2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report 7/2/12, 17.34mb

Conclusions 28

• CL1 Page 277
  May we see/have redacted bullying/harassment incident reports for 2010-2012 and so far this year?
• CL2 Page 277
  How many bullying or harassment incidents were reported and recorded in your incident reports for school year 2010-2011?
• CL3 Page 277
  How many so far for the current school year?
• CL4 Page 277
  What anti-bullying/anti-harassment student programs and clubs have been made available to your school this year and last?
• CL5 Page 277
  Are you familiar with the programs GLISEN, BRIDGES, and PBIS? If so, please explain your understanding or knowledge of these programs and their implementation, if any, at your school.
• CL6 Page 277
  Does your district or your school decide what anti-bullying/anti-harassment student programs will be offered?
• CL7 Page 277
  Who decides on the implementation of these programs?
• CL8 Page 277
  What is the frequency of the programs?
• CL9 Page 277
  For how many years has your school been offering these programs?
• CL10 Page 277
  Are your students surveyed following these programs? If so, how is this done?
• CL11 Page 277
  How are the results of these surveys used and who reviews them?
• CL12 Page 277
  What training programs have been presented to the administration and teachers each school year?
• CL13 Page 277
  Does your district or your school decide which training programs are recommended for use?
• CL14 Page 277
  Who decides the actual implementation of these training programs?
• CL15 Page 277
  Are teacher training programs assessed or evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness, and if so, by whom and how are the results used?
• CL16 Page 277
  Did bullying or harassment incidents reports increase or decrease after programs were presented to the students?
• CL17 Page 277
  Have anti-bullying/anti-harassment incident reports increased or decreased after training programs were completed by the administration and teachers?
• CL18 Page 277
  What is your school/district‘s protocol for student/teacher incident report entries?
• CL19 Page 277
  How does your school and/or district determine if a bullying/harassment incident will be included in the formal incident reports? Anti-Bullying Programs in Orange Schools County
• CL20 Page 278
  What additional efforts have the administration and/or teachers implemented on campus or in classrooms to help create an anti- bullying/anti-harassment atmosphere?
• CL21 Page 278
  If your district suggests the use of anti-bullying/anti-harassment programs how, if at all, are the schools tracked or monitored for program implementation?
• CL22 Page 278
  Please indicate the person, and/or committee, and/or department that would monitor program implementation.
• CL23 Page 278
  Mandatory Postings (AB354, Ed Code 234.1 (D) Do you have any anti-bullying/anti-harassment policies posted and where are they? (Office, staff lounge, student gov‘t room, etc.)
• CL24 Page 278
  Please provide copies of any materials available for students and staff regarding anti-bullying programs. Appendix: C Following is a list of O.C. districts surveyed by mail requesting all anti-bullying/anti- harassment programs/clubs recommended to schools in the district.
• CL25 Page 279
  Savanna School District
• CL26 Page 279
  Tustin Unified School District
• CL27 Page 279
  Westminster School District
• CL28 Page 167
  As a result of the Consent Decree and its required studies, the 2005 emergency action, and the completed interim removal measures, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury is pleased to report that, finally, substantial progress has been made in cleaning up almost a century‘s worth of toxic waste cesspools in the middle of an area surrounded, in great part, by a school, park, and residences.35 While progress has been made, it has been painfully slow, and, according to some residents, the lack of speed or feelings of urgency have perhaps been at the expense of the health of some in the nearby community. While the 2011-2012 Grand Jury understands the need for thoroughness and care as well as compliance with State and Federal law on the part of the DTSC and others playing a part in the Nesi-Ascon rehabilitation, it would urge Huntington Beach city officials and its citizens (in the words of our predecessor Jury) to "bring pressure on the appropriate entity"36 to accelerate the clean-up and complete it once and for all.

Comments 1

• CO1 Page 181
  All city jails inspected had the requested documentation consisting of: Interviews were conducted with facility management, line staff and some inmates (where available). All were forthcoming and responded to all inquiries by the Grand Jury inspection teams. No facility was found to be understaffed. All were clean and in good operating condition. Individual inspection reports have been or will be sent to each city jail inspected. An Observation Some of the city-operated jails may offer an opportunity to relieve a crowded county jail system by taking sentenced inmates on a contract basis. Several jails were inspected that although currently classified for “temporary holding” could qualify as “Type I” or “Type II” facilities; such a classification would enable them to keep inmates for a longer period of time. This offers the possibility of a revenue source for the cities and the provision of a manpower resource for daily cleaning and maintenance.

