Orange County Grand Jury
2016-2017
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 (42)
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Orange County government entities are prime cyber targets, under constant cyber attack, and both public and private information held by these entities are not adequately protected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The county should establish a periodic cybersecurity audit schedule for all third-party vendors that connect to county networks and systems by 12/31/2017.
F2:
The county is subject to many types of cyber attacks but phishing currently represents the highest risk to the county’s sensitive information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
OCIT should select, acquire and direct the implementation of computer-based data loss prevention capability by 12/31/2017.
F3:
Some county cyber attacks come through third-party vendors, who may not always be sufficiently protected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The county should review, update and standardize all employee and contractor exit procedures to ensure the security of countywide sensitive information by 12/31/2017.
F4:
The county has taken a number of steps to safeguard its digital data and systems against cyber attack, but there are a number of actions generally recognized as cybersecurity best practices that still need to be implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
OCIT should establish a countywide cybersecurity working group by 12/31/2017. Participation should be mandatory for County of Orange agencies that report to the CEO and highly recommended for other county government entities.
F5:
County financial records do not separate out cybersecurity as a line item, making it hard to determine what resources are being allocated in the area and therefore what additional funds are needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
OCIT should develop a formal five-year cybersecurity strategic plan as a separate part of the IT Strategic Plan in the next county strategic plan.
F6:
Cooperation among county agencies is currently limited due to organizational and cultural issues including the visibility of available centralized OCIT cybersecurity support, the inward focus of county agencies and the fact that the influence of the BOS to compel collaboration is largely limited to county agencies with appointed heads that report to the county CEO and, to a lesser degree, the county agencies with elected heads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
OCIT should finalize a mandatory county incident response plan with procedures for individual agency exceptions and present it to the appropriate oversight bodies and BOS for approval by 7/1/2018.
F7:
OCIT has an effective team in place for addressing cybersecurity deficiencies, but is only in the formative stages of implementing centralized standards and best practices for cybersecurity. Outside OCIT’s control, county government agencies are taking advantage of the county’s cybersecurity initiatives to different degrees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The county should include in its 2018-19 IT Strategic Plan the identification, documentation and categorization by risk of county digital sensitive information. R. 8. The county should annually review and update the amount and types of county cyber insurance based on the annual county risk analysis.
F8:
IT employees across county government are largely untrained and uncertified in cybersecurity, especially at the agency level. Staffing for cybersecurity is challenging due to outdated county cybersecurity job classifications and salary levels, as well as lengthy county hiring processes, particularly for those agencies requiring extensive background checks. 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 “Orange County’s Digital Data: Is It Protected from Cyber Attack?” the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 18 recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
OCIT should implement cybersecurity training and professional certification of all county IT analysts having cybersecurity as a part of their job responsibilities by 7/1/2018.
R10:
OCIT should establish audit and test procedures to periodically, but no less than every two years, gauge the effectiveness of training and other cybersecurity measures by 7/1/2018.
R11:
The county should establish separate budget line items for cybersecurity expenses and capital investments for the 2018-2019 budget.
R12:
The county should implement the use of regional cooperative agreements for the acquisition of all cybersecurity related products and services by 7/1/2018.
R13:
The county should review and update IT job classifications and salary levels to reflect the current job market by 6/30/18. R. 14. The county should develop a succession plan covering cybersecurity-critical positions by 6/30/18 to provide for continuity of these positions. R. 15. Procedures for updating and patching all county software and systems that have been established by OCIT for the shared services program should be made mandatory for all county departments and agencies that report to the CEO, and recommended for all other county government entities by 6/30/18. R 16. OCIT should draft and implement standardized procedures for mandatory use of full disk encryption and remote find/wipe capabilities for countywide mobile devices by 7/1/2018. R. 17. OCIT should establish standardized procedures for IT’s examination and removal of all sensitive information on county digital devices, prior to their removal from county premises through transfer, sale, scrap or reuse by 12/31/17. R. 18. OCIT should establish standardized procedures for conducting periodic cybersecurity vulnerability and penetration testing by 12/31/19. 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. DA, 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: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings F.1. – F.8.; Recommendations R.1 - 18.). Responses Requested: County Executive Office (Findings F.1. – F.8.; Recommendations R.1., R.3., R.7., R.8.,
R16:
OCIT should draft and implement standardized procedures for mandatory use of full disk encryption and remote find/wipe capabilities for countywide mobile devices by 7/1/2018. R. 17. OCIT should establish standardized procedures for IT’s examination and removal of all sensitive information on county digital devices, prior to their removal from county premises through transfer, sale, scrap or reuse by 12/31/17. R. 18. OCIT should establish standardized procedures for conducting periodic cybersecurity vulnerability and penetration testing by 12/31/19. 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. DA, 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: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings F.1. – F.8.; Recommendations R.1 - 18.). Responses Requested: County Executive Office (Findings F.1. – F.8.; Recommendations R.1., R.3., R.7., R.8., R.11., R.12., R.13., R.14., R.15.). Orange County Information Technology (Findings F.1. – F.8.; Recommendations R.2., R.4., R.5., R.6., R.9., R.10., R.15., R.16., R.17., R.18.). REFERENCES Akamai. (2016). State of the Internet Security Q3 2016 Report. Akamai. Chuang, E. (2017). It's Not You, It's Your Vendor: The Hidden Doorway to Phishing Attacks. Legaltech news, p. 2. Retrieved 5 1, 2017, from http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202784938919/Its-Not-You-Its-Your-Vendor-The- Hidden-Doorway-to-Phishing- Attacks?kw=It%27s%20Not%20You%2C%20It%27s%20Your%20Vendor:%20The%20 Hidden%20Doorway%20to%20Phishing%20Attacks&et=editorial&bu=Law%20Technol ogy%20News& Grimes, R. A. (2017). 9 new hacks coming to get you. CSO Online, p. 9. Retrieved 2 21, 2017, from http://www.csoonline.com/article/3171741/security/9-new-hacks-coming-to-get- you.html?idg_eid=c35b9224fe3bb5b632c1e442a73c4ba4&email_SHA1_lc=fa902d91c1a ebeb660bfe968f17cf604cb88c00b&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_ca mpaign=CSO%20Update%202017-02-2 ISO - ANSI. (2010). The Financial Management of Cyber Risk. New York: Internet Security Alliance (ISA)/American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Retrieved 2 21, 2017, from https://share.ansi.org/khdoc/Financial+Management+of+Cyber+Risk.pdf Kaspersky. (2015). The Threats From Within: How educating your employees on cybersecurity can protect your company. Kaspersky Lab. Retrieved 2 17, 2017, from usa.kapersky.com Masunga, S. (2017). Target settles with states over breach. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 24, 2017 Microsoft. (2016). Intelligent Security: Using Machine Learning to Help Detect Advanced Cyber Attacks. Microsoft Corporation. Retrieved 2 2, 2017, from https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/security/intelligence?&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=AID__SEM_Ta9wKfnh National Association of Corporate Directors. (2017). Cyber-Risk Oversight. Washington, D.C., USA: National Association of corpoprate Directors. Retrieved 2 23, 2017, from https://www.nacdonline.org/cyber NIST. (2012). Computer Security Incident Handling Guide - Special Publication 800-61. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Security, Information Technology Laboratory. Gathersberg: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 1 30, 2017, from http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-61r2.pdf NIST. (2013). Glossary of Key Information Security Terms. (R. Kisswel, Ed.) Retrieved 1 19, 2017, from National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7298r2 NIST. (2016). Small Business Information Security: The Fundamentals. Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology Applied Cybersecurity Division, Information Technology Laboratory. Retrieved 1 30, 2017, from https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7621rl Orange County Information Technology. (2017). Implementing a Shared Services Strategy for Information Technology. Santa Ana: OCIT. Retrieved 5 13, 2017, from http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/Agenda01_24_2017_files/images/O00316- 001666A.PDF Phishlabs. (2017). 2017 Phishing Trends & Intelligence Report: Hacking the Human. Charleston: ECrime Management Strategies, Inc. Retrieved 2 27, 2017, from https://pages.phishlabs.com/rs/130-BFB- 942/images/2017%20PhishLabs%20Phishing%20and%20Threat%20Intelligence%20Rep ort.pdf?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkdVeFpESTRNek0xTm1GaCIsInQiOiJNdFhhR1pvcUVmb XdXaDhrMWE5KzVvV25qRDRodzFKdnlsK3NyeGVZWWNkYTN0SDErR2pWVG81 YTJ1Tzdvc05zOH Plante Moran. (2014). Enterprise Resource System Security Audit Report (Phase 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 Combined). Cerritos: Plante Moran. Ponemon Institute. (2016). 2016 Cost of Data Breach Study. Ponemon Institute. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. (2017). Chronology of Data Breaches. Retrieved from Privacy Rights Clearninghouse: https://www.privacyrights.org/data-breaches PwC. (2016). Key findings from the Global State of Information Security 2017. PwC. Retrieved 2 17, 2017, from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/cyber-security/information-security- survey/assets/gsiss-report-cybersecurity-privacy-possibilities.pdf SANS Institute. (2017). Cyber Security Trends: Aiming Ahead of the Target to Increase Security in 2017. Bethesda: SANS Institute. Retrieved May 12, 2017, from https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/analyst/cyber-security-trends-aiming- target-increase-security-2017-37702 Straight, J. (2017). Key Cyber Trends Dominating the Early 2017 Discourse. Retrieved 3 6, 2017, from Legaltech News: http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202780585472/5-Key- Cyber-Trends-Dominating-the-Early-2017- Discourse?kw=5%20Key%20Cyber%20Trends%20Dominating%20the%20Early%2020 17%20Discourse&et=editorial&bu=Law%20Technology%20News&cn=20170306&src= EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Ale Symantec. (2016). Internet Security Threat Report. Symantec. Retrieved 1 20, 2017 U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Best Practices for Victim Response and Reporting of Cyber Incidents. Cybersecurity Unit, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Criminal Division. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved 1 30, 2017, from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal- ccips/legacy/2015/04/30/04272015reporting-cyber-incidents-final.pdf Verizon. (2016). 2016 Data Breach Investigations Report. Verizon. APPENDICES
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Multiple consensual relationships involving some members of Bureau management have contributed to a perception of favoritism and cronyism among some in the Bureau. This perception stems from the promotion of some who have been engaged in intimate relationships with their supervisors, whether or not those promotions were deserved, and a belief by some that participation in activities that occur outside the workplace impact promotion decisions. This has created the perception of a hostile work environment for some.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The OCDA should implement comprehensive management training of all management in the Bureau.
