurement,” Bravo Solution. Chicago, Il. June 2012. Duft, Ken D., “Agribusiness Management”, Washington State University & US Department of Agriculture. Web. http://www.agribusiness-mgmt.wsu.edu/ExtensionNewsletters/mgmt/ MgmtObjective.pdf. May 2016. E-Myth Business Coach, “The Danger of Silos in Your Business.” November 24, 2010. Web. e- myth.com. May 6, 2016. Engel, Bob, C.P.M, “10 best practices you should be doing now”. Web. http://www.supplychainquarterly.com/topics/Procurement/scq201101bestpractices/. Quarter 1, 2011. November 4, 2015. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit OCPublic Works, Bid & Proposal Processes, Audit No. 1225-A, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit – OC Public Works Change Order and Contract Amendment Processes Audit No. 1225-B, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit – OC Public Works Sole Source Contracts, Audit 1225-C, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Final Close-Out, OC Public Works Bid &Proposal Processes, Audit No. 1225-F1, June 24, 2015. Master Services Agreement for IT Services by and Between County of Orange and Science Applications International Corporation, 2013. Web. April 2016 http//bos.ocgov.com/itms/docs/SAIC Master Services Agreement.pdf. ocgov.com, Human Resources, Job Titles. Web. Ocgov.com. March 2016. OC Procurement, Key Performance Indicators Final quarter 2016. Orange County, CA. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Office of the Performance Audit Director, Performance Audit of Countywide Purchasing - Final November 11, 2009. Draft Report (#131404). June 17, 2014. County of Orange, CA Web.ocgov.com. O’Neill II, J.B., McCarthy, D., Brady, W.D., and Pitzer, J.T., “Procurement Policy Study.” County of Orange, CA. October 8, 2009. Orange County – Class Specification Bulletin, various job titles. Web. April 2016. Ocgov.com/agency.governmentjobs.com/oc. Orange County, California – Organizational Chart. Web. ocgov.com/gov/ceo/resources/orgchart. Orange County Grand Jury – 1997-1998, Study of Orange County Procurement System, Santa Ana, Ca. Web. Ocgov.org. Orange County Grand Jury – 2002-2003, Questionable Contract Management. Print Orange County Grand Jury – 2013-2014, Improving the County of Orange Government’s Multi- Billion Dollar Contracting Operations. Print. Orange County Public Works, Design & Construction Procurement Policy Manual (DCP) 2015. Approved January 27, 2015. Overby, Stephanie, “What Matters Most in Outsourcing: Outcomes vs. Tasks.” Web. May 2016. http://www.cio.com.au/article/326009/what_matters_most_outsourcing_outcome_vs_tas ks/ CIO.com. November 16, 2009. Performance Based Contracting, Principles and Practices of Public Procurement, Partnership for Public Procurement, NIGP/CIPS, 2012. Web. http://216.22.26.112/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/PerformanceBased.pdf. June 1, 2016. Procurement Quarterly Reports 2015, County Procurement Office. SAIC Contract Amendment #1. Web. May 6, 2016. http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/Agenda07_30_2013_files/images/O01313- 000824A.PDF, July 30, 2013. Sessoms, Gail, What are Organizational Silos? Web. May 2016. http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/organizational-silos-8237.html. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Unattributed. Centralized Purchasing – Good or Bad? Web. May 19, 2016. www.purchasing-procurement-center.com/centralized-purchasing. Warn, Dan. Best Practices for Government Procurement, November 15, 2005, Government Information Division, Office of the State Auditor, State of Minnesota. Web. http//strategicsourcing.com/2014/11/05best-practices-for-government-procurement. What’s the Difference Between Policies and Procedures? Web. April 25, 2016. www. bizmanualz.com/write- better-policies. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury WORKS CONSULTED American Bar Association, Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments. February 1979. Print. Consolidated Board Policies on Agreements/Contracts Approved by the Board, IT Managed Services – Transition & Transformation, OCIT. Wed. bos.ocgov/itms/faq.asp. Print. County Executive Office, County Procurement Office, Memorandum, Retroactive Contract Approval Request Form Instructions, January 13, 2016. Print. County Procurement Office, DEPUTY PURCHASING AGENT (DPA LIST), 11/19/2015 – 12/17/2015. Print. Gerda, Nick. “Medical contract approved amid protest,” Orange County Register. September 9, 2014. Web. Gilroy, Leonard. “Competitive contracting helps taxpayers,” Orange County Register. January 23, 2015. Web. Muir, Jennifer. “OC feels dangers of IT contracting”, Orange County Register, April 10, 2015. Web. OCIT, IT Shared Services Pilot Overview. October 26, 2015. Web. Orange County Procurement Support Center (OCPSC), Closed Tickets by month and Year-to- Date., document, May 31, 2016. “Board of Supervisors Set for Big Vote on Huge Computer Contract”, Orange County Register. June 27 2008. Web. May 2016. “County Exploring New Computer System,” Orange County Register. September 22, 2011. Web. May 2016. Richardson, Rob, County Executive Office/County Procurement Office, OC Procurement Support Center. Letter, January 14, 2016. Richardson, Rob, Procurement Office Goals – 2015, Santa Ana, California. Print. Richardson, Rob, Procurement Office Goals – 2016, Santa Ana, California. Print. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Sample Size Calculator – Confidence and Interval Level, Creative Research Systems. Web. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm, May 2016. San Juan Capistrano Patch, County Bigwigs Rant about multimillion Dollar Cost Overruns. June 3, 2011. Web. May 2016. Sforza, Terry. “OC watchdog: Report validates doubts on county contracting,” Orange County Register. June 16, 2014. REPORT 12 Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F18:
Some executive and upper management selections are made without an active recruitment and a testing process to identify the most qualified candidate, but by transferring an existing manager into the position, some without related education or experience. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Procurement – Big Budget, Low Priority”, the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 14 recommendations:
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The CEO in cooperation with Human Resources should establish by December 31, 2016 a specific Job Classification and description for County Purchasing Agent which includes professional, minimum qualifications in education, procurement certification, job-related experience, and progressive management duties. (F12, F18)
R2:
The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should define a process to base the next County Purchasing Agent appointment on a nationwide recruitment, job related testing, and thorough vetting by January 1, 2017. (F1, F12, F18)
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses:
R11:
The Chief Purchasing Agent should research procurement best practices, especially Performance Based Contracting, and submit a plan to adopt appropriate practices that would contribute to improved performance by Procurement, by January 1, 2017. (F1. F3, F6 )
R13:
The County Purchasing Agent should complete a report on recommended revisions to the Contract Policy Manual by October 15, 2016 and complete the revisions by March 1, 2017.(F1, F8, F15,)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F3:
Approval of OCTA as implementer and owner/operator of the OC Streetcar Project, and as subsequent grantee for the Federal New Starts Program, has created the basis for enabling further light rail development in Orange County to include public outreach and marketing/promotion efforts.
F4:
Creation by OCTA of a draft light rail Master Plan for Orange County that includes both intra and inter county transit connectivity options would be of considerable value to the public.
F5:
The long project times associated with light rail system establishment require not only careful planning and coordination by OCTA, but also consistent efforts to inform the public by those Orange County cities involved in development or possible development of light rail projects. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2015-2016 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 titled “Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track?” the 2015- 2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following eight recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
OCTA should initiate another “Go Local” effort in FY 16/17 encouraging more Orange County cities to advocate for light rail or other transit connections to assist Metrolink ridership. (F.1., F.3.)
R2:
OCTA should organize and lead focus groups during FY 16/17 to gauge public reaction to transportation options for Orange County that will be affected by the changes in working and population centers forecast for the next 20 years. (F.1., F.3.)
R3:
OCTA should use multi-lingual (English, Spanish, Korean and Vietnamese) Web and printed marketing materials to highlight Metrolink Transportation Center and light rail connectivity efforts in Orange County. (F.1., F.3.)
R4:
OCTA should create a draft phased light rail Master Plan during FY 16/17 that links the County’s high density urban areas and connects with Metrolink and Los Angeles County’s Metro light rail system. (F.4.)
R5:
OCTA should publish this Master Plan on its Website once it is created and provide a Website progress update every six months. (F.4.) 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track?
R6:
Santa Ana and Garden Grove should create links on their Websites within six months of receipt of this report that show their efforts to complete the OC Streetcar Project and then update these Websites every three months. (F.5.)
R7:
Anaheim should maintain its link on the city’s Website that shows efforts to successfully complete the ARC project and then update that Website every three months. (F.5.)
