📋
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.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2
Findings 5 findings
F1
Page 10
Brown Act training has been conducted for all 2009-December 31, 2011 for $5,430,000 plus projected current Board members as recommended by the costs of $2,000,000 plus yield maint enance and pre- 2007-2008 Grand Jury. payment penalties (actual cost not identified). Option 3 – Purchase building between January 1, F-2 The Board has initiated a program to ensure 2012-March 31, 2012 for $5,430,000 plus projected future Board members receive Brown Act costs of $2,000,000. (The Trustees and WJUSD staff training within six months of taking office, and attending the April 8, 2009 meeting indicated that this current members receive refresher training every is the option they hope to exercise, as it does not include two years, but that requirement has not yet been pre-payment costs.) incorporated into written Board policy. Option 4 – Purchase building between April 1, F-3 The WJUSD has placed itself in an untenable 2012-June 30, 2016 for $5,430,000 plus projected and very costly position with regard to its current costs of $2,000,000 plus an additional $1 million. lease agreement on the Blue Shield property. 10 2008–2009 Yolo CountY GRAnd JuRY FinAl RepoRt ReCoMMendAtionS ACtionS tAKen 09-01 The Board should continue its Brown Act train- Members of the Grand Jury met with the Detention ing plan and incorporate training requirements Commander and Correctional Lieutenants on September 9, into its written policy and procedures as soon as 2008 to schedule the jail visit and to obtain background possible. information, results of previous inspections conducted by other agencies, and the facility procedures manual. 09-02 It is imperative that the Board utilize the most On October 1, 2008, the Detention Commander and effective and immediate funding mechanism two Correctional Lieutenants conducted a thorough tour of to ensure that the property known as the Blue the detention center for jury members. The tour included Shield building be purchased under the terms of the booking area, inmate housing, control centers, medical Option 3 as described above. facility, kitchen and laundry, an inmate transport vehicle, and the Leinberger unit. The staff provided comprehensive ReQueSt FoR ReSponSe information on all aspects of jail operations as the tour Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933(c) progressed, and answered questions posed by the jury. The and 933.05, the Yolo County Grand Jury requests a visit lasted approximately five hours and included lunch response as follows: served in the staff conference room. From the following governing body: While reviewing individual P & Ps in the Monroe Detention Center Policy and Procedures Manual, it was Woodland Joint Unified School District Board of noticed that a majority of P & Ps had an effective date Trustees (Findings F-2 and F-3; Recommendations 09- of 2003 or earlier, and that most had no audit date 01 and 09-02) entered. The detention center’s governing directive for the manual, “Establishment of a Detention Facilities Policy Monroe detention Center and Procedures Manual” (S.O. No. A-600), requires that the manual be reviewed by a designated committee, and SuMMARY audited separately, at least annually (Procedures paragraphs The 2008-2009 Yolo County Grand Jury visited A and G apply). the Monroe Detention Center (Yolo County Jail) to A spreadsheet (Appendix A) was developed, listing observe and assess its operation. The visit included a P & P identifying data, effective date, review date, audit walk-through briefing of jail facilities and observation of date and references to display in table format the scope various confinement processes. The jury was impressed of the suspected problem. with professional attitude of the staff and overall condition During analysis of individual P & Ps, it was decided of the facility. The jail is operating at maximum capacity to limit review of references to those most commonly and must be expanded. cited – California Penal Code and California Code of In conjunction with the jail visit, a review was Regulations, Title 15. conducted of the detention center’s Policy and Procedures Manual, focusing primarily on currency of individual WHAt tHe JuRY deteRMined Policies and Procedures (P & Ps), and applicability of references contained therein. The study revealed that most Jail visit P & Ps have an effective date of 2003 or earlier, have no Based on the in-depth tour of the facility and record of having been reviewed and audited annually as comprehensive briefing by senior staff officers, the Monroe required, and many references are inaccurate. Detention Center is well maintained, well organized and well run. Staff personnel encountered appeared well trained, ReASon FoR viSit confident, competent and professional. California