SAN Joaquin Count*

Communities in the County have experienced significant loss of personnel in law and justice agencies, ranging from 25-40% in the past three years

More than 4,000 gang members reside in the County and are a significant source of violent crime Police gang units have been reduced or eliminated due to lack of resources Homicides increased 244% in Stockton in the first six (6) months of 2010, compared to the same time period in 2009 Significant reductions of fiscal and human resources have led to reductions in arrests, prosecutions, adjudications and punishments of criminals in San Joaquin County Areas in the county have had long-term socio-economic forces that complicate a just system of law and order in society. Police agencies become the social service agency of last resort during severe economic constraints on governmental services. Reductions in the law and justice system lead to less prevention, detection, and adjudication of criminal activity. Stockton has a persistent violent crime rate of more than 300% of the state and national averages. In 2006, Stockton Police Department commissioned a research study directed at preventing violent street crime. The study provides critical analysis and insight into the problems facing Stockton. The serious implementation of the recommendations would likely have a positive impact on critical dynamics of crime, law and justice in the community. One of the most critical

Modest increases of police force size, with appropriate leadership and direction, lead to significant reductions in crime The community should concurrently encourage innovation and "outside-the-box"

thinkers in all areas of our society, including: education, health and human services, youth services, employment, business and industry development Law and justice focus must be concentrated on gang activity ٠ Data does matter

Perceptions of safety and community matter

Negative notoriety matters

The sick economy is not over yet ٠ We must redirect our "downward spiral" as a community

The value and potential of this community must be actively embraced by citizens, not just

government and elected officials It will take significant grass roots effort to improve quality of life issues for the entire community-it does "take a village" There are many examples of successful approaches and solutions to difficult community

challenges Citizens are encouraged to stay informed, involved in ways that bring passion, value, purpose and meaning to them personally, and represent their concerns and priorities to those who represent them. DISCLAIMER Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 991, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). BIBLIOGRAPHY Badenhausen, Kurt. "America's Most Miserable Cities", Forbes, Feb. 2010, Feb. 2011 Becker, Gary. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach", Journal of Political Economy, March-April 1968 Braga, Anthony A. "Preventing Violent Street Crime in Stockton, California: A Report to the Stockton Police Department", July, 2006 Braga, Anthony A. Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice Press, 2002 Braga, Anthony A., Piehl, A, Kennedy, D. "Youth Homicide in Boston: An Assessment of Supplementary Homicide Reports", Homicide Studies. Vol. 3, pp 227-299, 1999 Corman, Hope & Mocan, Naci. "A Time-Series Analysis of Crime, Deterrence, and Drug Abuse in New York City", The American Economic Review, Vol. 90, No. 3, June 2000 Detotto, Claudio, Otranto, Edoardo. "Does Crime Affect Economic Growth?", Kyklos, Vol. 63, Issue 3, pp 330-345, August 2010 Di Tella, Rafael & Schargrodsky, Ernesto. "Do Police Reduce Crime? Estimates Using the Allocation of Police Forces After a Terrorist Attack", The American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 1, March 2004 DiIulio, John J. "Arresting Ideas: Tougher Law Enforcement is Driving Down Urban Crime", Policy Review, Number 74, Fall 1995 Jacob, Brian & Lefgren, Lars. "Are Idle Hands the Devil's Workshop? Incapacitation, Concentration, and Juvenile Crime", The American Economic Review, Vol. 93, No. 5, December 2003 Goldstein, Herman. Policing a Free Society, Ballinger, April 1977 Goldstein, Herman. Problem-Oriented Policing, McGraw-Hill, 1990 Goldstein, Herman. "Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach", Crime & Delinquency April 1979, vol. 25 no. 2, pp. 236-258 Kelling, G., T. Pate, D. Dieckman, and C. Brown, 1974, "The Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment: a Summary Report", Police Foundation, Washington D.C. Klick, Jonathan & Tabarrok, Alexander. "Using Terror Alert Levels to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime", American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings, February 1, 2004 Levitt, Steven. "Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime", The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, June 1997 Levitt, Steven. "Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime: Reply", The American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 4, September 2002 Marvell, Thomas & Moody, Carlisle. "Specification Problems, Police Levels, and Crime Rates", Criminology, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1996 Patermoster, Raymond & Bushway, Shawn D. "Theoretical and Empirical Work on the Relations Between Unemployment and Crime", Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2001 Shi, L. "Does Oversight Reduce Policing? Evidence from the Cincinnati Police Department After the April 2001 Riot", http://faculty.washington.edu/lanshi/Research/policing_dec_28_05.pdf University of Washington, 2005 Vollaard, Ben. "Police Numbers Up, Crime Rates Down", CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, January 2005 Wexler, Chuck, "44 Percent Cite Increases in Crime Due to Economic Crisis", Police Executive Research Forum, Jan. 27, 2009 Wilson, James Q., Kelling, George E., "Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety", Atlantic Monthly, March 1982 San Joaquin County Grand Jury WOODBRIDGE SANITARY DISTRICT 2010/2011 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1110 Summary The Grand Jury investigated Woodbridge Sanitary District (District) due to complaints received alleging various improprieties that included: Payroll fraud and fiscal mismanagement Falsifying State Water Resources Control Board records

