Score: +2 (2/34/0)
Contra Costa County Grand Jury • 2023-2024

A Report of The 2023 – 2024 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury

Published: May 31, 2024 16 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 36 findings

F1
The CWS is used in response to emergencies in the County.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
About 30% of County residents have created a CWS account and entered their contact data.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The approximately 70% of residents who haven’t registered with CWS may not receive any alerts in the event that other alerting tools not reliant on registration in the CWS – WEA, radios, and TVs – are not activated.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Additional redundancies in the processes and operation of the CWS can increase the potential for more people to receive timely alerts.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
To enable the redundancy of other alerting tools – sending recorded voice messages to cell and VoIP phones, text messages, and emails – the contact data for these devices must be registered in the CWS.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Phone numbers and associated physical addresses can be loaded into the CWS for all businesses and residents in the County from the various telecom providers that serve the County.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
In an opt-out warning system, County residents and businesses that do not want their phone and/or email data in the CWS can request to have their data removed.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The reliance of the CWS on voluntary registration creates a risk that too few residents will register their phones and email in CWS.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
R2
By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should complete the implementation of the plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
F9
An opt-out system would incur annual costs for data subscriptions on the order of $100,000.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
R2
By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should complete the implementation of the plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
F10
An opt-out system would incur an initial cost to educate residents and businesses of the CWS system change on the order of $500,000.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
R2
By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should complete the implementation of the plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
F11
Outdoor warning systems supplement other warning tools by providing acoustic (voice or siren sounds) to people who are outdoors.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) can broadcast audible instructions to people outdoors when cell phones and other alert-receiving devices may not be working or heard.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
A sound study is needed to evaluate where, if at all, LRADs might be effective in Contra Costa County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should commission a sound study by an independent, third party to determine the feasibility of deploying LRADs in any areas of the County.
F14
Sites where LRADs could be located would need to be identified for any areas in which LRADs are found to be effective.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The County would incur a cost for a sound study on the feasibility to deploy LRADs within the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should commission a sound study by an independent, third party to determine the feasibility of deploying LRADs in any areas of the County.
F16
There is no estimate of the cost for an independent, third party to conduct a feasibility study for the use of LRADs within the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should commission a sound study by an independent, third party to determine the feasibility of deploying LRADs in any areas of the County.
F17
LRADs would be part of the County’s emergency response warning tools.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
Costs related to emergency response can be funded from Measure X revenue.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
At all times, one of the three CWS employees is the designated on-call duty officer who responds to requests for activation of the CWS.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
In the event of disasters such as fast-moving wildfires, a reasonable time for alerts to be sent to the public is within 20 minutes of when the incident commander contacts the CWS duty officer.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
Once the CWS duty officer is contacted by the Sheriff’s dispatch center the CWS duty officer has up to 10 minutes to call the incident commander.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
In the event the CWS duty officer is not reached after two attempts to contact them, the dispatch center attempts to contact a backup person to the duty officer.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
Additional time is required to contact CWS backup personnel and have them get to a computer and establish a secure connection into the CWS.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
In the event the CWS duty officer is not reached after two attempts by the dispatch center to contact them, the time required to contact backup personnel to the on-call CWS duty officer is uncertain.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
Reliance on a single person to operate the CWS, the on-call CWS duty officer, creates a risk that alerts and notifications could be delayed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By June 30, 2025, the Office of the Sheriff should train employees in the Sheriff’s dispatch center to operate the CWS.
F26
Two evacuation drills in the city of Richmond in 2022 and 2023 resulted in half of the drill participants claiming they should have received a drill alert but did not, or received the alert hours later after the drill was completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
By March 31, 2025, the Office of the Sheriff should implement a plan to conduct testing of the CWS to determine the causes of the failure of CWS alerts to reach all the intended recipients of test alerts within 10 – 20 minutes of the time the alert is sent.
F27
The CWS did not conduct any studies to verify or understand the claims Richmond evacuation drill participants made that they should have received a drill alert but did not, or received the alert hours later after the drill was completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
By March 31, 2025, the Office of the Sheriff should implement a plan to conduct testing of the CWS to determine the causes of the failure of CWS alerts to reach all the intended recipients of test alerts within 10 – 20 minutes of the time the alert is sent.
F28
The CWS is not tested to determine the extent to which people actually notice, read, or hear alerts sent by the CWS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
By March 31, 2025, the Office of the Sheriff should implement a plan to conduct testing of the CWS to determine the causes of the failure of CWS alerts to reach all the intended recipients of test alerts within 10 – 20 minutes of the time the alert is sent.
F29
The CWS staff evaluates its systems and processes for risks.
No recommendations for this finding
F30
The County has not engaged a firm with expertise in risk analysis of community warning systems to conduct a comprehensive risk analysis of the CWS since the County took control of the system in 2001.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
By June 30, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should execute a contract with a third-party consulting firm to conduct a comprehensive risk analysis of the CWS, including its processes, procedures, contracts, hardware, and software.
F31
The current process for improving the design and operation of the CWS for alerts not related to releases of hazardous chemicals resides within the Sheriff’s Office.
No recommendations for this finding
F32
There is no formal body or process that brings together emergency response experts from emergency response agencies in the County to focus and advise solely on the design and operation of the CWS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Chief Administrative Officer to establish a CWS advisory subcommittee of the Emergency Services Policy Board.
F33
The functioning and effectiveness of the CWS can be improved, and operational risks reduced, with the implementation of a CWS advisory body.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Chief Administrative Officer to establish a CWS advisory subcommittee of the Emergency Services Policy Board.
F34
The Emergency Services Policy Board (ESPB) can create subcommittees, such as a CWS advisory committee.
No recommendations for this finding
F35
The CWS staff provides training materials to the fire districts/departments, police departments, and dispatch centers in the County on the use of CWS, its tools, types of warnings, activation, and information needed by the CWS duty officer.
No recommendations for this finding
F36
The CWS staff does not have a process to determine if the recipients of the training it provides to the first responders of the fire districts/departments, police departments, and dispatch centers who receive the training materials on CWS have read and understood the training materials.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
By June 30, 2025, the Office of the Sheriff should implement a process to ensure that first responders in County agencies who take the CWS training certify they have reviewed and understood the training materials.

Agency Responses 3

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

No Responses Found 1

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

Contra Costa County County