Penal Code, section 919(b) provides that: The staff is burdened with stringent inmate segregation “The Grand Jury shall inquire into the conditions and requirements, as delineated by the California Penal management of public prisons within the county.” Pursuant Code, sections 4001 and 4002 and the California Code to that statute, the Grand Jury visited the Monroe Detention of Regulations, Title 15, sections 1050 and 1053. The Center (including the Walter J. Leinberger Memorial facility operates at or near maximum capacity most of Detention Center) located at 2420 East Gibson Road in the time. The Federal Consent Decree (Jessy Roy, et.al. Woodland, and reviewed the Monroe Detention Center’s v. County of Yolo, CV S-90-0393 DFL-JFM P (E.D. Cal. Policy and Procedures Manual. 1997) Consent Decree, Modified Aug. 18, 1997 (E.D. Cal. 11 2008–2009 Yolo CountY GRAnd JuRY FinAl RepoRt 1997)) requires that each inmate housed at the facility has civil process, or by other authority an assigned bed and thereby limits the number of inmates of law; that can be housed to 455. This requires routine shuffling 4. For the confinement of persons of confinees to keep them separated as required, and early sentenced to imprisonment therein release of individuals to meet the Consent Decree limits. upon a conviction for crime. There were 3,687 early releases in 2008. b. The above Penal Code section would apply only Despite the addition of 79 beds in the Monroe Center in to the first P & P “Establishment of the Facility 1996, and 142 beds when the Leinberger facility opened in and Description of its Mission.” The remaining 1991, the jail’s capacity has not kept pace with the significant 70 appear to be incorrectly referenced. growth in the population of the county, which has increased c. The applicable section of the California Penal from approximately 133,000 in 1988 to approximately Code is Title 4 – County Jails, Farms and Camps. 199,000 in 2008. The shortage of confinement space has Sections 4000 through 4030 are included in been exacerbated by the Federal Consent Decree, inmate Chapter 1 – County Jails, and cover a variety segregation requirements, and increased jail bookings. of topics concerning county jails. Bookings have increased 29% since 2000 to 10,187 in 3. Forty P & Ps incorrectly list “California 2008. Administrative Code, Title 15” as the reference. The correct nomenclature for this reference is policy and procedures Manual “California Code of Regulations, Title 15.” The An in-depth analysis of the manual revealed that: following Title 15 breakdown applies: 1. Of the 137 P & Ps in the manual: California Code of Regulations a. Only one has an audit date in 2007. Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections b. Nine have audit dates in 2006. Division 1. Board of Corrections c. Seven have audit dates in 2005. Chapter 1. Board of Corrections d. There is no indication that the remaining 120 Subchapter 4. Minimum Standards for P & Ps have ever been audited. (Note: The Local Detention Facilities Detention Commander has indicated that all P & Ps are reviewed at least annually, but no Articles 1-15 provide specific require- record of these reviews and/or audits was kept. ments for most facets of confinement. He said that problem is being corrected by the 4. Spot-checks of specific references (reviewing jail.) only California Penal Code & California Code of e. There are 113 P & Ps that have an effective/ Regulations, Title 15 references) in random P & revision date of 2003 or earlier. One (S.O. No. Ps were conducted. The results are contained in S-400) has no effective date at all. Append ix B. 2. Seventy-one P & Ps reference California Penal Code, section 4000. In 56 of these, California Penal FindinGS Code, section 4000 is the only reference cited. Jail visit a. Section 4000 provides only for the establishments
F3
Page 12
Forty P & Ps incorrectly list “California
F4
Page 13
A majority (82.5%) of policies and procedures are Procedures are kept current, and reflect the latest changes greater than five years old. There is a very high to governing statutes and regulations. likelihood that policies, procedures, references or In most cases, outdated instructions do not normally other factors have changed during that period, and affect the day-to-day routine. Changes, when required, are have not been updated in the P & Ps. passed-down by word of mouth, memorandum, training, or pass-down logs, and the normal routine goes on smoothly.
F5
Page 13
Numerous policies and procedures incorrectly When a significant or serious event occurs (i.e. illness, riot, reference Title 15 as part of California escape, death, etc.), and an investigation ensues, it will be Administrative Code rather than California Code recognized that the Policy and Procedure instructions have of Regulations. not been updated, and therefore were not being followed.