• Harassment of employees Nepotism/Favoritism

Lack of training for employees Lack of Board policies and procedures to the detriment of the District

Approval of a time clock

Development of credit card policies

Development of job descriptions Development of Personnel Manual Disclaimer One grand Jury member recused themselves from the investigation and all preparation of this report. Grand Jury reports are based in documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn and admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Coder Section 911, 924.1 and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report is submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court from Woodbridge Sanitary District Board of Directors by September 8, 2011. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Robin Appel, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 222 E. Weber Av., Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@courts.san-joaquin.ca.us San Joaquin County Grand Jury SCHOOL BOARD COMPENSATION 2010/2011 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1210 Summary The Civil Grand Jury investigated School Board compensation in San Joaquin County K-12 Schools. In this economic climate, financial prudence is expected of trustees in their governance role in public schools. This report allows the public to compare their school board compensation to others in the county. The report is informational in nature and does not include any findings or recommendations.

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Tracy San Joaquin County Jail, also known as John Zunino Detention Facility, French Camp San Joaquin County Superior Court Holding Facility-Stockton ٠ San Joaquin County Superior Court Holding Facility-Manteca

San Joaquin County Superior Court Holding Facility-Tracy

San Joaquin County Superior Court Holding Facility-Lodi San Joaquin County Grand Jury Law and Justice Ride-A-Long Program The 2010/2011 Grand Jurors participated in the Public Safety Ride-a-Long Program and shared a shift with officers, deputies and firefighters. All law enforcement agencies within the county participated including fire departments in Stockton, Manteca, Tracy and Lathrop. Jurors accumulated over 125 hours of patrol, seeing firsthand what officers, deputies and firefighters do on a daily basis to keep the county safe. The types of calls jurors witnessed:

DUI check points weapons offenses

Fire Department runs - emergency medical calls only San Joaquin County 2010/2011 Grand Jury LAW AND JUSTICE DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION

Manteca Superior Court San Joaquin County Grand Jury Law and Justice San Joaquin County Sheriff/Coroner/Morgue

Preparation of court documents Processing inmates property

Completing a medical questionnaire to ensure the health and safety to the arrestee and

others in the facility The Grand Jury was impressed with the facility, condition and staff. Findings: None The 2010/2011 Grand Jury requires no further action. San Joaquin County Grand Jury Law and Justice Juvenile Justice/Detention Center Grand Jury members met with the Chief Probation Officer and staff for a site tour of the facility. Overall, the site was clean and appeared well organized. Due to budget cuts for the fiscal year 2010/2011 the Probation Department eliminated 42 positions, which impacted all divisions of the Probation Department. A 30-bed housing unit is vacant due to a lack of funding. The bed capacity dropped from 179 to 150 beds. To keep up with the state mandated functions, the Probation Department has reorganized staff to absorb additional duties due to staffing reductions. TABLE 1 Offenses for Juveniles Confined in Juvenile Hall January 1, 2010 to December 1, 2010 Weapons Offense 10% 952 Property Offenses 31% 3,020 Physical Offense on Person 19% 1,831 Vehicle Offenses 3% 236 5% Drugs and Alcohol San Joaquin County Grand Jury Law and Justice Department of Juvenile Justice Correctional Facility