F2:
Current county sexual harassment training for Bureau employees does not appear adequate. Many Bureau employees appear to be unaware of the policy. Some OCDA management seemed unaware of the implications of a hostile work environment and what constitutes sexual harassment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The OCDA should ensure all employees receive comprehensive sexual harassment training annually and periodically follow up to ensure policies are being followed.
F3:
The current county sexual harassment policy does not prohibit supervisor-subordinate intimate relationships.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Bureau management should recognize the Bureau’s role in the mission of the OCDA, prioritize assignments accordingly, and develop an assignment process that better uses the experience and skills of investigators.
F4:
The absence of a transparent assignment process that uses investigators’ skill sets has contributed to the perception of favoritism among some investigators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The county should consider implementing a policy that prohibits intimate supervisor- subordinate relationships and prohibits all individuals holding a senior leadership position in any county agency from engaging in any intimate relationships with anyone in the agency they supervise. R5. The county should review the current sexual harassment training provided to all county employees and include metrics for impact and effectiveness. R6. The Board of Supervisors should hire an outside, independent investigator to investigate why the OCDA and county Human Resources Services departments are not being used in reporting by individuals in the Bureau. 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: Orange County District Attorney F. 1-8, R.1-3 Orange County Board of Supervisors F. 2-3, R.4-6
F5:
Supervisor and commander positions lack an adequate management training requirement. This has led to either a failure to uniformly enforce OCDA and county policies surrounding work place behavior or at least a perceived failure to do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The county should review the current sexual harassment training provided to all county employees and include metrics for impact and effectiveness.
F6:
Some employees report they do not feel comfortable going to OCDA or county Human Resources Services staff to report incidents of harassment for fear they will not be afforded confidentiality, the complaint will be dismissed, or they will face retaliation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should hire an outside, independent investigator to investigate why the OCDA and county Human Resources Services departments are not being used in reporting by individuals in the Bureau.
F7:
Under the current leadership, the Bureau is run much more like a police department than a support unit for a law firm and this has led several employees to invoke the law enforcement code of silence about alleged inappropriate behavior in the Bureau.
F8:
There is a perception among some Bureau employees that some members of OCDA management have not consistently enforced the Orange County zero-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment. 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 “Another Hostile Work Environment? Orange County District Attorney Bureau of Investigation in Orange County, the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations:
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The myriad definitions and nuances of what constitutes an “informant” have caused confusion and may have contributed to the current controversy and unnecessary erosion of trust.
F2:
There is no structured jailhouse informant program operating in the Orange County Jails. The existence of informants in the Orange County jails does not constitute a program. The use of an in-custody informant is generally organic in nature, and narrowly focused.
F3:
Violations in discovery and/or Brady disclosure in the Dekraai case are limited to the actions of a few members of the OCDA and a few OCSD personnel. This does not represent a conspiracy between the OCSD and OCDA.
F4:
The OCII is an incomplete repository of informant information and history due to the voluntary discretion of LLE Agencies to contribute to it.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The OCDA needs to send a clear message to local law enforcement agencies that successful case prosecution relies on the sharing of information, and agencies should be encouraged to share all informant information with the OCDA for input into the OCII.
R5:
Prosecutors within the OCDA need to recognize that the OCII is a tool of limited utility and should not rely solely on the OCII to vet potential witnesses. They should continue to do their due diligence in background checks of all witnesses in their prosecutions.
F5:
LLE Agencies are, and continue to be, a weak link on the prosecution team. While OCDA has no authority over these agencies, they can certainly use the bully pulpit to raise awareness of the problem and encourage participation and commitment to proper legal standards.
F6:
The elevation of personnel in the OCDA to supervisory positions is not the result of standardized, objective hiring standards and does not include any required training in management or supervisorial skills training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The OCDA should implement standardized management hiring and training practices for all supervisory personnel and review employee disciplinary practices to ensure they are sufficient responses to employee actions.