F6
Page 13
A significant percentage of the P & Ps spot-checked The potential liability can be disastrous and costly. reference incorr ect and/or inappropriate sections of In-depth review of specific P & Ps requires knowledge governing regulations. of jail operations beyond the level of the investigating grand jury committee. However, analysis of the Policy and Procedures Manual governing instruction during this ReCoMMendAtionS study revealed it has not been complied with. This could 09-03 Make jail expansion a top priority in the county’s indicate non-compliance issues with other P & Ps. budget. The Grand Jury thanks the Monroe Detention Center 09-04 Review and audit policies and procedures at least staff for their conscientious cooperation during this study, annually as required by S.O. No. A-600. and for the changes already initiated to correct these problems. 09-05 Determine the correct references for policies and procedures that currently reference California Penal Code, Section 4000 (approximately 70). Where ReQueSt FoR ReSponSeS possible, California Code of Regulations, Title 15 Pursuant to California Penal Code, sections 933(c) should be the primary reference. and 933.05, the Yolo County Grand Jury request responses as follows: 09-06 Verify references for all remaining policies and procedures to ensure the manual (and therefore From the following individuals: the facility) comply with governing statutes and • Detention Commander, Monroe Detention Center corrections standards. Where possible, California (Findings F-3 through F6; Recommendations 09-04 Code of Regulations, Title 15 should be the primary through 09-06) reference. • Yolo County Sheriff (Recommendation 09-07) 09-07 Track completion of the above recommendations From the following governing body: and initiate procedures to ensure the Policy and Procedure Manual is being reviewed and audited • Yolo County Board of Supervisors (Finding F-2; as required. Recommendation 09-03) CoMMentS Jail overcrowding AppendiCeS: It is the opinion of the Grand Jury that Yolo County Appendix A: Monroe detention Center policy continues to place jail staff and confinees at risk by and procedures Manual Study spreadsheet not taking appropriate and urgent action to expand the and capacity of the facility. Despite conscientious, organized and determined efforts by the staff to meet segregation Appendix B: Results of Random Spot Checks of and consent decree requirements, a serious incident is References in individual p&ps likely to occur. continued on following pages policy and procedures Manual The Grand Jury cannot emphasize enough the importance of ensuring that published Policies and 13
Recommendations 6
-
R09-01Page 11The Board should continue its Brown Act train- Members of the Grand Jury met with the Detention ing plan and incorporate training requirements Commander and Correctional Lieutenants on September 9, into its written policy and procedures as soon as 2008 to schedule the jail visit and to obtain background possible. information, results of previous inspections conducted by other agencies, and the facility procedures manual.
-
R09-02Page 11It is imperative that the Board utilize the most On October 1, 2008, the Detention Commander and effective and immediate funding mechanism two Correctional Lieutenants conducted a thorough tour of to ensure that the property known as the Blue the detention center for jury members. The tour included Shield building be purchased under the terms of the booking area, inmate housing, control centers, medical Option 3 as described above. facility, kitchen and laundry, an inmate transport vehicle, and the Leinberger unit. The staff provided comprehensive ReQueSt FoR ReSponSe information on all aspects of jail operations as the tour Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933(c) progressed, and answered questions posed by the jury. The and 933.05, the Yolo County Grand Jury requests a visit lasted approximately five hours and included lunch response as follows: served in the staff conference room. From the following governing body: While reviewing individual P & Ps in the Monroe Detention Center Policy and Procedures Manual, it was Woodland Joint Unified School District Board of noticed that a majority of P & Ps had an effective date Trustees (Findings F-2 and F-3; Recommendations 09- of 2003 or earlier, and that most had no audit date 01 and 09-02) entered. The detention center’s governing directive for the manual, “Establishment of a Detention Facilities Policy Monroe detention Center and Procedures Manual” (S.O. No. A-600), requires that the manual be reviewed by a designated committee, and SuMMARY audited separately, at least annually (Procedures paragraphs The 2008-2009 Yolo County Grand Jury visited A and G apply). the Monroe Detention Center (Yolo County Jail) to A spreadsheet (Appendix A) was developed, listing observe and assess its operation. The visit included a P & P identifying data, effective date, review date, audit walk-through briefing of jail facilities and observation of date and
-
R09-03Page 13Make jail expansion a top priority in the county’s indicate non-compliance issues with other P & Ps. budget. The Grand Jury thanks the Monroe Detention Center
-
R09-04Page 13Review and audit policies and procedures at least staff for their conscientious cooperation during this study, annually as required by S.O. No. A-600. and for the changes already initiated to correct these problems.