R8:
Fullerton should create a link on the city’s Website that describes the Fullerton City Council’s policy decision process concerning the best transit option to support the College Connector Plan, and then update this Website every three months. (F.5.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of 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 governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, 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 elected County Official shall comment on the findings and recommendation pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), detail, 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. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? (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 authority. The response of the elected official or department head shall address all 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 are required from the following governing bodies with 90 days of the date of publication of this report: 90 Day Required Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Board of Directors, OCTA: X X X X X City Council, City of Santa Ana: X City Council, City of Garden Grove: X City Council, City of Anahiem: X City Council, City of Fullerton: X 90 Day Required Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 Board of Directors, OCTA: X X X X X City Council, City of Santa Ana: X City Council, City of Garden Grove: X City Council, City of Anahiem: X City Council, City of Fullerton: X 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? WORKS CITED City of Anaheim. Anaheim Go Local Transit Master Plan Final Report. Irvine, CA. Dec. 2007. Print. City of Anaheim. Initial Study for the Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC) Fixed Guideway CSUF. Daily Titan. May 2014. Web. Jan. 2016. Delong, James V. Myths of Light Rail Transit Policy Study No. 244. Reason Public Policy Institute. Reason Foundation. reason.org. Sep. 1998. Web. Dec. 12. 2015. Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro). Wikipedia. Oct. 2015. Web.27 Oct. 2015 Light Rail in the United States.Wikipedia.24 Aug. 2015.Web.1 Sep. 2015. Mallinckrodt, Jack. Centerline Light Rail Unveiled. Urbantransport.org. Aug. 2004. Web. Jan. 2016. OC Streetcar. Projects-and-Programs/All-Projects/Rail-Projects. octa.net. Web. Sep. 2015. Orange County Transportation Authority. Wikipedia.15 Jun. 2015.Web. Jul. 2015. Pacific Electric. Wikipedia. Oct. 2015.Web.12 Oct. 2015. Passenger Rail Terminology. Wikipedia. Oct. 2015. Web. Nov. 2015. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. Wikipedia. Jun. 2015.Web. Sep. 2015. San Diego Trolley. Wikipedia. Jul. 2015.Web. Jul. 2015. Santa Ana Streetcar Project: A Study in Local Transit Planning. ocgrandjury.org. May 2010. Web. Nov. 2015. Sprinter. Wikipedia. Dec. 2015. Web. Jan. 2015. Transit Extensions to Metrolink. Projects and Programs/All Projects/Rail-Projects.octa.net. Web.27 Oct.2015. United States, Department of the Treasury with the Council of Economic Advisors. An Economic Analysis of Infrastructure Investment. Washington DC: 11 Oct. 2010. Print. United States. Department of Transportation. Budget Highlights, Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Budget. Washington DC: Dec. 2016. Print. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. Final Interim Policy Guidance Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant Program. Washington DC: 20 Aug. 2015. Print. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? Urban Cores, Core Cities and Principal Cities. Newgeography.com. Web. Dec. 2015. Van Stratten, Gina. City Studying Public Transportation Project to Connect Downtown with CSUF. Daily Titan. May 2014. Web. Jan. 2016. Weikel, Dan. Rail Could Make a Comeback in OC. Daily Pilot. Tradvisors.com/resources/news. Web. Aug. 2015. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? WORKS CONSULTED Anaheim Streetcar Economic Impact & Development Study. GB Place Making. E.D. Hovee and Company. Aug 2013. Print. Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. anaheimchamber.org. 2014. Web. Dec. 2015. Board Actions 8 Aug. 2014. octa.net. Aug. 2014.Web. Oct. 2015. City of Anaheim. Council Agenda Report. Department of Public Works. Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC) Fixed-Guideway Project Update. Anaheim, CA. April 2012. Print. City of Anaheim. Council Agenda Report. Department of Public Works. Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC) Fixed-Guideway Project-Selection of Locally Preferred Alternate and Acceptance of Anaheim Transportation Improvement District (ATID) Transportation Funds. Anaheim, CA: 23 Oct 2012. Print. Cooperative Agreement No. C-6-0692 between OCTA and City of Santa Ana. City Initiated Transit Extensions to Metrolink w/Amendment. Santa Ana, CA. Mar. 2007. Print. Cooperative Agreement No. C-8-1157 between OCTA and City of Santa Ana. City of Santa Ana Fixed-Guideway Project w/Amendments. Santa Ana, CA. Mar. 2015. Print. Felgenbaum, Baruch. Southern California Mobility Plan. reason.org.news/show. Nov. 2015. Web. Nov. 2015. Freemark, Yonah. Have U.S. Light Rail Systems Been Worth the Investment? Blog. @yfreemark. Apr. 2014. Web. Oct. 2015. Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce. gardengrovechamber.com. 2012. Web. Dec. 2015. Harris, Marlys. When it Comes to Public Subsidies, Twin Cities Light Rail Seems a Bargain. minnpost.com/cityscape. Jun. 2012. Web. Oct. 2015. Moving into the Future at Hyper drive. Orange County Register. Dec. 2015:News 1,10. Print. North Orange County Chamber. nocchamber.com. 2015. Web. Dec. 2015. Orange County Transportation Authority 2015-2016 Approved Budget. Santa Ana, CA. Jul. 2015. Print. Pacific Electric Right-of-Way Study Update Power Point. Orange County Transportation Authority. Santa Ana, Ca. 2010. Print. Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce. SantaAnaChamber.com. 2015. Web. Dec. 2015. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? Southern California Association of Governments. Scag.ca.gov/about. 2015. Web. Jan. 2016. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? APPENDICES
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
25 findings
F1:
The pedestrian screening areas located at the entrances to the Central Justice Center are heavily used and become congested during high traffic times. Pedestrian crowding prevents the Sheriff’s Special Officers from having an adequate view of persons entering the facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F2:
The industrial/office grade partitions used in the Central Justice Center’s screening areas to channel the public entering and departing the facility do not provide ballistic protection for Sheriff’s Special Officers in the case of an active shooter emergency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F3:
There is no system for regulating or channeling the public in order to prevent crowding at the scanning stations. Sheriff’s Special Officers must use verbal commands in order to maintain public order and organization.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F4:
None of the County jail or court facilities visited uses full body scanners to prevent the public from bringing non-metallic weapons, tools or other contraband into the facility.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R11:
The Orange County Sheriff should develop a plan by January 2017 for the funding, purchase and installation of Full Body Scanners for each courthouse entrance. (F4)
F5:
The current security/surveillance camera system on the exterior of the Harbor Justice Center is not adequate and until completion of on-going upgrades, does not provide for sufficient monitoring.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R4:
The Orange County Sheriff should continue best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager by January 2017 to support the current project to upgrade and expand the video surveillance system at the Harbor Justice Center. (F5)
F6:
The roll-up doors located at the Harbor Justice Center do not prevent some observation of inmates arriving and departing the court by the Sheriff’s transportation vehicles.
