Orange County Grand Jury
2023-2024
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 (6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
San Juan Capistrano’s deferred maintenance of the water/wastewater utility resulted in the need to transition the facility to a larger water provider to allow more efficient management and maintenance of the infrastructure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The OCGJ recommends that by January 1, 2025, LAFCO studies a policy of conducting a post-consolidation agency review to be held within 24 months of agency reorganizations to determine their overall impact on the public. (F1, F2)
F2:
The SMWD proposed rate increase severely impacted San Juan Capistrano’s non-residential customers and led to protests of unfairness and negative attention from the local media.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The OCGJ recommends that by January 1, 2025, LAFCO studies a policy of conducting a post-consolidation agency review to be held within 24 months of agency reorganizations to determine their overall impact on the public. (F1, F2)
F3:
SOCWA’s member agencies have widely diverse populations, requirements, and revenues. This has led to conflicts over governance, facility operation, and control, affecting the evolving potential for wastewater reuse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The OCGJ recommends that by January 1, 2025, LAFCO form a task force comprising representatives of affected water agencies to study the transformation of SOCWA and prepare a report on the future of water/wastewater in South Orange County. (F3, F4) RESPONSES 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 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 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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, thereof. (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.
F4:
There is currently no unified strategy for the future of water/wastewater provision in South Orange County
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The OCGJ recommends that by January 1, 2025, LAFCO form a task force comprising representatives of affected water agencies to study the transformation of SOCWA and prepare a report on the future of water/wastewater in South Orange County. (F3, F4) RESPONSES 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 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 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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, thereof. (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.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Instead of being able to submit forms to the Assessor electronically and accessing relevant information online as available in a number of other California counties, Orange County residents and businesses are inconvenienced by inadequate online services. In-Person Services
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Assessor’s Office should implement the necessary IT upgrades and policy changes to allow customers online access to submit and/or acquire forms, parcel information, and maps by June 30, 2025. In-Person Services
F2:
Orange County residents who need to visit the Assessor's Office in person are not provided parking validation or free 30-minute parking and are forced to pay higher parking rates than visitors to the Orange County Civic Center.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Assessor's Office should provide 30 minutes of parking validation to Orange County residents/visitors by September 30, 2024.
F3:
Assessor’s Office staff use work processes that are not organized as efficiently as those at the Orange County Service Center, hindering the efficient delivery of Assessor services to the public. Other Technology Related Issues that Impact Efficiency
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The computer system in the Assessor’s service center should be upgraded, and clear, straightforward procedures for service provision to walk-in clients should be implemented by June 30, 2025. Other Technology Related Issues that Impact Efficiency
F4:
The Assessor’s Office uses computers to prepare “OC Expediter” requisition forms and then manually routes hard copies for processing, creating extra work for staff and negatively impacting overall efficiency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Assessor’s Office should abandon the use of manual processing of requisition requests and instead utilize the County’s “OC Expediter” program to be consistent with other County departments by September 30, 2024.
F5:
Not all employees in the Assessor’s Office have access to County email, necessitating the wasteful and inefficient manual distribution of printed resources. Additionally, the inability of these employees to communicate online impedes the flow of information within the Assessor’s Office and with other County agencies. Other Issues
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Assessor’s Office should provide County email accounts to all its employees, and the ability to access email from their regular workstations by September 30, 2024. Other Issues
F6:
Employees of the Assessor's Office do not have the onsite access to a Human Resources representative that is available to many other County employees. As a result, they are unable to quickly receive assistance with personnel matters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Assessor’s Office should have its Central Human Resources representative return to being onsite to provide more direct interaction with Assessor employees and observe daily operations to better meet the needs of the office by September 30, 2024.
F7:
The Assessor has returned significant amounts of money to the general fund in the last seven years, yet the technologies used to provide online and in-person services to Orange County residents are outdated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Instead of returning unspent funds to the County’s general fund, the Assessor’s Office should ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to upgrade and maintain modern technologies to better assist Orange County residents and/or business customers seeking services, both remotely and in-person, by June 30, 2025. RESPONSES 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, the 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 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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, thereof. (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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Orange County’s K-12 public schools have implemented policies and/or guidelines around the use of different AI platforms in varying and inconsistent ways. Some prohibit AI’s use; others allow it; and some don't have policies or guidelines governing AI at all.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Orange County’s K-12 schools should implement policies and guidelines regarding the appropriate use of AI. These may be provided at the district level or within individual schools through the adoption of an Acceptable Use Policy, Code of Ethics, or other written directives addressing the use of AI.
F2:
Superintendents provide varying levels of support in implementing AI policies and/or guidelines in their respective school districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Superintendents should ensure that their schools have policies that cover, at a minimum: the scope, guiding principles, and training regarding the responsible use of AI tools by students and teachers; any prohibited uses or special considerations regarding AI tools; and related security, privacy, and safety considerations.
F3:
There are many resources to guide educators in using AI. Several are available at the local level through the Orange County Department of Education, Orange County Board of Education, CEO Leadership Alliance Orange County, and Orange Unified School District Technology Department, to name a few. However, utilization and even awareness of the availability of such resources is highly variable across school districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
K-12 students should be trained on the appropriate use of AI.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
K-12 teachers should be trained on the appropriate use of AI.