-
R09-05Page 13Determine the correct
-
R09-07Page 13Track completion of the above recommendations From the following governing body: and initiate procedures to ensure the Policy and Procedure Manual is being reviewed and audited • Yolo County Board of Supervisors (Finding F-2; as required. Recommendation 09-03) CoMMentS Jail overcrowding AppendiCeS: It is the opinion of the Grand Jury that Yolo County
Comments 33
-
CO1California Code of Regulations, section 1028 is correct.
-
CO2California Penal Code, section 6030(c) is the governing statute that directs CSA (Corrections Standards Authority) to establish minimum standards for correctional facilities. Its use as a reference in this document is inappropriate. b. Control and Use of Flammable, Toxic and Caustic Materials (S.O. No. H-400) references California Administrative Code, Title 15, sections 1028 and 1032.
-
CO3These sections concern “Fire and Life Safety Staff” and “Fire Suppression Preplanning”, not the P & Ps subject.
-
CO4California Administrative Code is incorrect as noted on page 12, #3 (in the Policies and Procedures Manual section). c. Restraint Chair (S.O. No. I-300) references California Administrative Code, Title 15, section 1058.
-
CO5Section 1058 of Title 15 is the correct reference.
-
CO6Only sections 1050 and 1053 apply to this P & P in accordance with the following breakdown of Title 15, Article 5 – Classification and Segregation: 1050 – Classification Plan 1051 – Communicable Diseases 1052 – Mentally Disordered Inmates 1053 – Administrative Segregation 1054 – Administrative Removal – Type IV Facility 1055 – Use of Safety Cell 1056 – Use of Sobering Cell 1057 – Developmentally Disabled Inmates 1058 – Use of Restrain Devices
-
CO7These sections are incorrect. Disciplinary segregation is covered in sections 1080 through 1084 of Title 15.
-
CO8Sections 1056 and 1213 of Title 15 are the correct references.
-
CO9Sections 1231 through 1239 are not contained in Title 15.
-
CO10Food service procedures are covered in Title 15, sections 1240 through 1249, plus section 1230 – Food Handlers.
-
CO11California Penal Code, section 4000 is incorrect as noted on page 12, #2 (in the Policies and Procedures Manual section). i. Housekeeping, Inspection of Sanitation Practices and Infection Control Procedures (S.O. No. L-100) references California Administrative Code, Title 15, section 1280, and California Penal Code, section 4000.
-
CO12Section 1280 of Title 15 is the correct reference.
-
CO13Section 1061 of Title 15 is the correct reference.
-
CO14California Penal Code, section 4025 concerns the requirement for maintaining and operating a store, not Program Planning. 18 2008–2009 Yolo CountY GRAnd JuRY FinAl RepoRt dunnigan Fire protection district A review of the 247 calls in 2008 revealed that 50 did not require service (e.g., false alarms, authorized burns, SuMMARY no incident found, etc.). Of the remaining 197 calls, 51% Members of the Grand Jury visited the Dunnigan Fire involved emergency medical services as follows: Protection District (DFPD) in October 2008. The mostly- • EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury = volunteer district appears to be well-equipped. About one- 81 half of their calls (after eliminating false alarms) involved • Vehicle accident with injuries = 15 emergency medical services, a situation suggesting the • Rescue and EMS incident, other = 3 importance of emergency medical training certification on • Rescue and EMS standby = 1 the part of the volunteers. There were 63 responses recorded for August through October 2008. The average response time was nine ReASon FoR viSit minutes. California Penal Code Section 925 authorizes the
-
CO15obscenity and disruption. The total number of expul- library will be available to the entire community and be- sions (4) was down from the previous year’s district total come part of the Yolo County Library system. of 15. To solve the problem of inadequate library services ReASon FoR viSit for the high school and the community, the School Dis- Section 925 of the California Penal Code authorizes trict and County entered into a joint powers agreement the Grand Jury to investigate and report upon the to construct a library and community center. The facility operations of any agency or district within the county. will be located on the high school campus. The build- Pursuant to the statute, on December 17, 2008, the Grand ing is expected to be completed by August 2009. The Jury visited the Winters Joint Unified School District District’s contribution to the agreement is the land and office at 909 W. Grant Ave., Winters, CA 95694. $400,000 for construction. The majority of the construc- tion costs are borne by the County, which will own the ACtionS tAKen facility. The library will become a part of the Yolo Coun- Members of the Grand Jury met with the Interim ty Library system. Superintendent and the Chief Business Officer. They also reviewed the following documents:
-
CO16General Fund Summary for the period ending The district appears to have made prudent fiscal de- Nov. 30, 2008 cisions in anticipation of decreasing revenues.