F7:
The OCDA needs to continue and expand the existing training programs to include objective standards in place to evaluate the actual effectiveness of OCDA training. Doubts continue as to whether training, in its current format, will make any substantial difference without metrics to measure impact.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The OCDA should continue working to improve and prioritize its training program by designing and implementing follow-up measurements to determine the effectiveness and impact of current training content and methods.
F8:
Interoffice communication within the OCDA is often lacking and contributes to the absence of a unifying vision or sense of leadership. This allows for individual prosecutors to drift and create individualized record-keeping systems that could pose a liability for the County. It is an untenable position to argue that poor communication within the OCDA is the culprit to explain away constitutional discovery and Brady obligations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The OCDA should review their management and communication to improve inter-office communications and break-down the negative effect of silo-ed operations
F9:
Hiring an independent monitor to oversee work recommended by IPPEC and already completed by the OCDA is a waste of County money.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Board of Supervisors should review and consider canceling, within the next 90 days, the OCDA independent monitor contract implemented on recommendations from the IPPEC and approved by the Board in August 2016.
F10:
Mistakes were made by personnel in the OCSD and the OCDA. In response to internal investigations, the OCSD has taken disciplinary action to the extent it is able to do so at this time. There appears to have been minimal consequences for personnel in the OCDA.
F11:
Both the OCSD and the OCDA need updated technology and record keeping systems.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The OCDA should prioritize updating the current case management system to better track all constitutional and statutory requirements and better interface with LLE agencies and the OCII.
R6:
The OCDA should standardize its discovery record-keeping system for recording and tracking discovery materials and ensure all prosecutors are aware of and use the new uniform system.
R9:
The OCSD should standardize and consolidate jail activity records that have potential discovery repercussions, and minimize multiple filing systems for recording potentially discoverable material within the jail management system.
F12:
In spite of no official completed investigations, the OCSD has proactively made structural and organizational changes to address the issues that arose as a result of the informant controversy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The OCSD should improve supervisor training for newly promoted sergeants that includes demonstrated supervisory skills before rotation back to the field. 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 §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 §933.05 are required as follows: Responses are required from the following elected officers within 60 days of the date of the publication of this report: The Orange County District Attorney (F.1-11; R.1-7) The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner (F.1-3, 10-13; R.9,10) Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report: The Orange County Board of Supervisors (F.9, R.8)
F13:
The current promotion process in the OCSD that requires patrol officers to be reassigned to the jail contributes to a culture of inadequate supervision of long-term jail personnel. 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 titled, “The Myth of the Orange County Jailhouse Informant Program” in Orange County, the Orange County Grand Jury makes the following ten recommendations:
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The VCD and HCA have primarily responded to vector outbreaks in a reactive manner in the past. The VCD wants to be more proactive in the future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
VCD must continue to prioritize its funding allocations for communicating with the public. To increase this effort, the Grand Jury recommends that the district ask their Board of Trustees to authorize maximizing the District 2 assessment for the benefit of VCD by June 30, 2017. These funds should be used first by the VCD for more proactive outreach efforts throughout the county.
F2:
The VCD relies on the public to help identify new sources of infestation. This cooperation is essential for future success.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that efforts focusing on early education information of school children be expanded in content and reach by December 30, 2017.
F3:
The VCD uses multiple media, including print materials, their website, email and social media, as well as in-person activities, as part of their outreach efforts. The HCA focuses on print and opt-in email alerts and bulletins to medical professionals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Getting information to vulnerable populations (seniors, the chronically ill, pregnant women, etc.) is critical. The Grand Jury recommends that detailed plans for implementing new or expanded programs targeting vulnerable populations all over the county should be in place by VCD and HCA by June 30, 2017, for implementation no later than March 31, 2018.
F4:
The presence of undocumented storm drains in Orange County cities makes control of mosquito vectors more difficult.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCD provide the Orange County Board of Supervisors with a ranked list of cities that represent primary concern for storm drain mosquito infestation, as soon as possible to facilitate remediation efforts by the next mosquito season, but no later than June 30, 2017. R. 5. The Grand Jury recommends that, by June 30, 2017, the Orange County Board of Supervisors notify each city of concern in their Supervisorial Districts that their storm drains represent significant sources of mosquito breeding grounds. R. 6. The Grand Jury recommends that the Orange County Board of Supervisors advise cities of concern to schedule by September 30, 2017, and fund by December 31, 2017, thorough mapping of storm drains within city limits, as well as assessment of the condition and need for storm drain repairs. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors financially support this effort.
F5:
Communication about vector diseases directed to treatment facilities such as private and public clinics, hospitals, nursing homes and doctor offices has not translated into timely and effective public education about the prevention and avoidance of infectious diseases. F. 6. Mosquito control and education efforts in the county are concentrated on historical areas of infestation and illness in North County. F. 7. The VCD Board of Trustees’ spending authorization has not been sufficient to accomplish VCD’s current goals. F. 8. In delineating responsibilities of each agency, the existing MOUs between VCD and HCA do not adequately promote effective communications about mosquito-borne diseases and their remediation to the public, including medical professionals and their patients.
