📋
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.
Findings and Recommendations 17 findings
F1
Page 23
Respondents to Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendations do not consistently follow Penal Code timeline requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 23
Grand Jury Report required and invited respondents should be knowledgeable of Penal Code timeline requirements and respond accordingly. (F1)
F2
Page 23
Respondents to Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendations do not consistently follow Penal Code response format and language requirements, leaving interpretation to the reader.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 23
Grand Jury Report required and invited respondents should be knowledgeable of Penal Code format and language requirements and respond accordingly. (F2)
F3
Page 23
The Grand Jury does not receive responses to Grand Jury Reports from the County as they are received.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 23
Grand Jury Report responses should be forwarded by the County immediately upon receipt to the sitting Grand Jury in order to support the Grand Jury in tracking responses and following up on indicated implementation. (F3)
F4
Page 23
Prior Fresno County Grand Juries have been remiss in following up on the status of implementation on Grand Jury Recommendation responses indicating future implementation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 23
Early in each new term, the Grand Jury should review the Continuity Committee section of the Grand Jury Procedures Manual and determine how the Jury will implement it. (F4)
F5
Page 26
There is significant emotional turmoil for inmates and their families during Warden & incarceration and release from prison. Programs for decreasing this turmoil and Medical Same as above Disagree helping inmates and families reunite are lacking, especially for those on CEO probation compared to those on parole.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 26
Recruiting psychologists continues to be a challenge and the process could Warden & be improved. Other mental health and substance use positions appear to be Medical Same as above Agree filled in a timely manner and are close to being fully staffed (such as psychiatry, CEO social work, substance abuse counselors).
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 26
The grand jury commends PVSP on its American Correctional Association Warden & Agree (ACA) rating of 99.3 and OIG rating of Proficiency. We also heard many staff say Medical Same as above PVSP was the best correctional institution where they had worked. CEO
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 26
The grand jury commends the PVSP Mental Health Team for starting the Warden & Treatment Planned Focused Improvement Team, which was beyond what was Medical Same as above Agree recommended by the Psychological Autopsy Report recommendations. CEO
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 26
The grand jury commends PVSP on the development of innovative programs Warden & such as the Five Ventures Program and exploring the possibility of the Race Medical Same as above Agree Horse Rehabilitation Program. CEO
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 26
The grand jury commends PVSP on implementation of the Inmate/Family Warden & council meeting. Members of this council publicly praised the Warden and his Medical Same as above Agree team for supporting the success of this forum. CEO (1) Agreed = One or more respondent agrees with Finding in full or part. Disagree = All respondents disagree with Finding in full. Partially Disagree = All respondents disagree in part with Finding. 26 2019-2020 Grand Jury Investigation Responses Implementation Outcome
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 35
FSD has failed to regularly schedule meetings with user departments to aid in understanding of charges and invoicing. FSD’s regular meetings with user departments Same as above Same as above Partially Disagree encourages openness and accessibility, which fosters better management of FSD.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Page 35
FSD continues to train lower-level staff to provide user departments with additional information to provide another Same as above Same as above Agree layer of training to user departments which may reduce user departments’ concerns regarding rates, costs, and invoicing.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Page 35
Failure to publish additional rates and charges on the 1.Robert Bash, Fresno 1.Yes MSF prohibits effective planning by user departments for County Director ISD/CIO anticipated projects. 2.Jean Rousseau, Fresno CAO 2.Yes 3.Oscar Garcia, Fresno 3.Yes Disagree County Auditor-Controller/ Treasurer-Tax Collector 4.Fresno County BOS 4.Yes
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Page 35
FSD does not receive sufficient and regular allocations 1. Robert Bash, Fresno 1.Yes of deferred maintenance funds. Lack of deferred mainten- County Director ISD/CIO Partially disagree ance funds fails to protect the lifecycle of county property, 2.Jean Rousseau, Fresno CAO 2.Yes which in turn impacts FSD’s multi-year budget planning. 3.Fresno County BOS 3.Yes
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Page 35
The turnover and absence of facility managers has led to difficulty with cohesiveness of operations, proper delivery Same as above Same as above Agree of goods and services, and communication with user departments. 35
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Page 36
Circumventing FSD is not a widespread problem. When it does happen, failure to follow policy appears to lead to morale issues with FSD, along with potential liability to Same as above Same as above Agree persons and property, and from the possible filing of union grievances.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
Page 36
Failure by FSD personnel to properly complete the Robert Bash, Fresno County Facility Services Request forms can lead to confusion by Yes Partially disagree Director ISD/CIO giving the impression of duplicated surcharges. (1) Agreed = One or more respondent agrees with Finding in full or part. Disagree = All respondents disagree with Finding in full. Partially Disagree = All respondents disagree in part with Finding. 2019-2020 Grand Jury Responses Investigation Implementation Outcome
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 11
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R5Page 27Increase communication between Fresno sheriff’s department, probation department, and PVSP social workers. The focus needs to Warden & be on making inmate’s reentry to Fresno County more effective, Same as above Unknown Medical linking inmates and their families with Fresno County resources, CEO especially for those on probation. 27
-
R6Page 28Explore the possibility of using telecommunications to hire Warden & mental health workers in difficult to fill positions, such as Medical Same as above Implemented None psychologists. CEO
-
R7Page 28Explore the possibility of obtaining a grant-funded program to Warden & use video conferencing to promote family reunification for all Medical Same as above Unknown Review inmates while incarcerated. CEO 28 Grand Jury 2016-2017
-
R8Page 37Schedule regular meetings with user departments to discuss costs and concerns Same as above Same as above Implemented None regarding invoicing. 37
-
R9Page 38Continue to train lower-level FSD staff to provide user departments with additional information to provide additional training to Same as above Same as above Implemented user departments, and address concerns regarding rates, costs, and invoicing.
-
R10Page 38Adopt and include on the Master 1.Robert Bash, Fresno County 1.Yes Schedule of Fees, Charges & Recovered Costs Director ISD/CIO (MSF) all charges listed on the Facility Service 2.Jean Rousseau, Fresno CAO 2.Yes Will not Request (Work Order) Form by November 30, 3.Oscar Garcia, Fresno County 3.Yes implement 2017. Auditor-Controller/ Treasurer-Tax Collector 4.Fresno County BOS 4.Yes
-
R11Page 38Create and propose to the BOS a five- 1.Robert Bash, Fresno County 1.Yes Will implement year plan for deferred maintenance 25 Director ISD/CIO (See Exhibit 1 for budget allocation by September 30, 2018. 2.Jean Rousseau, Fresno CAO 2.Yes updated response 3.Fresno County BOS 3.Yes pages 22-26.)
-
R12Page 38Evaluate the need for an assistant Implemented position to the Facility Manager to aid in (See Exhibit 1 for Same as above Same as above retention of the Facility Manager. updated response None pages 22-26.)
-
R13Page 38Provide additional training for elected officials and appointed dept. heads on Implemented existing county policy for use of FSD services. (See Exhibit 1 for Same as above Same as above The CAO and/or BOS should supplement updated response existing county policy to address personnel pages 22-26.) circumventing FSD.
-
R14Page 38Train FSD staff to properly complete the Same as above Same as above Implemented None Facility Service Request Form. 38
-
R15Page 39Revise the Facility Service Request Form to provide clarity and disclose all categories Implemented of charges by November 30, 2017. Until the (See Exhibit 1 for Same as above Same as above None form is revised, all FSD staff should properly updated response complete the existing form including the pages 22-26.) table section. RESPONSES #1 Continuity Report Fresno County Grand Jury October 2020