F7:
The Command Center at John Wayne Airport uses outdated surveillance equipment.
F8:
The K-9 office located at John Wayne Airport is in need of repair or replacement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Orange County Sheriff should coordinate with the Airport Director for John Wayne Airport to develop a plan by September 2017 for the funding, and repair or replacement of the K-9 Staff Office at John Wayne Airport. (F8)
F9:
The Harbor Patrol Marine Operations Bureau does not have waterproof dashboard or handheld video cameras for use at all three harbors in its patrol area.
F10:
Adequate long-range surveillance equipment is not available to Dana Point deputies performing harbormaster duties. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 185 7/7/16 8:06 AM Sheriff’s Temporary Detention/Holding Areas, Patrol Areas and Special Services
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Orange County Sheriff should develop a plan by September 2017 to fund and equip the REPORT harbormaster deputies with long-range surveillance equipment. (F10) 5
F11:
The outside parking/equipment staging area located at the Aliso Viejo Sheriff’s Station provides inadequate protection along the rear of the enclosed area. No barrier exists to prevent unencumbered access onto Sheriff’s property.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Orange County Sheriff should coordinate with the City of Aliso Viejo by January 2017 to develop a plan for the funding and construction of a wall or fence along the entire rear of the Aliso Viejo Sheriff’s Station facility. (F11)
F12:
The Office of the District Attorneydemonstrated questionable leadership when a newly hired temporary employee was promoted into a leadership position, resulting in the new hire managing the staff memberswho were still providing orientation training for the new hire.
F13:
The Public Administrator’sOffice has no established mentorship training or leadership program in place for developingtalented current employees. This has resulted in experienced Public Administratoremployees being passed over for promotional and leadership opportunities. Case Management System (E-CMDS)
F14:
The E-CMDS case management system is antiquated, unreliable, does not have the ability to quickly and accuratelycull reliable data, anddoes not meet the current business needs of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian deputies. Although there have been several attempts to replace the current E-CMDS, each has failed to produce tangible results.
F15:
The PublicAdministrator’s Officeis considering pursuing the purchase of a case management system that will be completely separate from whatever case management system the Public Guardian pursues, which has the potential to result in fragmented communication and duplicative processes when cases are handed over from the Public Guardianto the Public Administrator. Training and Certification: 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury age 44 P 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 239 7/7/16 8:06 AM Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices
F16:
The Public Guardian’s Office does not have a reliable system for tracking Public Guardiandeputy training and membership status to ensure guardians maintain certification as stated in Probate Code.
F17:
ThePublic Guardian’s Officedoes not hold deputystaff accountable for adhering to Policy 1.01-Public Guardian Certification and Continuing Education. This has resulted in the majority of deputies being out of compliance with certification which could have negativeconsequences and/or impact their ability to best serve their clients.
F18:
The Public Guardian’s Officehas not provided clear guidance or assistance to ensure deputies understand the financial reimbursement process, resulting in deputies not pursuing recertification. REPORT 6 Policy & Procedure
F19:
The Public Guardian’s Officehas worked diligently to update policies and procedures, however, some of the staff responsible for implementingthese policies do not agree with some of the content, are not aware that they have been completed, and/or do not intend to comply with the policies.
F20:
ThePublic Guardian’s Officehas not effectively communicated theexpectationthat deputy staff are required to adhere to updated Public Guardianpolicies.
