REviEw Of Orange County DETENTiON fACiliTiEs Fact: The Strategy, Accountability, Focus and Evaluation (s.a.f.e.)

Recommendations 5

• R1

  Page 14
  Continue to keep facilities in clean and good condition as well as keep inmate disruption at a minimum.
• R2

  Page 14
  Collect and analyze data to evaluate the present financial impact of the ICE program on Orange County.
• R3

  Page 14
  Develop a study to better understand the causes of the reduced inmate population that currently exist in Orange County detention facilities. /2011 7 REviEw Of ORANGE COUNTY DETENTiON fACiliTiEs
• R4

  Page 15
  Continue to assess and present evidence-based data from the S.A.F.E. Division of the Or- ange County Sheriff’s Department to enhance transparency, provide effective law enforce- ment and reduce civil litigation. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Orange County Sheriff-Coroner F.1, F.2, F.3, F.4, F.5, F.6 R.1, R.2, R.3, R.4 Orange County Board Of Supervisors F.3, F.5, F.6 R.2, R.4 In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 the 2010-2011Grand Jury requests responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Orange County Probation Department F.3 R.3 REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §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 §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 therefor. 8 /2011 REviEw Of ORANGE COUNTY DETENTiON fACiliTiEs (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 therefor. (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. /2011 9 REviEw Of ORANGE COUNTY DETENTiON fACiliTiEs 10 /2011 ORANGE COUNTY PUBliC sCHOOls: ARE THEY PREPARED fOR EMERGENCiEs? Orange County Public Schools: Are They Prepared for Emergencies? GRAND JURY /2011 11 ORANGE COUNTY PUBliC sCHOOls: ARE THEY PREPARED fOR EMERGENCiEs? 12 /2011 ORANGE COUNTY PUBliC sCHOOls: ARE THEY PREPARED fOR EMERGENCiEs? Orange County Public Schools: Are They Prepared for Emergencies? SUMMARY With this study, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury sought to provide answers to the basic ques- tion of whether public schools in the county are prepared for emergencies. It used a broad-based survey of all districts in the county, and a sample of the almost 600 schools within those districts. A survey return rate of 93% was augmented by visits to 17 individual campuses. The results demonstrate that, although Orange County public schools overall are well-prepared for an increasing number of emergency situations, there exists a considerable discrepancy between the readi- ness of schools in some districts compared to others. Although all schools in the sample were found to be adequately prepared, some are exceptionally well prepared and equipped. The main differentiating factor is districts’ ability to apply for and obtain large governmental grants that have become available in recent years. Schools in districts that have yet to access grants have had to turn more to local communities, including parents, for material support, and they struggle to find both time and money to address com- peting priorities of improving academic achievement at the same time they are preparing for the very real threat of emergencies. REASON FOR STUDY “How prepared are Orange County schools to deal with the threat of violence on campus?” This ques- tion was asked in The Orange County Register, ( , Local Section), January 24, 2011, after a spate of campus and near-campus shootings and lockdowns the previous week in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Not many weeks go by without news of a campus shooting or similar disaster somewhere in the state or nation. Indeed, the frequency of such events in the news keeps this question in the minds of most parents, teachers, and school administrators. According to the Orange County Department of Education, there are 27 public school districts1 in the county, encompassing 596 schools with a total enrollment of just over a half million students from kinder- garten through high school.2 This total includes 397 elementary schools, 83 intermediate / middle schools, 67 senior high schools, 38 continuation, alternative, or special education schools, and 11 charter schools. Because such large concentrations of children and adolescents can be found across the county most days of the week, emergency and disaster planning has necessarily become a high priority for district and school administrators, teachers, support staffs, and parents. At one time in the not too distant past, emergency planning mostly was for accidents and “natural” disasters, such as fires, earthquakes, or se- vere weather problems. Since the advent of high-profile shootings on campuses, however, by students or intruders, terrorist attacks on major cities, and outbreaks of potentially dangerous diseases, planning for a range of events has become an ongoing concern. Although all disasters can never completely be prevented or accurately predicted, public officials have a critical responsibility to prepare for their eventuality, in order to protect from harm the students placed in their care. There is one joint Orange/Los Angeles County district (Lowell); because its district headquarters is in LA County, it was not included in this study. 2 “Orange County Education at a Glance,” OCDE pamphlet, 2010. /2011 13 ORANGE COUNTY PUBliC sCHOOls: ARE THEY PREPARED fOR EMERGENCiEs? The last time the Orange County Grand Jury assessed emergency preparedness in public schools was four years ago, during the 2006-07 school year. At that time, the findings were generally critical; the report concluded “…few schools were found to have a well developed plan to assist them in coping with a major incident.” The past study primarily focused on a review of written plans requested of district offices and from a sample of individual schools. The plan reviews were augmented by visits to seven schools. Plans were evaluated and graded with respect to a single standard of preparedness, the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). SEMS Guidelines were developed by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to assist emergency management agencies, and became a part of California codes and regulations in 1994. In revisiting the topic, the 2010-11 Grand Jury sought to develop a broader picture of how individual schools and districts are preparing for emergencies. Rather than rely on a review of written plans, the current approach sought information regarding a range of operational aspects of emergency prepared- ness, such as what kinds of disasters are being anticipated, who receives training regarding emergencies, and how often does training occur? What kinds of supplies and equipment are kept on hand at schools, and in what ways do district offices contribute to preparing schools? Who reviews and approves plans? What specific constraints do schools face, and how well have various schools and districts overcome those constraints? Therefore, and also because of the large number of schools involved (potentially 596), it was decided to use a broad-based survey approach, augmented by a limited number of site-visits. The primary purposes of the study were: • To assess how well Orange County public schools are conducting preparations for school-wide emergencies or disasters, especially during times of difficult economic conditions. • To provide districts, boards, and parents with information to improve planning and preparation for emergencies, and to share information regarding possibly under-used resources and problem- solving strategies being utilized in some areas but not others. • To determine possible disparities or inequities between districts, if any, and determine their causes and effects. • To develop recommendations with the potential to be truly helpful to schools.
• R5

  Page 34
  Districts survey their campuses with respect to the needs of non- or limited-English-speak- ing parents and guardians, and develop outlines or summaries of critical emergency plan- ning information in Spanish, Vietnamese, and other threshold languages prevalent in their local communities. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: Comments to the Presiding Judge of Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are required as follows: 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 Section 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 therefor. /2011 27