Gene Kent, John Rodriguez, Nilima Gupta, Barbara Cleary Dianne Senechal, Christine Schaefer, Virginia Zlaket, Linda

Commendations 15

• CM1 Page 209
  There were two visits to four juvenile detention facilities for overview, inspection, and dissemination of questionnaire responses.
• CM2 Page 209
  Questionnaire data was analyzed.
• CM3 Page 209
  Meetings and Interviews were held with the following:  Upper level management of the Probation Department, directors, staff, teachers, and juvenile wards in each residential facility  Attendance at the Probation Department and Orange County Department of Education Meeting, (Dec. 17, 2012)  Interview with Orange County Department of Education Alternative Correctional Community Education Schools and Services representative (ACCESS), (Jan. 7, 2013)  Orange county Probation Department Meeting with the Orange County Grand Jury Criminal Justice Committee (Oct. 9, 2012)
• CM4 Page 209
  Research:  Grand Jury Standards of Review of Jails and Juvenile Detention Centers Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2012  Orange County Probation Department 2012 Business Plan  Orange County Grand Jury 2011-2012 Final Report, Juvenile Detention and Treatment Facilities  Orange County Juvenile Justice Commission Report 2011  “Orange County Register” articles on juvenile detention centers  Office of Independent Review Juvenile Hall 2012 Incident Report  Youth Law Center of San Francisco and Georgetown University, Early Learning Center Collaboration Report
• CM5 Page 209
  Phone Interviews with:  Youth Guidance Center Management  Joplin Youth Center Management  Orange County Probation Department Juvenile Division  Orange County Probation Department, Administrative and Fiscal Division Management BACKGROUND AND FACTS Five juvenile detention centers are discussed in this study: 1) Los Pinos 2) Juvenile Hall 3) Youth Leadership Academy 4) Youth Guidance Center 5) Joplin Youth Center
• CM6 Page 346
  More vote-by-mail ballots were received than were cast at polling places in Orange County during a Presidential election.
• CM7 Page 346
  For the first time, more than 50 percent of vote-by-mail ballots were from permanent vote-by-mail voters.
• CM8 Page 346
  More vote-by-mail ballots (112,000) were dropped off at polling places than ever before.
• CM9 Page 346
  All sample ballots were mailed on the first day legally allowed.
• CM10 Page 346
  Although the legal period to certify election results is much longer, the Registrar of Voters was able to certify after just 14 days. The increase in vote-by-mail had the biggest impact on this election than any other statistical factor. There was a 10.5 percent increase of vote-by-mail ballots counted in 2012 (575,843) compared to 2008 (521,348). Vote-by-mail ballots represented 34.3 percent of all registered voters. Vote- by-mail ballots were 50.8 percent of ballots cast. 72.9 percent of vote-by-mail ballots mailed to voters were cast. Polling place ballots cast decreased by 11.6 percent from 2008 (624,181) to 2012 (552,018) due to the increase in vote-by-mail participation. 2 Memorandum from O.C. Registrar dated December 17, 2012
• CM11 Page 352
  The voter’s signature on the vote-by-mail ballot envelope, when compared to the signature on the affidavit of registration, did not appear to be the same, including: a. The voter used a mark on the vote-by-mail envelope that is not properly witnessed, and the affidavit of registration has a signature of the voter. b. The voter printed his or her name on the signature portion of the vote-by- mail ballot envelope but had a written signature on the signature portion of the affidavit of registration.
• CM12 Page 352
  The vote-by-mail ballot return envelope contained two or more voted vote-by- mail ballots but there were less than an equal number of distinct signatures on the vote-by-mail envelope. The Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project26 was begun after the 2000 presidential election to provide scientific analysis regarding voting technology and election administration. In their report released on October 18, 2012, following
• CM13 Page 129
  Finally, with the thousands of words written here, there are not words to express the gratitude and thanks we, as citizens, owe to the men and women who serve us day and night as law enforcement officers in the County of Orange. Their professionalism, bravery and service cannot be overestimated or taken for granted. It is because of our trust in them that we get up each morning without a thought to our safety and well- being. It is because of our trust in them that, when things go wrong, we call them first. Thank you.
• CM14 Page 361
  Orange County grand juries have commended the Registrar of Voters office on several prior occasions citing management and staff for exemplary performance. The 2012-13 Orange County Grand Jury is pleased to commend the Registrar and his employees again for a “job well done” during the November election.
• CM15 Page 362
  700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA., 92701 www.ocgrandjury.org

No Responses Found 1

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