Evaluation of Responses to the

Conclusions 9

• CL1 Page 8
  Family and Children’s Services report ( Reference page 2) There were no comments to two of the findings.
• CL2 Page 8
  San Jose Redevelopment Agency report ( Reference page 3) Response comments on finding two was not clear.
• CL3 Page 8
  Vector Control District report ( Reference page 4) There were no comments to finding three. Follow up on response to recommendation four to validate that new facilities are completed in 2003.
• CL4 Page 8
  Men’s Work Furlough Program report ( Reference page 6) There were no comments to the findings. 8 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury this 25th day of April 2002. __________________________________ Bruce E. Capron Foreperson _____________________________ Norman N. Abrahams, DDS Foreperson Pro Tem __________________________________ Joyce S. Byrne Secretary 9
• CL5 Page 6
  Each Grand Jury should confirm that agencies requesting time for further analysis before responding to final report
• CL6 Page 6
  Each Grand Jury should confirm agencies agreeing with previous Final Report recommendations have implemented the recommendations as promised. 6 ATTACHMENT 1 California Penal Code 933.05, in relevant part: 933.05. Responses to findings (a) For the purpose 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 therefore. (b) For the purposes of subdivision (b) of section 933, as to each grand jury
• CL7 Page 5
  Inquiry into Use-of-Force 2. The Grand Jury reports that included Training Policies--Santa Clara County numbered findings and recommendations Departments and Municipalities received clearer responses. Therefore, The report contained four numbered future Grand Juries are encouraged to findings and no recommendations. The number report findings and report was sent to all the affected recommendations. agencies as a courtesy copy. No responses were requested by the 2000- 3. None of the reports referenced the 2001 Grand Jury. recommendation(s) back to finding(s).
• CL8 Page 5
  Review of Santa Clara County 4. The Grand Jury report should clearly Audited Financial Reports state when a response is not necessary to No findings or recommendations were save time and effort by both the Grand identified in the report. A conclusion Jury and the affected agency. statement was included in the report. 5. Responses to two reports, San Jose’s
• CL9 Page 5
  Evaluation of Responses to the Use of the Redevelopment Agency’s 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury Final 20% Low-Moderate Income Housing Report Fund and Inspection of the Men’s Work 5 Furlough Program, indicated that there was a need to further evaluate or analyze the recommendation. The penal code states that the timeframe to complete the analysis should not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury Final Report.

No Responses Found 4

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.