Observations 8

• OB1 Page 175
  Part of the Central Jail Complex (CJX), the Intake Release Center (IRC), is one of the more volatile operations in the Orange County jail system. At this point, the custody process begins. New arrestees are brought to the center from 2 Sheriff of Orange County from 1947 to 1974
• OB2 Page 176
  Detention Facilities Report – Part I - Adult the local jails or directly off the streets. Many have physical or mental health issues or are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. It is the responsibility of the Sheriff’s custody staff and the Health Care practitioners to assess each prisoner admitted, provide medical care if indicated and classify inmates for the most appropriate housing in the county system. The most recent estimates place the number of bookings processed at this facility at approximately 66,000 each year. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury has reviewed the reports from the District Attorney’s Office investigating the circumstances of each of the four jail deaths that were subjects of the Coroner’s Review on January 31, 2012. The cause of death in one of the four was suicide; the other three were natural causes aggravated by the excessive use of drugs and/or alcohol. These investigations have determined that there was no IRC staff culpability. In the instance of a woman who died from a stroke, there was a potential problem due to the unavailability of a deputy to escort the prisoner to the hospital. The paramedics, however, made the decision to not wait for an escort and rushed the inmate to the hospital without a significant loss of time. A fifth jail death was recently reported and is under investigation by the District Attorney’s office and the Office of Independent Review. IRC in the News Early in 2012, the Orange County Register reported an incident involving a female deputy and a male inmate allegedly engaging in a sexual relationship at the IRC. This matter is currently under internal investigation and further details are not available. Inspection Results Noted during the inspection is that the IRC as well as the other facilities in the Central Jail Complex, do not have a modern, state-of-art video surveillance system. Systems in place are aging analog systems with poor quality and limited access for review. A second observation at IRC is the general environment of the medical intake center. As one of the 2011-2012 Grand Jury members stated: “The immediate feeling when walking into the medical intake center at the IRC was one of abounding confusion. New inmates were literally „herded‟ into the building and seated in a row on a long bench in front of the medical intake center. One by one, each potential inmate was called up to a window that had an open area. Each was asked a variety of personal health questions including information about sexually transmitted disease. All these questions, and all the responses, could be heard by any and all persons seated on the bench as well as the staff inside the workroom. Maintaining confidentiality was not an area of concern.”
• OB3 Page 177
  Detention Facilities Report – Part I - Adult Men’s Central Jail Figure 2 – 2011 Average Daily Population Men’s Central Jail Inspection Results An observation made at this facility that most likely applies equally to the other jail facilities regards the parallel phone systems. Inmates are allowed to make two types of calls: (1) collect calls through a self-supported system operated via a contract with an outside vendor, and (2) non-collect calls, made free of charge through the regular county phone system. Collect calls are allowed only if made to a party willing to accept the charges or if the inmate has money “on-the-books” specifically designated for telephone calls. Collect calls are monitored by recording the conversations. The non-collect calls are allowed only by court order and are for the sole purpose of allowing confidential conversations between the inmate and his or her attorney. An estimated 20 percent of inmates have this privilege. According to information provided by inmates, the non-collect call privilege is of great value among the inmate population, and it is sometimes exploited by the informal inmate leadership in order to facilitate unmonitored contact with the outside world. It has been reported that inmates have used the unmonitored phone system to arrange for assaults within the jails and to coordinate other criminal activities within the community. If this inmate information is accurate, the 2011- 2012 Grand Jury considers non-collect call exploitation to be a serious threat to the security of staff, inmates, and community. The Men’s Central Jail is the location of County Jail 1 (CJ1), a court facility capable of handling arraignment hearings and other matters on a daily basis. The location of this court reduces the need for the transporting of many inmates, thereby reducing costs and improving safety. As the population of the county jail system increases, a second court would be useful.
• OB4 Page 178
  Detention Facilities Report – Part I - Adult Theo Lacy Figure 3 – 2011 Average Daily Population
• OB5 Page 178
