📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 7 findings
F1
Page 108
The primary way the YLA responded to the need to significantly reduce overall budget expendi- tures was to idle one of two units; therefore the program is operating at approximately half capacity.
F2
Page 108
New management has successfully implemented changes in how residents are regarded and treated, and has instituted evidence-based programming.
F3
Page 108
The YLA has just undergone another change of leadership (March 2011); so far, changes that were implemented are expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
F4
Page 108
The YLA has been successful in improving overall security and safety, as indicated by the near elimination of serious problem behaviors on the unit.
F5
Page 108
Although the program has been successful with adopting evidence-based practices, more work needs to be done to measure outcomes, including progress toward reducing recidivism.
F6
Page 108
The program has developed effective links to the community to facilitate the successful transition of residents back into their neighborhoods.
F7
Page 33
Few schools have plans or emergency preparation information available in languages other than English. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests or requires responses from the agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its review of emergency preparedness in Orange County schools, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:
Recommendations 6
-
R1Page 108Recast program goals into measurable objectives (e.g., recidivism rates for YLA graduates) in order to facilitate the quantification of results.
-
R2Page 108Develop efficient ways to track the progress of YLA graduates in order to better measure rates of recidivism; use this information to demonstrate program effectiveness over time. /2011 101 THE YOUTH lEADERsHiP ACADEMY: A PROGRAM REviEw
-
R3Page 109Continue to search for research and training grants, including private foundation and pro- fessional association grants.
-
R4Page 109Develop collaborative ties to a criminology department at a local university or college; encourage graduate students working on master’s theses and doctoral dissertations to study YLA programs and outcomes.
-
R5Page 109Improve the utility of current quarterly statistical reports by incorporating short empirical studies, surveys, and analyses of data already being collected.
-
R6Page 109When using specific Evidence-Based Programs, maintain fidelity to the model’s procedures and interventions, so that YLA results will be empirically supported. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Sections 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 implement- ed 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 dis- cussion 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 rea- sonable, with an explanation therefore. 102 /2011 THE YOUTH lEADERsHiP ACADEMY: A PROGRAM REviEw (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 ad- dress 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 the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Chief Probation Officer, Orange Co. Probation Dept. F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 COMMENDATION: The Probation Department and Youth Leadership Academy are commended for employing research- tested programs and techniques to effect rehabilitation efforts. /2011 103 THE YOUTH lEADERsHiP ACADEMY: A PROGRAM REviEw 104 /2011 COUNTY Of ORANGE COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE County of Orange Compensation Disclosure GRAND JURY /2011 105 COUNTY Of ORANGE COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE 106 /2011 COUNTY Of ORANGE COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE County of Orange Compensation Disclosure
Commendations 11
-
CM1Areas the Grand Jury focused on for this election included:
-
CM2Online poll worker training
-
CM3Vote-by-Mail ballot processing
-
CM4Packing and delivery of poll site materials
-
CM5Poll site operation on Election Day
-
CM6Testing of new Electronic Voter Rosters
-
CM7Rapid Deployment Teams for election troubleshooting
-
CM8Processing of votes at the Registrar of Voters facility
-
CM9Attended post-election debriefing meeting The election was well planned, operated smoothly and accurate results were posted very quickly. REASON FOR STUDY One of the civil roles of the Grand Jury is provision of “watchdog” oversight of all aspects of county gov- ernment operations. Another responsibility is to serve as the representative of the public interest in certain functions of government. Traditionally, these two duties combine during General Elections when the Grand Jury observes and reports to the public on the election process in Orange County. The election included the testing of a new, technical innovation known as an Electronic Voter Roster. This held interest as it was being introduced into the election process in Orange County for the first time. A General Election is one of the most critical aspects of representative government. The Grand Jury deter- mined it was in the public’s interest to observe and report upon the November 2, 2010 General Election.
