⚠️ 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.
Findings and Recommendations 2 findings
F1
The over-all quality of the 28 Orange County School Districts and their individual school’s emergency preparedness plans are in need of much improvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Orange County school districts should make sure that they and their individual schools have a SEMS equivalent plan, and these should be submitted to the Orange County Department of Education/Superintendent of Schools for review.
F2
California Education Code 32288 requires that each school district or county office of education notify the State Department of Education, by October 15th of the year of discovery, of any schools that have not complied with section 32281. A Response to Finding F-1 is required from all 28 Orange County School Districts Superintendents. A Response to Finding F-2 is required from The Orange County Superintendent of Schools. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code section 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government agency to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Orange County Department of Education/ Superintendent of Schools should notify the State Department of Education by October 15, 2007 of any school that does not 8 have a comprehensive emergency preparedness plan that mirrors SEMS as required by California law. A Response to Recommendation R-1 is required from all 28 Orange County School Districts Superintendent. A Response to Recommendation R-2 is required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: § 933.05. Responses to findings (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of section 933, 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. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed…This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. EXHIBIT 2 Standardized Emergency Management System Guidelines Part I. System Description Section A GENERAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION What is SEMS? The Standardized Emergency Management System is the system required by Government Code Section 8607 (a) for managing emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. SEMS consists of five organizational levels, which are activated as necessary: 1. field response 2. local government 3. operational area 9 4. regional 5. state SEMS incorporates the functions and principles of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Master Mutual Aid Agreement (MMAA), existing mutual aid systems, the operational area concept, and multi-agency or inter-agency coordination. Local governments must use SEMS to be eligible for funding of their response-related personnel costs under state disaster assistance programs. PURPOSE OF SEMS: SEMS has been established to provide effective management of multi-agency and multijurisdictional emergencies in California. By standardizing key elements of the emergency management system, SEMS is intended to: • facilitate the flow of information within and between levels of the system, and • facilitate coordination among all responding agencies. Use of SEMS will improve the mobilization, deployment, utilization, tracking, and demobilization of needed mutual aid resources. Use of SEMS will reduce the incidence of poor coordination and communications, and reduce resource ordering duplication on multi- agency and multijuisdictional responses. SEMS is designed to be flexible and adaptable to the varied disasters that occur in California and to the needs of all emergency reseponders. 10
Conclusions 1
-
CL1Overall, the Grand Jury was disappointed in the quality of the Emergency Preparedness plans. There were some bright exceptions; the Grand Jury identified the Clara Barton Elementary School and Anaheim City School District plans as models for other schools to 7 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY follow. All three schools sampled in the Capistrano Unified School District met the expectations of the Grand Jury. The Orange Unified School District’s plan was rated above expected; yet of the schools sampled in the district only their middle school, Cerro Villa School, was rated above expected. The implication is that the implementation of Orange Unified School District plans at the school level needs addressing. The quality of the disaster plans is grossly unacceptable. 12 of the districts (44 %) had disaster plans that the Grand Jury evaluated as below expected; it is not surprising that thirty seven of the schools sampled (63%) received a below expected rating. Ten school districts (37%), and thirteen schools (22%) received an expected evaluation, which means that the plan met the Grand Jury’s minimum requirements of SEMS; however, these plans are still in need of much improvement. Five school districts (19%) received above expected evaluations; likewise, eight schools (14%) were rated above expected.
Agency Responses 13
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.