F9:
Despite significant scientific and experiential evidence that aerial spraying is effective and safe, the regional public and the VCD Board of Trustees are reluctant to support the use of aerial spraying when recommended by VCD. 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 titled “Is Orange County Ready for Zika? It Takes a Village to Handle Mosquito-Borne Viruses,” the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 9 recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The VCD must work with HCA to expand efforts to proactively reach clinics, nursing homes and medical agencies with communications that will protect patients from mosquito- borne illnesses. The Grand Jury recommends that the MOU between the VCA and the HCA regarding such communications be updated by June 30, 2017. R. 8. The HCA should be more active in communicating with medical professionals using targeted and opt-out alerts and bulletins, as well as instituting measures of effectiveness in these targeted messages. Where possible, they should take advantage of mobile technology to immediately reach physicians and others in the health care trenches earlier in the cycle of mosquito infestation, even before illness is reported. An HCA Communications Plan that addresses these issues should be completed by June 30, 2017, and implemented by December 31, 2017. R. 9. The VCD needs new, valid and reliable qualitative and quantitative measures of outreach effectiveness to guide their communications program and make best use of their resources. This element should be added to the VCD Communications Plan by June 30, 2017, and implemented by March 30, 2018. 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 or requested from: Responses Required: Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Board of Trustees, Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District (Findings 1-9; Recommendations 1 - 4, 7, 9). Orange County Board of Supervisors (Recommendations 4-6, 8). Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following agency within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Orange County Health Care Agency (Findings 1, 3, 5, 8; Recommendations 3, 7-8).
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
There is no evidence of widespread or organized voter fraud or voter interference in Orange County.
F2:
The Grand Jury has confidence in the integrity of the ballot process and the accuracy of election results.
F3:
The ROV office has reviewed and updated voter registration rolls per State and Federal guidelines improving voter turnout percentages. F. 4. The Grand Jury viewed pilots of Voter Service Centers for the 2016 General Election and found they increased accessibility and operated in accordance with Federal and State voting requirements.
F5:
The ROV communications and outreach programs promote transparency and encourage outside observations by the voting public.
F6:
The management skills demonstrated by ROV staff and volunteers were effective and will support moving the voting process into the new voting model under SB450. 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 §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 titled, “No voter fraud here: The transparent election process”, the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury has no recommendations. 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 the publication of this report: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings F.1-F.6) Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: ROV (Findings F.1-F.6) REFERENCES California Government. (2016, 9 29). SB-450 Elections: vote by mail voting and mail ballot elections. (2015-2016). Retrieved 2 7, 2017, from California Legislative Information: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB450 California Government. (n.d.). Election Codes. Retrieved 2 7, 2017, from California Legislative Information. California Secretary of State. (2016). VoteCal County Questions and Answers. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from Alex Padilla Secretary of State: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/votecal-project/votecal-county- questions-and-answers/ California Secretary of State. (2016). Voter Bill of Rights. Retrieved 2 7, 2017, from Alex Padilla California Secretary of State: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-bill-rights/ Myers, J. (2016, March 1). All of California's voters are now in one online database. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac- california-voter-database-online-20160301-story.html Senate District 26. (2017). Bill to Modernize Elections Passes Legislature. Retrieved November 30, 2016, from Senator Ben Allen Representing the 26th District: http://sd26.senate.ca.gov/news/2016-08-29-bill-modernize-elections-passes-legislature Tribune News Services. (2016, 9 30). U.S. Official: Hackers targeted voter registration systems of 20 states. Retrieved January 13, 2017, from Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hackers-target-election-systems- 20160930-story.html USA.gov. (n.d.). Voting and Election Laws. Retrieved 02 07, 2017, from USA.gov: https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws APPENDIX A: TERMS, TYPES OF FRAUD Voter impersonation is a type of voter fraud in which a person claims to be someone else when casting a vote. Double voting (ballot stuffing): One individual casts more than one ballot in the same election. Dead voters: The name of a deceased person remains on a state's official list of registered voters and a living person fraudulently