R5:
Schools and educators should be encouraged to collaborate with the various available AI consortiums and think tanks, such as OCDE and CLAOC, to effectively implement AI and establish basic tenets for its use. RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: Section 933: (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. Section 933.05: (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The majority of Orange County jurisdictions have not yet required their haulers to distribute residential containers that meet the CalRecycle standardized colors, leaving legacy and often incorrect or illegible labeling and embossing in place. Funding and Enforcement
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All jurisdictions should expedite the acquisition and distribution of residential containers that meet the CalRecycle standardized colors. Additionally, until the compliant containers can be distributed, all jurisdictions should ensure the distribution of labeling for non-compliant containers that explain the current SB 1383 requirements applicable to their jurisdiction by June 30, 2025. Funding and Enforcement
F2:
While a jurisdiction may not delegate its overall responsibility for compliance with State requirements to a hauler, some jurisdictions have designated the task of imposing and collecting fines from residents to the hauler in accordance with State law. However, not all jurisdictions are clear on who ultimately receives and retains the collected fines.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2024, all jurisdictions should ensure their waste hauling agreements are in compliance with State statute so that haulers may be designated to perform certain required tasks but are not improperly delegated overall responsibility for compliance. Additionally, all jurisdictions should ensure that any fines collected by a hauler are forwarded to the jurisdiction.
F3:
All jurisdictions will eventually start collecting fines from residents for non- compliance, but some have not yet determined whether the revenues will go into a waste and recycling enterprise fund or into the jurisdiction’s general fund. Education and Outreach
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The OCGJ recommends that all jurisdictions utilize a dedicated waste and recycling enterprise fund for collection of fines for non-compliance with SB 1383 by December 31, 2024. Education and Outreach
F4:
In most jurisdictions, education and outreach is a joint effort between jurisdiction, hauler, and sometimes consultants, with the jurisdiction reviewing the materials before publication. The methods of dissemination vary by jurisdiction and hauler but frequently rely on a resident actively seeking the information, which requires the resident to have some awareness of the new mandates in the first place. Most efforts primarily revolve around intermittent hard-copy paper mailings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2024, all jurisdictions should diversify the methods and media used for education and outreach to include, among others, various social media platforms, emails to residents, newspaper, television, flyer mailings, community events, and appearances at other public gatherings.
F5:
Most jurisdictions currently have no way to accurately determine the effectiveness of their respective education and outreach efforts other than the eventual inspections or audits that will take place. Procurement of Recovered Organic Waste Products
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By December 31, 2024, and in order to gauge the effectiveness of their education and outreach efforts, all jurisdictions should develop new methods to engage residents directly to help determine their awareness of the requirements associated with SB 1383, such as surveys, online quizzes, and door-to-door polling. Procurement of Recovered Organic Waste Products
F6:
There is some concern that there are not enough composting facilities in Orange County to process all organic waste, forcing some jurisdictions/haulers to transport it long distances for processing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By June 30, 2025, the OCGJ recommends that all jurisdictions participate in the OCW&R-led efforts to develop a coordinated county-wide approach to the organics recycling infrastructure and programs as well as procurement requirements associated with SB 1383, working towards creating circular economy as a long-term goal.
F7:
There is currently no infrastructure in the county that is a State-approved source of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and energy from organic waste. Jurisdictions that use vehicles running on RNG procured from non-approved sources cannot count that RNG towards fulfillment of their procurement requirement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By June 30, 2025, the OCGJ recommends that all jurisdictions participate in the OCW&R-led efforts to develop a coordinated county-wide approach to the organics recycling infrastructure and programs as well as procurement requirements associated with SB 1383, working towards creating circular economy as a long-term goal.
F8:
The formula used by the State to calculate a jurisdiction's procurement target does not account for a jurisdiction’s population density or geographic size (square miles). As such, meeting the annual procurement target presents a significant challenge for most jurisdictions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By December 31, 2024, the Orange County Board of Supervisors and all Orange County cities should lobby appropriate members of the State Legislature and/or CalRecycle to revise the organic waste diversion targets to better reflect Orange County’s waste amounts, revise the jurisdictions’ procurement requirements to better represent the limited options currently available for procurement, the jurisdictions’ varying populations, population densities, and geographic size, and to delay associated enforcement actions by the State. RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: Section 933 (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. Section 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 thereof. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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, thereof.
F9:
Many Orange County jurisdictions were unable to meet the requirement in SB 1383 to reduce organic waste sent to landfills by the 2020 deadline. It is unlikely the required seventy-five percent reduction will be achieved by the 2025 deadline.
F10:
The current procurement requirements mandated by SB 1383 are unrealistic and likely unachievable by most jurisdictions.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Mental health training for law enforcement officers in Orange County exceeds the State’s requirements, resulting in law enforcement applying these skills to better evaluate and handle mental health calls for service.
F2:
Law enforcement agencies in Orange County have developed unique ways to deal with mental health calls in their communities based on their particular needs and budgets, enabling law enforcement to better serve their communities.
F3:
Law enforcement collaboration with County PERT clinicians and Be Well mobile response units has been an effective tool when responding to mental health calls for service.
F4:
People with mental illness respond more positively to “soft uniformed” police personnel, which can be effective in de-escalating situations.
F5:
Providing follow-up case management is not only necessary but critical for the wellbeing of people experiencing mental health issues.