Deuel Vocational Institute, (DVI) San Joaquin County Jail

San Joaquin County Courthouse Video Arraignment – Stockton Main ٠ City of Escalon Police Department

Stockton Police Department

• Lodi City Council Manteca City Council

Stockton City Council

Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Robin Appel, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 222 E. Weber Av., Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@courts.san-joaquin.ca.us San Joaquin County Grand Jury NORTH SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Follow-Up Report to the 2009/2010 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0809 Summary This report is a follow-up to the investigation conducted and the recommendations made by the 2009/2010 Grand Jury (Case #0809). The case originated from a citizen complaint alleging several concerns including: fiscal and budgetary improprieties, improper bidding process, poor accounts payable procedures, conflict of interest and improper storage of public records. The Grand Jury initial report found that most of these allegations were without merit. The 2010/2011 Grand Jury conducted a follow-up investigation to determine the amount of progress made in addressing the prior year's recommendations.

The District has effective policies and procedures to assure student disciplinary due process rights. The ASP is a vital part of instruction and learning enrichment for many students in the District and school leaders are commended for seeking grant resources for this program. The District faces many challenges, including effective communication and program administration. District leadership and administration must formalize strategies for improved communication that would benefit the District. The Grand Jury recognizes the importance of community minded citizens to participate in public governance to improve their communities, including District Trustees. Those citizens must review their elected job duties and practice due diligence to assure high standards to eliminate the appearance of or the possibility of impropriety. The Grand Jury also recognizes that the Brown Act is quite complex and annual Brown Act training is essential to effective governance. The longer Trustees serve, the more important they have continuing training. Periodic formal reviews of the California Education Code and Board Bylaws by Trustees assure well informed community leadership. Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report is submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court from Lodi Unified School District Board of Trustees by September 20, 2011. Please mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Robin Appel, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 222 E. Weber Av., Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@courts.san-joaquin.ca.us . . . - San Joaquin County Grand Jury OAK VIEW UNIFIED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2010-2011 Grand Jury Case No.0410 Summary The Grand Jury investigated a citizen complaint alleging the non-recusal of a Board member on two incidents involving family members, failure to notify an employee of complaint action in closed session and improper notice/posting of agenda. Parents' attempts to address and resolve these issues have led to distrust of the school board. The Grand Jury found additional items of concern regarding the proper understanding of the Brown Act and Education Code related to action on closed session items.

The Grand Jury is concerned that this board does not conduct the public's business with transparency. While some of the allegations in the complaint were not found to be violations of the Brown Act, it was the perception of the parents and community that misconduct was occurring within the board. All board members need to be acutely aware of the perception their actions may cause. Disclaimer One Grand Jury member did not participate in this investigation due to a perceived conflict of interest. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929) Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court from Oak View Union Elementary School District Board of Trustees by September 20, 2011. Hand Deliver or mail a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Robin Appel, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 222 East Weber Ave, Room 303 Stockton, California 95202 Also please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@courts.san-joaquin.ca.us San Joaquin County Grand Jury FRENCH CAMP/MCKINLEY FIRE DISTRICT 2010/2011 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0510 Summary The 2010/2011 Grand Jury investigated a citizen complaint alleging misconduct within the French Camp/McKinley Fire District (District). The Fire District Board initiated an investigation into the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief. The Fire Chief was subsequently demoted from his position. During the course of the investigation, the Grand Jury received additional complaints alleging: unlawful audio taping of a meeting, removal or destruction of personnel records, and Brown Act violations.

The 2010/2011 Grand Jury The Grand Jury found the agency made sincere efforts to expand awareness of complaint procedures, standardize contacts with clients, and train social worker staff on new procedures Administration deals with personnel complaints through a standard personnel progressive discipline process that can and may on occasion lead to termination. The 2010/2011 Grand Jury requires no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929) San Joaquin County Grand Jury INFORMATION SERVICES Follow-Up Report to the 2009/2010 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0609 Summary This report is a follow-up to the investigation conducted and the recommendations made by the 2009/2010 Civil Grand Jury (Case No. 0609). As the internet becomes more prevalent in the daily lives of San Joaquin County citizens, the importance of information accessibility and efficiency of document distribution on City websites is a topic of importance. Each city in our County maintains a website offering a multitude of information and documents. 2010/2011 Grand Jury conducted a follow-up investigation to determine the amount of progress made in addressing the prior year's recommendations.