casts a ballot in that name. Felon voter fraud: The casting of a ballot by a convicted felon who is not eligible to vote as a result of being a felon. Voter suppression: A variety of tactics aimed at lowering or suppressing the number of voters who might otherwise vote in a particular election. Registration fraud: Filling out and submitting a voter registration card for a fictional person, or filling out a voter registration card with the name of a real person, but without that person's consent, and forging his or her signature on the card. Voter impersonation: A person claims to be someone else when casting a vote. Vote-buying: Agreements between voters and others to buy and sell votes, such as a candidate paying voters to vote for him or her. Fraud by election officials: Manipulation of ballots by officials administering the election, such as tossing out ballots or casting ballots in voters' names. APPENDIX B: PROPOSED VOTE SERVICE CENTER LOCATIONS Benefits of Vote Center Concept Voter convenience Matches data trends and adapts to voter behavior Alleviates Election Day lines Eliminates provisional ballots cast Significant cost savings over time Reduces certification times Preserves in-person voting option Allows for voting in any vote center Countywide Eliminates “volunteers” and uncontrolled environment Increases security Utilizes electronic poll books Ability to replace damaged ballots APPENDIX C: GRAND JURY CHECKLIST FOR POLLING PLACE OBSERVATIONS Precinct Number: Inspector of Elections: Polling Place Address: Grand Jury Member Arrival Time: City and Zip Code: Grand Jury Member Departure Time: Type of Facility: # of Poll Workers on Site: Number of Precincts At This Polling Site: POLLING SITE A = Complete B = Issue Noted C = Not Applicable 1. Polling Site Early Set Up – Before Nov. 8th 1. A B C COMMENTS A. Cardboard Voting Booths Set Up B. Inside Signs In Place C. E-Booth Tamper-Evident Security Seals in Place D. Set-Up and Daisy Chain Cables Connected E. VVPAT Power Cords and Power Strip Installed F. Power Strip Not Connected to Wall Outlet G. No JBC or Paper Ballots on Site H. Polling Site Secured for the Evening 2. Polling Site Opening & First Voter A. County Cell Phone Turned On B. Oath/Payroll Page Signed C. E-Booth Security Seals Verified/Chain of Custody Signed D. E-Booths Set Up/# of Booths E. Cardboard Voting Booths Set Up F. Power Strip Connected and On G. Outside and Inside Signs in Place H. JBC Seals in Place/Chain of Custody Signed I. Gray Data Cable Attached to First Booth J. Black Power Cord Connected to Power Strip/Outlet K. JBC Set-Up Complete L. Official Table Properly Set Up M. American Flag Outside by Entrance to Polling Site N. First Voter Verifies Ballot Box is Empty & Sealed O. First Voter Verifies that PUB Count is Zero P. First Voter Signs Zero Tape for JBC Q. Poll Worker Puts Signed Zero Tape in JBC Envelope 3. Validation of Voter Eligibility & Timely Processing A. Voter Name Verified, Voter Signs, Writes Address B. Street Address Confirmed C. JBC Assignment Completed D. Traffic Flow Through Polling Place Managed E. Time From Arrival to Vote Complete <10 Minutes F. Is Polling Site High Volume? Comment on Process 4. Voter Assistance and Clarification of Questions A. Voters Greeted B. Poll Workers Have Proper Identification C. Poll Workers Professional, Discreet, Courteous D. E-Slate Instructions Provided as Needed E. Spoiled Paper Ballots Identified and Secured F. Poll Workers are Proactive with Disabled Voters G. Language Assistance Provided Where Needed H. Ensures No Disruptions Allowed in Polling Site I. Quick Transactions for Drop Off Ballots J. Comment on Inspector of Elections Polling Site Management 5. Ballot Security A. Timely Verification of Tamper-Evident Seals B. Ballot Box Remains in Clear Site and Sealed C. Clear Lines of Site from Table to Booths/Entrance D. “Marked” & “Table” Street Index Updated Hourly E. Issues of Electioneering/Intimidation Addressed F. E-Booth & JBC Security Seals Verified/Chain of Custody Signed 6. Handling of Provisional and Paper Ballots A. Voter Requesting to Vote Properly Processed B. Provisional Ballot Envelop Completed C. Provisional Access Code Handled Correctly D. Provisional Ballots Secured in Envelop/Ballot Box E. Receipt Given to Voter for Ballot Status Check 7. Polling Site Close and Initial Talley A. Announcement of Polling Site Closing B. Last Voter in Line Identified C. Unused/Spoiled/Surrendered Ballots Counted D. Ballot Box Unsealed/Ballots Organized/Secured E. All Items Packed F. Site Cleaned Other Observations/Comments: APPENDIX D: SELECTED CALIFORNIA VOTER TURNOUT AND PERCENTAGES Figure 1. Turnout of Registered Voters by County Alameda Los Angeles Orange Riverside Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego Santa Clara Statewide Totals 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 2. Percentage of Votes Cast by Mail Alameda Los Angeles Orange Riverside Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego Santa Clara Statewide Totals 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Figure 3. Percentage of Votes Cast in Person Alameda Los Angeles Orange Riverside Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego Santa Clara Statewide Totals 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The impact of SB 277 on school districts in Orange County was minimal. Districts were prepared and staffed with well trained personnel.
F2:
There were very few problems that arose with medical exemptions for vaccinations. Health clerks and school nurses were able to handle any discrepancies.