-
CM10The Grand Jury would like to commend the staff of the Registrar of Voters office. The level of dedication displayed by all personnel was extremely impressive. Under the guidance of the Registrar, the office leads the State in accuracy, efficiency and cost saving measures. The citizens of Orange County are fortunate to be served by an organization as professional and competent as the Registrar of Voters. 90 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 THE YOUTH lEADERsHiP ACADEMY: A PROGRAM REviEw The Youth Leadership Academy: A Program Review GRAND JURY 2010-2011 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 91 THE YOUTH lEADERsHiP ACADEMY: A PROGRAM REviEw 92 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 THE YOUTH lEADERsHiP ACADEMY: A PROGRAM REviEw The Youth Leadership Academy: A Program Review SUMMARY The 2010-2011 Grand Jury conducted a program review of the Probation Department’s Youth Leader- ship Academy. The Academy is one of five juvenile detention facilities, and the only one designated as a Re-entry/Transitional Living Program. As such, the Academy has as its goal the successful re-entry of youth 17 – 20 years of age into their communities. The facility collaborates with the Orange County De- partment of Education and the Health Care Agency for essential services, and has developed an extensive array of community-based and volunteer services to facilitate successful re-entry for probationers. For the past year, the program has implemented changes in policy, procedures and evidence-based practices, i.e., approaches for which empirical research has found demonstrated effectiveness. Findings include decreases in altercations and other signs of aggressive behavior within the program, and increases in the attitude, motivation and skills needed to avoid re-offending. Recommendations include utilizing more effective outcome measures with respect to decreasing recidivism, and finding ways to strengthen and take more advantage of evidence-based practices. REASON FOR STUDY The Youth Leadership Academy (YLA) is one of five Orange County Probation Department juvenile cor- rectional facilities. Each facility is characterized by different levels of security, age-ranges of youth, physical location, and type or style of intervention / rehabilitation program.1 The YLA is a relatively new program (established in 2006) and has not been studied by a Grand Jury. During 2010, a new Director was appointed for the YLA. After completing a review of the operation, she introduced significant changes in policies and procedures regarding how the program would be operated, and how wards were to be managed during their terms. Also the YLA, along with all Probation Depart- ment programs, has had to meet expense reduction targets due to county and state budget deficits. The purpose of this study was to determine how the YLA has evolved during the past few years, what changes occurred with budget reductions and new program leadership; the rationale for those change and the resulting impact on wards and staff members; what the current goals and objectives are and, in par- ticular, what measurable outcomes are expected, and are they being achieved?
-
CM11The Probation Department and Youth Leadership Academy are commended for employing research- tested programs and techniques to effect rehabilitation efforts. ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 103 THE YOUTH lEADERsHiP ACADEMY: A PROGRAM REviEw 104 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 COUNTY Of ORANGE COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE County of Orange Compensation Disclosure GRAND JURY 2010-2011 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 105 COUNTY Of ORANGE COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE 106 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011 COUNTY Of ORANGE COMPENsATiON DisClOsURE County of Orange Compensation Disclosure SUMMARY The 2010–2011 Orange County Grand Jury has examined the extent and effectiveness of the disclosure of compensation and employment contract information for elected officials and high level employees by the County of Orange. Based on this review, it was concluded that the degree of transparency currently provided to the public by the County of Orange regarding compensation information is inadequate in its accessibility, content, and clarity. For this reason, the Grand Jury has designed a format for use in reporting compensation information to the public and recommends that this format, together with employment contract disclosure, be posted on the County’s Internet website as soon as practicable. REASON FOR STUDY Compensation of public officials and employees has long been a subject of citizen concern. Recent revela- tions from governmental entities outside of Orange County have led to charges that officials were paying themselves lavish salaries and benefits at taxpayer expense and have undermined the public’s trust and confidence in their government officials. An effective means by which this confidence may be restored and preserved is through disclosure of com- pensation information to the public. In this regard, an objective and comprehensive analysis was conduct- ed of how compensation information is disclosed to the public by the County of Orange, as compared with other major California county governments.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office