F21:
Behavioral Health Services has a policy review structure in place. Although it is the intentionto integrate the Public Guardian Office into Behavioral Health Services processes, two years have gone by without this integration occurring. Behavioral Health Services is not knowledgeable about Public Guardianprocesses and can only review Public Guardianspecific policies for style and format compliance.
F22:
Public Guardianpolicies are not reviewed and revised on a regular basis andthere is no clear system in place for distribution of new or revised policies.
F23:
The Public Guardianstaff is expected to follow general Behavioral Health Services policies, which address over-arching expectations for all Behavioral Health Services staff. However, some Public Guardianstaff do not feel like they are an integral part of the Behavioral Health Services culture and do not acknowledge that Behavioral Health Services policies are relevant to their job. The Public Guardianmanual, which is the primary reference for deputies, does not include several policies that would be considered as staples for most organizations. Quality Assurance:
F24:
The Public Guardian’s Office has no internal Quality Assurance unit, and thedepartment is not represented or included in Behavioral Health Services quality assurance activities 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury age 45 P 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 240 7/7/16 8:06 AM Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices two years after the reorganization of the Public GuardianOffice. The Public Guardian’s Officedependsupon external audits to evaluate their performance.
F25:
The Public Guardian’s Officedoes not initiate anyinternal quality assurance activities to measure job performance, or adherence to Probate Codes and Best Practices to ensure excellent customer service.
Additional Recommendations
19
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
FA majority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 79 7/7/16 8:06 AM 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 80 7/7/16 8:06 AM LIGHT RAIL: IS ORANGE COUNTY ON THE RIGHT TRACK? , GRAND JURY 2015-2016 GRAND JURY 2015-2016 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 81 7/7/16 8:06 AM 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 82 7/7/16 8:06 AM Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................3 REPORT 3 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................4 Light Rail Defined................................................................................................................4 Light Rail in Southern California.......................................................................................4 Los Angeles County’s Metro Rail System..........................................................................6 South San Diego County and the San Diego Trolley........................................................6 North San Diego County and the Sprinter Light Rail System.........................................7 Prior Grand Jury Reports on Light Rail Development in Orange County....................7 Scope and Focus of This Report.........................................................................................8 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................9 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS....................................................................................9 Orange County and Light Rail Development, Analysis and Political Reality................9 Orange County and Light Rail Development, a Change in Leadership and Focus.....12 Return on Investment Expectations.................................................................................13 The OC Streetcar Project Connecting Santa Ana and Garden Grove.........................16 The City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC) Project..................18 The City of Fullerton’s Efforts to Study Use of Light Rail............................................21 COMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................23
R3:
came from Sheriff-Cor. CEO/ITR1 WBI Will be presented to IT Exec C in FY14/15 for approval
R5:
WBI 2015 for mods to be approved by BoS Prior to expiration of current East Basin Ops Agrmt in
R6:
WBI in FY14/15 Committee underway to determine if it makes sense to centralize County IT Services under the CEO office of
R8:
WBI Feb2021, a cost analysis will be done for both basins Improving The County of Orange Contract Policy Manual will undergo thorough review in Government’s Multi-Billion Dollar 2015 for mods to be approved by BoS. See above where Contracting Operations 1314BoS R1 FA same response was a WBI Contract Policy Manual will undergo thorough review in 2015 for mods to be approved by BoS. See above where CEO R2 FA same response was a WBI Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Agree, grant funds & donations to be solicited. Probation Orange County Solutions 1314BoS R3 WBI Dept to take the lead. Orange County Information Technology Management:Good Job Overall; Disaster Recovery Must Be Addressed 1314BoS R2 WBI Joint reply with CEO/IT. Will be implemented in FY14/15 CEO never replied on behalf of BoS on this. Only reply
R12:
The District Attorney’s Officeshould coordinate with County Centralized Human Resources to develop and initiatetraining to ensure the District AttorneyHuman Resources Department complies withthe Merit Selection Rules (MSR)for both temporary and permanent positions by December 31, 2016.(F.9, F.11)
R13:
The District Attorney’s Officeshould instruct the District AttorneyHuman Resources Department todevelop and implement a formal process for validating that candidates meet all minimum qualifications for anyPublic Administrator position advertised, as well as validating work experience relevant to anyPublic Administratorposition advertised, regardless of whether the position is temporary or permanent with such process to be in place by December 31, 2016.(F.10)
R14:
The District Attorney’s Officeshould develop a plan to implement a mentorship/leadership program for Public Administratordeputies by December 31, 2016. (F.13)
R15:
The Public Administratorand Public GuardianOffices,in conjunction with the IT Project Manager,should meet with the County Executive Office (CEO)by December 31, 2016 to recommend to the Board of Supervisors thepurchase of a new case management system 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury age 47 P 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 242 7/7/16 8:06 AM Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices that will meet the business needs and interface with both the Public Administrator and Public Guardian deputy staff. (F.14)
R16:
ThePublic Administrator and Public Guardian Officesshould re-establish a steering committee, with a designated Project Manager, by December 31, 2016 to acquire a replacement case management system. (F.14, F.15)
R17:
The Public Administrator and Public Guardian Offices should work together with the IT Project Manager to ensure the new case management system meets the Public Administrator and Public Guardian business needs through a comprehensive report function that can accurately track data and produce meaningful reports by June 30, 2017. (F.14) REPORT
R18:
The Public Guardian Office should initiate a process to ensure Public Guardian training 6 records coincide with the California Association of Public Administrators Public Guardians Public Conservators Association (CAPAPGPC) records, that deputies are current with their training and certification, and that consequences for not being in compliance are clearly communicated and addressed by December 31, 2016. (F.16, F.17)
R19:
The Public Guardian Office should develop clear guidelines, with examples, for Public Guardian deputies to utilize when requesting reimbursement for training and membership dues. The Public Guardian Office should provide training on the guidelines and provide a designated manager to assist in the process by December 31, 2016. (F.18)
R20:
The Public Guardian Office should develop a process to reimburse Public Guardianstaff within 30 working days of submission for reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs for training and membership dues by December 31, 2016. (F.18)
R21:
The Public Guardian Office should provide immediate training on all new and revised Public Guardianpolicies as well as Behavioral Health Servicespolicies that pertain to Public Guardian staff. Training should include management expectations on adherence to policies, along with a question and answer period for deputies to express any concerns about the accuracy of policies or their ability to carry out the policies. The training should be implemented by December 31, 2016. (F.19, F.20)
R22:
The Public Guardian Office should ensure Public Guardianpolicies are reviewed and revised on a regular basis, including solicitation of knowledgeable staff input to ensure accuracy. The assigned manager/supervisor should ensure communication of new or revised policies, as well as initiate documented Public Guardian staff training on new and revised policies to ensure understanding and compliance by December 31, 2016. (F.21, F.22)
R23:
The Public GuardianOffice should ensure that Behavioral Health Services policies that pertain to Public Guardian deputies are easily accessible to them by December 31, 2016. (F.23) 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury age 48 P 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 243 7/7/16 8:06 AM Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices
R24:
The Public GuardianOffice should integrate a Public Guardianmanager or supervisor into the Behavioral Health Servicesquality assurance structure, with a defined role of initiating quality assurance and risk management activities,includingregularly conducted internal auditsspecific to the Public Guardian role by December 31, 2016. (F.24, F.25)
R30-35:
days. F.9. Data demonstrates that the Collaborative and Community Courts provide effective treatment services for mentally ill offenders who qualify for the programs. F.10. Collaborative Courts save the County a significant amount of money in decreased incarceration and recidivism rates. REPORT F.11. The current number of jail psychiatrists is not sufficient to meet the needs of the general 8 inmate population diagnosed with mental illness. This shortage has resulted in extended periods of time inmates spend in safety cells, as well as a lack of psychiatric services in all but a very small portion of the Orange County Jails. The Department of Justice findings support the concern that therapeutic treatment may not reach prisoners who may be quite ill, but are not the most obviously in need of mental health care. F.12. Orange County has become a model for successful implementation of Laura’s Law in the State of California. Behavioral Health Services keeps comprehensive statistics on all aspects of Laura’s Law and therefore can effectively analyze the program’s strengths and weaknesses. F.13. Correctional Health Services does not provide therapeutic treatment services to inmates with a chronic mental health diagnosis in most parts of Mod L or in any of the general jail housing. This small concentration of service supports the Department of Justice concern that the jail does not provide for a cohesive system of therapy and treatment. F.14. There is a lack of adequate classroom space to conduct educational classes for inmates who would benefit from participation in inmate services programs. F.15. Correctional Health Services has no written guidelines, no formal course of study, and no specific training for case managers or nursing staff who conduct group therapy sessions on Mod L Crisis Stabilization Unit. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 340 7/7/16 8:06 AM
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F2:
Lack of resources for the Office on Aging hampers its ability to accomplish its mission and mandates as required by the California Code of Regulations-WIC 9400-9404. The Office on Aging is required to be the County’s lead planner and advocate for seniors, working with public and private partners to create an updated, coordinated countywide strategic plan to better leverage and integrate all available resources to address the rapidly growing senior population. Organizational Issues at the Office on Aging
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Board of Supervisors should restore funding to the Office on Aging from Orange County General Funds or any other available and reliable, permanent source of at least $1,294,000 in FY 2016-2017, based upon the pre-recession amount of $2.20 per senior per year, to restore staffing levels, update the Call Center and reposition the Office on Aging as the county’s lead planner and advocate. (F1, F2)