F3:
Personal belief exemptions that were grandfathered in are professionally tracked with timely notifications to parents as to when vaccinations are due to be completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
School districts should continue to track students with grandfathered personal belief exemptions to ensure these students have the required vaccinations before they reach the next reporting levels.
F4:
Orange County school districts made every effort to make vaccination information available using social media, direct mailings and links on school websites to clinics in the area.
F5:
School nurses, LVN’s and health clerks directly notified the parents of students with vaccination lapses and those requiring boosters for pre-K, kindergarten and 7th grade well in advance of the due dates. 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 §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 titled, “Ouch! - Now That Didn’t Hurt: The Implementation of the Vaccination Bill, SB 277 in Orange County Schools” the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury has 2 recommendations.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Districts should continue to monitor student vaccination percentages to maintain the threshold defined by the CDPH 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 the governing body of each of the following districts within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Anaheim Elementary School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Capistrano Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Fountain Valley School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Fullerton Elementary School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Garden Grove Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Huntington Beach City School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Laguna Beach Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Newport-Mesa Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Ocean View School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Orange Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Santa Ana Unified School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Savanna School District, Findings (F.1 – F.5.) and Recommendations (R.1 & R.2) Responses are requested from the following within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: None requested.
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. 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 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 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 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 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. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 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 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 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 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. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 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 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 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. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 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. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails 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. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails “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. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Our Brothers’ Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails
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
3 findings
F1:
As lead agency, the City Council’s minimal action from 2011 to 2015 and their January 2016 vote to rescind approval of the engineering design contract unnecessarily delayed the Lower Ortega Project and cost the county millions of dollars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
OCTA should continue to actively work to resolve future traffic concerns on Ortega Highway.
F2:
Traffic will continue to increase in South Orange County and Ortega Highway is one of the main arterial roads on which this traffic will travel. Until the Lower Ortega Project is complete congestion and safety concerns will remain.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
City staff should prepare a report for presentation to the City Council and the citizens of San Juan Capistrano by September 1, 2017, assessing any fiscal consequences to the City incurred by their withdrawal from the active participation on the Lower Ortega Project so that citizens are advised of the full impact of actions taken with respect to the Project. This includes fiscal damages, claims, and penalties.
F3:
The costs for completion of the Lower Ortega Project have escalated and are probably still understated. Further delay will result in additional costs for the taxpayers of Orange County. 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 the investigation titled, “Ortega Highway: Unnecessary Delays Have Cost Us Millions” in Orange County, the OCGJ makes the following three recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should continue to work towards timely completion of the Lower Ortega Project. 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 bodies within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report: 1. Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors (F.2., F.3., R.1.) 2. Orange County Board of Supervisors (R.3.) 3. San Juan Capistrano City Council (F.1., F.3., R.2.) Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report: 1. Orange County Public Works (F.2., F.3., R.3.) REFERENCES Caltrans. (2015). 2015 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways. Sacramento: Caltrans, Division of Traffic Operations. City of San Juan Capistrano & Rancho Mission Viejo, LLC. (2013, October 15). Funding Assistance Agreement. San Juan Capistrano, CA. City of San Juan Capistrano. (2015, December 15). Minutes - San Juan Capistrano City Council Regular Meeting, Item E2a. San Juan Capistrano, CA: City of San Juan Capistrano. City of San Juan Capistrano. (2016). Minutes - San Juan Capistrano City Council Regular Meeting, Action Item 2. San Juan Capistrano, CA: City of San Juan Capistrano. City of San Juan Capistrano. (2017). http://www.sanjuancapistrano.org/index.aspx?page=3. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from City of San Juan Capistrano: http://www.sanjuancapistrano.org/index.aspx?page=3 May, S. P. (2017, February 7). San Juan Capistrano City Council Agenda Report. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from http://sjc.granicus.com: http://sjc.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1426&meta_id=80602 Maze, T. (2007, May 17). Access Management Handbook. Iowa State University. Ames: Center for Transportation Research and Education. Orange County Board of Supervisors. (2016, October 11). Resolution No. 16-097, Item 20. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California. Santa Ana, CA: County of Orange. Orange County Public Works. (2016, October 21). Ortega Highway Widening Improvement - PA & ED Phase. OCTA - M2 Regional Capacity Program, Arterial Capacilty Enhancement. Santa Ana: Orange County Public Works. Orange County Transportation Authority. (2013). 2013 Measure M2 Regional Capacity Program Call for Projects - Programming Recommendations. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from http://www.octa.net: http://www.octa.net/pdf/2013RCPAllocationSummary.pdf Orange County Transportation Authority. (2017). OCTA. Retrieved March 22, 2017, from http://www.octa.net: http://www.octa.net/News-and-Resources/Open-Data/MPAH- Overview/ Stipulated Judgement, 30-2009-00328947, (Superior Court of California, Orange County, Case No. August 11, 2011). Swegles, F. (2017, February 14). San Juan Capistrano to Repay OCTA $705,095 from Canceled Road Project. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from http://www.ocregister.com: http://www.ocregister.com/2017/02/14/san-juan-capistrano-to-repay-octa-705095-from- canceled-road-project/ APPENDICES