-
CO17Graduation requirements The creation of a library community center by the
-
CO18Suspension and expulsion/due process policy docu- School District, City, and County is a laudatory example ment of pooling resources to meet the needs of a multiple con-
-
CO19School Accountability Report Card (required by stituency. the state) for Winters High School, 2006-7 25 2008–2009 Yolo CountY GRAnd JuRY FinAl RepoRt Yolo County Office of Education Early Head Start Program jointly with the County Board of Education; ReASon FoR viSit • has authority over YCOE personnel decisions;
-
CO20offers professional development services to teach- Section 925 of the California Penal Code authorizes ers, administrators, staff, and county residents; and the Grand Jury to investigate and report on the operations
-
CO21reviews the proposed budgets for each school dis- of any department which functions within the county. trict in the county on an annual basis. Pursuant to that statute, the 2008-2009 Yolo County Grand Jury visited the Yolo County Office of Education The Superintendent can make a Negative Declara- (YCOE) at 1280 Santa Anita Court, Suite 100, in Wood- tion on a district budget that appears to be in trouble. land. In such a circumstance, the YCOE offers assistance or a district may seek the assistance of budget experts from ACtionS tAKen the state. At the time of our visit, the YCOE administra- On September 30, 2008, members of the Grand Jury tors stated that no district in Yolo County was under a met with the Superintendent of Schools, the Associate Negative Declaration. Superintendent for Administrative Services, and the As- The 2008-2009 budget for the County Office of Ed- sociate Superintendent for Educational Services. A tour ucation is $32,865,217. Over 15 million dollars of that of YCOE facilities concluded the visit. amount (most of it from the state and federal govern- ments) goes to support special education programs and The Grand Jury sought to learn more about the facilities throughout the county.
-
CO22authority and oversight roles of the County Office of The YCOE employs 216 full-time-equivalent per- Education and the County Board of Education; sonnel (including teachers and staff). Using Certificates
-
CO23range of operations of the YCOE; of Participation, the YCOE purchased buildings in the
-
CO24types of educational services offered; and northeastern section of Woodland. Completed in June
-
CO25fiscal condition of the YCOE. 2005, the remodel provides office facilities and confer- ence rooms for small and large group meetings. WHAt tHe JuRY deteRMined In Yolo County, the County Superintendent and CoMMent CountyBoard of Education members are elected. State The Grand Jury found no reason for further investi- law largely defines the authority of each. Although they gation at the time of the visit. are separately elected, the Board has some authority sep- arate from that of the Superintendent, as shown below. The County Board
-
CO26hears appeals of school district decisions on inter- district transfers and student expulsions;
-
CO27authorizes changes in local school trustee residence boundaries;
-
CO28sets policy for the Juvenile Detention Facility school, community alternative schools, and the Regional Occupational Program (ROP);
-
CO29shares oversight of the Head Start Program with the County Superintendent; and
-
CO30reviews and approves the budget for the YCOE, which is administered by the Superintendent. The YCOE, headed by the County Superintendent of Schools,
-
CO31oversees the fiscal status of the five school districts within the county;
-
CO32administers the schools and programs operated by the county (e.g., the Juvenile Detention Facility school, Midtown Community School, Einstein Edu- cation Center, and ROP). It oversees the Head Start/ 26 2008–2009 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report: appendiX reSponSeS to tHe 2007-2008 Final report
-
CO33building under a 30-year lease with intent to purchase. By entering into the lease with option to purchase The purchase would be at a guaranteed base price of agreement, the Board and WJUSD administration have $5,430,000 regardless of the market price at the time created the necessity of purchasing the Blue Shield the option to purchase is exercised by the WJUSD. Building by the deadline and terms of Option 3. Failure The four options to purchase contained in the lease to do so will mean increasingly unacceptable purchase are summarized as follows: terms or continuing to lease for 30 years at steeply Option 1 – Purchase building prior to January 1, increasing annual rates. 2009 for $5,430,000 plus projected costs of $2,000,000. This option was not acted on, so is no longer available.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Woodland Joint Unified School District
School District