  A substantial portion of the Theo Lacy population consists of illegal immigrants detained at the request of the Immigration Control Enforcement (ICE). Since the federal government pays for these beds (“beds-for-feds”), the program has become a revenue producer for the Sheriff’s Department. Un- fortunately, the increased demand for jail beds resulting from the prison realignment legislation (AB 109) has the potential to significantly reduce the number of beds available. Inspection Results Just prior to the second visit to Theo Lacy by the Grand Jury, an escape occurred. Since an escape is a highly unusual event, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury inspection group reviewed the matter in some detail with the jail commander. The inmate who escaped was apprehended after a short absence and the security weakness exposed by the incident has been corrected. It was at one of the barracks at Theo Lacy that the Chamberlain incident occurred. While the “blind spot” that existed in 2006 has been eliminated, these facilities remain a challenge for effective inmate supervision. Care must be exercised in classification and assignment of inmates to these units. Video Visitation It is noted that none of the facilities in the Orange County jail system use video visiting. The Grand Jury believes that this technology offers an improved means to expand visiting opportunities and increase control over the visiting procedure
• OB6 Page 179
  Detention Facilities Report – Part I - Adult James A Musick Figure 4 – 2011 Average Daily Population Inspection Results The Grand Jury inspection group noted no deficiencies at this facility. Its location seems to be the long-range solution to threats of overcrowding because of the prison realignment program. A jail expansion program has been planned for several years but has yet to be finalized because of perceived citizen concerns in the community. Office of Independent Review The Orange County Office of Independent Review was established in September 2008. Based on a Los Angeles County model, from whence the current director came, its stated purpose is ”to monitor, assist and advise the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in investigations of alleged officer misconduct and reviews of critical incidents including officer-involved shootings and in- custody deaths.” Recommended and strongly supported by the Sheriff, the Director of this office has had difficulty in satisfying the Board of Supervisors (BOS). The 2011-2012 Grand Jury has had several conversations with the Director and has made several requests for information that have always been quickly provided. In preparation for the jail inspections and evaluation of the results, the information he has provided and his perspective on issues have been appreciated. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury questions, however, his placement in the County organization. The reality of reporting to five elected officials (BOS) seems contrary to sound organizational structure. There is no clear-cut line of authority; thus expectations are ambiguous and results difficult to measure. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury also questions his physical office location. The impression that he is imbedded with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) is reinforced by the fact that his office is located in the OCSD Headquarters and daily contacts are with OCSD personnel.
• OB7 Page 180
  Detention Facilities Report – Part I - Adult Inmate Welfare Services Title 15 establishes minimum jail standards including the requirement that inmate services and programs related to rehabilitation opportunities be available to all eligible inmates. In Orange County the Inmate Welfare Fund provides most inmate programs without cost to the taxpayers. Financed primarily through revenue from inmate commissary purchases, telephone commissions, and education contracts with the Rancho Santiago Community College District, the Welfare Inmate Services program: Provides inmates an opportunity to attend classes to obtain a General Education Development Certificate; Offers continuing education classes that include improvement in English skills and U.S. Government classes; Provides a means to expand vocational education classes to train inmates to work in various occupations upon release; and Provides legal research assistance to inmates upon request. These services are important to the effective management of an institution in more ways than one. In addition to the altruistic motive of providing educational and self-improvement opportunities to the inmates, the privileges become an important tool in the disciplinary process. As one facility commander observed, “if the inmate has no privileges, you have nothing to take away.” The Inmate Re-Entry Program Based on a concept originating in 2005, this program has been developed into a comprehensive system involving several agencies. Managed by the Inmate Services Division of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Custody Operations Command, the program is focused on helping the newly released inmate stay out of jail. The process begins with an assessment interview and counseling while the inmate is in custody and continues after release. A resource center provides facilitators to assist ex-inmates with locating job opportunities, filling out job applications and contacting community assistance providers. This program has received national recognition by the United States Department of Justice and National Institute of Corrections and has received a grant for staff training. Preliminary estimates have determined that the recidivism rate for participants is less than ten percent. A full study is under way with results expected later in 2012.
• OB8 Page 181
  Detention Facilities Report – Part I - Adult Local Jail Inspections In addition to the County Jails, the Grand Jury inspected the seven city operated jails listed below: Anaheim Buena Park Costa Mesa Fullerton Seal Beach Tustin Westminster

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.