R2:
The Office on Aging should apply any increased funds received above the current baseline to restore service levels and to provide strategic leadership countywide. (F1, F2)
R3:
Add a position to serve as event coordinator at the Administrative Manager level 1 to Office on Aging to support OOA outreach and visibility by July 1, 2017. (F2)
F3:
The position of the Division Manager for the Office on Aging is only a part time position, shared with the Veteran’s Service Office. Increasing outreach and Call Center demand require full time management at this level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Increase Full Time Equivalent Division Manager of the Office of Aging from FTE 0.5 to FTE1.0 and separate the Veterans Service and the Office on Aging by January 1, 2017. (F3)
F4:
Limited funding to support staff positions results in chronic vacancies within the Office on Aging, negatively affecting service and responsiveness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Initiate a recruitment to fill one vacant longstanding Senior Citizen Representative position in the Information and Assistance Call Center by January 1, 2017 (F4)
F5:
Limited staffing resources prevent the pursuit of grants to support senior services. Information and Assistance
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Add a position to serve as grant writer at the Administrator II level by July 1, 2017. (F5)
F6:
The Office on Aging website is outdated and needs technological modernization immediately. There is no provision for access by mobile device or on-line chat capability. Senior Nutrition and Ombudsman Programs
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Update and upgrade the Office on Aging website to provide for mobile device access and an on-line chat function by December 31, 2017. (F6)
F7:
The County of Orange provides no on-going budgetary support beyond the original contract to non-profit subcontractors for the recruitment of volunteers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Enter into a negotiation for a cost share with non-profit subcontractors in volunteer recruitment activity by December 31, 2016. (F7) 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F8:
Orange County provides no budgetary support to the non-profit agency that publishes the “Answers” publication beyond the cost of individual county department advertising. Senior Non-Emergency Transportation Program
F9:
Annual and semi-annual mechanical vehicle inspection is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, but no licensed mechanic is on staff to do this. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Gray Matters - A Look at The Orange County Office on Aging
F10:
Mileage verification of each Senior Non-Emergency Medical trip is the responsibility of the Office on Aging, an inefficient, labor intensive effort requiring manual input of subcontractor supplied data.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The pedestrian screening areas located at the entrances to the Central Justice Center are heavily used and become congested during high traffic times. Pedestrian crowding prevents the Sheriff’s Special Officers from having an adequate view of persons entering the facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F2:
The industrial/office grade partitions used in the Central Justice Center’s screening areas to channel the public entering and departing the facility do not provide ballistic protection for Sheriff’s Special Officers in the case of an active shooter emergency.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R3:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager by January 2017 to develop a plan to replace existing industrial/office grade partitions at the courthouse entrances and screening stations with ballistic partitions. (F2)
F3:
There is no system for regulating or channeling the public in order to prevent crowding at the scanning stations. Sheriff’s Special Officers must use verbal commands in order to maintain public order and organization.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R2:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager by January 2017 in order to develop a plan that includes objectives and funding options for providing a better system for channeling pedestrians at the points of entry for each court facility. (F3)
F4:
None of the County jail or court facilities visited uses full body scanners to prevent the public from bringing non-metallic weapons, tools or other contraband into the facility.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R11:
The Orange County Sheriff should develop a plan by January 2017 for the funding, purchase and installation of Full Body Scanners for each courthouse entrance. (F4)
F5:
The current security/surveillance camera system on the exterior of the Harbor Justice Center is not adequate and until completion of on-going upgrades, does not provide for sufficient monitoring.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R4:
The Orange County Sheriff should continue best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager by January 2017 to support the current project to upgrade and expand the video surveillance system at the Harbor Justice Center. (F5)
F6:
The roll-up doors located at the Harbor Justice Center do not prevent some observation of inmates arriving and departing the court by the Sheriff’s transportation vehicles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager by January 2017 to plan for funding, procurement and installation of solid roll up doors at the inmate vehicle entrance to the Harbor Justice Center. (F6)
F7:
The Command Center at John Wayne Airport uses outdated surveillance equipment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Orange County Sheriff should continue working with John Wayne Airport management to develop a plan by September 2017 for the funding and replacement of outdated surveillance equipment at John Wayne Airport, to include placing a redundant off- site backup system. (F7) REPORT 5 Sheriff’s Temporary Detention/Holding Areas, Patrol Areas and Special Services 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
F8:
The K-9 office located at John Wayne Airport is in need of repair or replacement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Orange County Sheriff should coordinate with the Airport Director for John Wayne Airport to develop a plan by September 2017 for the funding, and repair or replacement of the K-9 Staff Office at John Wayne Airport. (F8)
F9:
The Harbor Patrol Marine Operations Bureau does not have waterproof dashboard or handheld video cameras for use at all three harbors in its patrol area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Orange County Sheriff should develop a plan by September 2017 to fund and equip Harbor Control watercraft with dashboard and handheld cameras contained in waterproof housings. (F9)
F10:
Adequate long-range surveillance equipment is not available to Dana Point deputies performing harbormaster duties. REPORT 5 Sheriff’s Temporary Detention/Holding Areas, Patrol Areas and Special Services 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Orange County Sheriff should develop a plan by September 2017 to fund and equip the harbormaster deputies with long-range surveillance equipment. (F10)
F11:
The outside parking/equipment staging area located at the Aliso Viejo Sheriff’s Station provides inadequate protection along the rear of the enclosed area. No barrier exists to prevent unencumbered access onto Sheriff’s property.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Orange County Sheriff should coordinate with the City of Aliso Viejo by January 2017 to develop a plan for the funding and construction of a wall or fence along the entire rear of the Aliso Viejo Sheriff’s Station facility. (F11)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2000:
o r e b 1500 Inbound m u N 1000 Outbound 500 0 FY 2014-2015 The Office on Aging website has had a steady increase in users since January 2013. The online resource directory page is consistently the second most viewed OOA webpage every month, suggesting that the community is augmenting traditional phone usage with online resources. The website needs updating in content and technology to reflect that current users are more technologically proficient and expect current information to be posted. An on-line chat function would also enhance the functionality of the website. Staffing the Call Center The OOA software statistics shows that the Call Center handles an average of 80-90 calls per day. While the average length of each call is 3-4 minutes, some callers are on hold for half an hour or more, depending upon staffing levels. During peak periods, particularly at winter holiday time, it receives as many as 120 calls per day. A wall mounted screen displays a running total of the number of calls handled that day and also shows the number of calls which went unanswered. During a visit to the Call Center 40 calls were answered, while seven were unanswered for a 15% abandonment rate. Call Center personnel confirmed that this is typical, but that the target for unanswered calls is 10%. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The lack of development of second-generation light rail in Orange County can be closely linked to the reality of different transit priorities for the thirty-four diverse cities in the county.
F2:
Orange County would benefit from the examples of Los Angeles and San Diego Counties with their history of promoting centrally organized and run light rail systems. As a result, these counties were well-positioned to plan for and develop second generation light rail systems expansion in the 1980’s. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The beneficial impact of Grand Jury reports is diminished if recommendations are left open and not properly pursued to closure.
F2:
The credibility and impact of the Grand Jury watchdog function is diminished if recommendations are left open, without a process within County Administration for follow-up and for holding responding departments to their commitments.
F3:
Tracking and consolidation of open report recommendations directed to the Target Audience should be the responsibility of the CEO.
F4:
The process of tracking open Grand Jury report recommendations is most effective when formalized and instituted as an ongoing procedure by the CEO.
F5:
The follow-up of open report recommendations is best done in March of each year to coincide with the requirement that responses of Further Analysis (FA) must have been completed within 180 days from the original response date.
F6:
The Target Audience needs written policies and procedures from the CEO for proper use of the “Needs Further Analysis” (FA) response to ensure it complies with CPC section 933.05, including the scope, and parameters of that analysis and timeframe not to exceed six months.
F7:
F8 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X 90 Day Required Responses:
F8:
The CEO is in the best position to track and consolidate long-standing open report recommendations directed to the Target Audience. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations REPORT 2 To Be Continued…Follow-Up For Open Formal Grand Jury Report Responses 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “To Be Continued…Follow-Up For Open Formal Grand Jury Report Responses,”, the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Adopt an Ordinance establishing a follow up committee similar to the "Past Grand Jurors Association Implementation Review Committee," as adopted by San Diego County. Do not concur. Establishing an additional County organizational unit is not recommended in light of continuing County fiscal constraints. 1992/1993 BoS
R2:
FA Contract Policy Manual will undergo thorough review in 2015 for mods to be approved by BoS. See above where same response was a WBI Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Orange County Solutions 1314 BoS
R3:
WBI Agree, grant funds & donations to be solicited. Probation Dept to take the lead. Orange County Information Technology Management:Good Job Overall; Disaster Recovery Must Be Addressed 1314 BoS
R4:
WBI Cell Phone parking lot has indeed been implementedl opened in Sept2015. DANA POINT HARBOR REVITALIZATION ~ 15 YEARS OF PLANNING: WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED? 1314 CEO
R5:
Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X Requested Responses:
R8:
WBI Prior to expiration of current East Basin Ops Agrmt in Feb2021, a cost analysis will be done for both basins Improving The County of Orange Government’s Multi-Billion Dollar Contracting Operations 1314 BoS