Evaluation of Responses to the

Recommendations 8

• R1
  Investigation into Operations of the Orchard School District This report contained 11 findings and five recommendations. Orchard School District had just hired a new superintendent who was reviewing the processes of the district. The responses were in agreement with ten of the eleven findings and five recommendations were to be implemented.
• R2
  Review into Agency Compliance with the 1997 Court Order Concerning Educational Needs of Students in Court Schools This report contained 17 findings and eight recommendations. The findings in the report were status reports on the 1999-2000 Grand Jury report’s findings and recommendations. No additional responses were required. All eight of the recommendations were for the Santa Clara County Office of Education (COE). Four of the eight recommendations also included the County of Santa Clara Probation Department (Probation). Five of the recommendations were listed as having been implemented. The COE responded Will Implement to two of the recommendations. Probation agreed with the assessment of one of these two, to provide work experience classes to students. On the second recommendation, the expansion of partnerships with local school districts to provide improved transition support, Probation indicated that it Has Been Implemented, while COE indicated it Will Be Implemented. Both agencies responded that providing meaningful vocational training was under study. No follow-up was made on any of the responses, including the recommendation regarding vocational training.
• R3
  Review of County Emergency Psychiatric Services This review by the Grand Jury included ten findings and four recommendations. A reply dated May 14, 2002 indicated agreement with eight of the findings and disagreement with two. Two of the recommendations will be implemented and two are to be studied. Although Recommendation Number One was specifically directed to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, there was no distinction between the supervisors’ response and the Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System Administration’s response. Counter to the requirements of Penal Code Section 933.05 no explanations or reasons for the disagreements on the findings were offered. Given the potential for harm to clients, the 2001-2002 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury recommended that the 2002-2003 Grand Jury continue this review. The resulting report, “Inquiry into the County Mental Health Services” issued by the 2002-2003 Grand Jury, is contained in this volume.
• R4
  Review of Customer Service at the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Ten findings and ten recommendations were the conclusion of this review for which a response, dated September 10, 2002, was received after approval by the San Jose City Council. The letter expressed agreement or partial agreement with six findings and disagreement with four. It contained reasons for the position taken. The same reasoned approach was utilized in agreeing to implement three of the recommendations, rejecting two, and agreeing to study five. The Grand Jury intends to continue to monitor those five items under study.
• R5
  Review of the Practices and Procedures of the Workers’ Compensation Division This report contained seven findings and eight recommendations. The response, dated April 29, 2002, indicated agreement with two of the findings and disagreement with five of the findings. The seven recommendations had the following responses; one Implemented, one Will Implement and five Will Not Implement. The response to recommendation number eight to the Department of Risk Management was Will Not Implement, due to excessive costs. The response essentially indicated that the Grand Jury’s recommendations will not be implemented beyond current practices, due to budgetary limitations or that the matters are more appropriately handled by other offices.
• R6
  Review of the Registrar of Voters Office This report consisted of five findings and four recommendations. The May 9, 2002 letter replying to the 2001-2002 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report did not comment on any of the findings. However, the four recommendations were each carefully considered. Except for Recommendation 1, over which the state and federal governments maintain jurisdiction, recommendations are being implemented and/or expanded. 4
• R7
  Review of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority This report contained eight findings and six recommendations. Of the findings, there was agreement with one, partial disagreement with five, total disagreement with one and one to which they deferred to the security assessment by the DOT. Of the six recommendations, two Have Been Implemented, three Will Be Implemented and one Will Not Be Implemented. Two of the three Will Be Implemented involve changes to the buses and light rail vehicles. As there are about 1,000 of these units to be considered, the implementation time is extensive. Follow-up efforts indicated that these changes are in process. For example, a new operations center was opened this year. This was a principal element in Recommendation 3, improved communications with buses and light rail vehicles. Considerable time was spent dealing with the DOT to obtain permission to review the status of security efforts.
• R8
  Review of the Santa Clara County Keyboard Project This report contained seven findings and four recommendations. Of the seven