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2:
The Sanitation District did not provide documentary evidence that the operative code requirements were met by the Sanitation District Board of Directors when they approved 2.5% at 55 pension formula for sanitation workers in 2004. 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 OCGJ 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 “Pension Enhancements: A Question of Government Code Compliance,” the 2016-2017 the OCGJ has the following recommendations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sanitation District should implement procedures that ensure compliance with all transparency requirements including those relating to the approval of pension enhancements. 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 or requested from: Responses are required from the governing body of each of the following entities within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Orange County Fire Authority (F. 1 and R.1) Orange County Sanitation District (F. 2 and R.2) Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: None requested. REFERENCES 2002-2003 Orange County Grand Jury. (2003). Who Represents Orange County Taxpayers? Retrieved 2016, from Orange County Grand Jury Reports: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/gjrepresent.pdf 2004-2005 Orange County Grand Jury. (2005). Another County Crisis: Pensions, Health Care, and Other Benefits. Retrieved 2016, from Orange County Grand Jury Reports: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/pension.pdf 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury. (2012). Transparency Breaking UP Compensation Fog-- But Why Hide Pension Costs? Retrieved 2016, from Orange County Grand Jury Reports: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/transparencybreakingupcompensationfog.pdf 2013-2014 Orange County Grand Jury. (2014). OC grand Jury Reports. Retrieved 2016, from Orange County Pension Liabilities: Budget Transparency Critically Needed: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2013_2014_GJreport/PensionReport.pdf 2014/2015 Marin County Grand Jury. (2015). Pension Enhancements: A Case of Government Code Violations and A Lack of Transparency. Retrieved April 25, 2017, from County of Marin: https://www.marincounty.org/depts/gj/reports-and-responses/reports- responses/2014-15/pension-enhancements 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury. (2016). Orange County's $4.5 Billion Unfunded Pension Liability & Retirement Plans. Santa Ana: Orange County Superior Court. 2015-2016 Sutter County Grand Jury. (2016). Pension Enhancements: A Case of Government Code Violations and a Lack of Transparency. Yuba City, California: Sutter County Superior Court. California Policy Center. (2017). What is the Average Pension for a Retired Government Worker in California? California, USA. Citizens for Sustainable Pension Plans. (2016). Chronology of David Brown's Challenge to Address the Illegally Granted Pension Increases for Marin County Employees. Retrieved April 25, 2017, from Marin County Pensions: http://marincountypensions.com/news- archives.html County of Orange. (2009). Section 1: Article III, Section 301, Charter of Orange County. Retrieved February 11 13, 2017, from https://web.archive.org/web/20120202190321/http://ocvote.com/election/gen2008/OC_F T.pdf Delaney, S. (2015, December 31). The Evolution of OCERS Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability. Retrieved from Orange County Employees Retirement System: www.ocers.org/pdf/finance/actuarial/evolution_of_uaal.pdf State of California. (1937). The County Employment Retirement Law of 1937. CERL. Sacramento, California, USA: State of California. State of California. (2012, September 12). Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013. Retrieved 2016, from California Legislative Information: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11- 12/bill/asm/ab_0301-0350/ab_340_bill_20120912_chaptered.html APPENDICES
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The OCFA should implement procedures that ensure compliance with all transparency requirements including those relating to the approval of pension enhancements.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
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
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F11:
The outside parking/equipment staging area located at the Aliso Viejo Sheriff’s Station
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities
R2:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities
R3:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities
R4:
The Orange County Sheriff should continue best efforts to coordinate with the Court
R5:
The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities
R6:
The Orange County Sheriff should continue working with John Wayne Airport
R7:
The Orange County Sheriff should coordinate with the Airport Director for John Wayne
R8:
The Orange County Sheriff should develop a plan by September 2017 to fund and equip
R9:
The Orange County Sheriff should develop a plan by September 2017 to fund and equip the
R10:
The Orange County Sheriff should coordinate with the City of Aliso Viejo by January
R11:
The Orange County Sheriff should develop a plan by January 2017 for the funding,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
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
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
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.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The pedestrian screening areas located at the entrances to the Central Justice Center are
F2:
The industrial/office grade partitions used in the Central Justice Center’s screening areas to
F3:
There is no system for regulating or channeling the public in order to prevent crowding at
F4:
None of the County jail or court facilities visited uses full body scanners to prevent the
F5:
The current security/surveillance camera system on the exterior of the Harbor Justice
F6:
The roll-up doors located at the Harbor Justice Center do not prevent some observation of
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.
F9:
The Harbor Patrol Marine Operations Bureau does not have waterproof dashboard or
F10:
Adequate long-range surveillance equipment is not available to Dana Point deputies
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
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 and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.