The recently released external audit of the 2010 fiscal year has identified a number of potentially significant lapses in best practices for fiscal administration. At least some of the findings of these audits appear related to the funding and workforce shortages from the several year fiscal crises facing the City. Additionally, there are critical technology needs for standardized fiscal check and balances in payroll services and processes, adding to the challenges facing policy makers and management. The City Council and budget planners will face challenges to guard the critical need for funding to ensure prudent fiscal policies. The Grand Jury encourages the City Audit Committee members, City Auditor and City Manager to meet at least quarterly to review and possibly establish priorities for departmental review from the City Auditor. The purpose of the meeting would be to share concerns regarding mitigation of risk of loss, detection of graft, and other administrative issues of concern. The Auditor should remain free of influence in the conduct of the audit review and reports to the City Council. The Grand Jury commends the City Auditor, Administration and City Council for establishing high priority to address the concerns of the 2009-2010 Grand Jury regarding outstanding audit finding. The 2010/2011 Grand Jury requires no further action. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929) . . San Joaquin County Grand Jury FIRST 5 OF SAN JOAQUIN Follow-Up Report to the 2009/2010 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 1309 Summary The 2009/2010 Grand Jury investigated a complaint that the San Joaquin County Children and Families Commission (First 5) was not clearly reporting grants awarded to entities that had representatives who were First 5 Commissioners. Additionally, similar omissions were found in the audited financial statements violating California Government Accounting Standards Board Code Section 2300.107f and Statements of Accounting Standards 45 paragraph 11-12.

Open-mindedness Sensitivity to and concern for the views of others

Skill in working with others in a group setting

Interest in and knowledge of community affairs Skill and experience in fact finding Skill and experience in report writing Working knowledge of computers General knowledge of the responsibilities, functions and authority of county and city governments Commitment Nominees selected for grand jury service must commit to serving at least one day each week for the period July 1 through June 30. Also, considerable time each week will be spent for investigative and report-writing assignments. Selection Applications will be reviewed and forwarded to the Presiding Judge for consideration and an interview will be scheduled with the judge if you are considered. Grand Jury members are selected from the judicial districts of the county in proportion to the number of inhabitants in each district. In June, drawings are conducted under the supervision of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in the presence of the nominees. The names of 19 people who will compose the grand jury are drawn at random from a pool of prospective grand jurors. Another ten names are drawn and ranked to form the alternate list. If a juror is unable to serve, a replacement is selected from the alternate list according to rank. Application Application forms may be received by writing to: Trisa Martinez Superior Court 222 E. Weber Avenue Room 303 Stockton, California 95202 Application forms can be downloaded from: www.stocktoncourt.org Please submit a written application to Ms. Martinez. The deadline for submitting applications is May 1 for the following July 1 through June 30 term. Structure and Function of the Grand Jury California Constitution, Article I, Section 23, provides that "One or more grand juries shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county." The law governing Grand Jury formation, authority, powers and proceedings, is found in Part 2, Title 4, of the California Penal Code, Sections 888-939.91 The presiding judge of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County impanels nineteen citizens every year to conduct civil investigations of county and city government; a body of people who are independent of any political or special interest group. The judge appoints a foreperson to preside over the Grand Jury. The foreperson selects the vice-foreperson and secretary with approval of the Grand Jury and standing committees and/or ad-hoc committees are formed. Each juror may serve on several committees and this is where the investigative work is done throughout the year. A general meeting is held weekly to coordinate activity and conduct business. This Grand Jury serves in an independent oversight and investigative role for the County of San Joaquin. It serves to investigate allegations of misconduct of public officials and to determine whether to present formal accusations for nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance. It will objectively investigate, audit or examine all aspects of County government, and its cities, to insure that these bodies are being effectively governed and that public monies are being judiciously handled. The Grand Jury may subpoena persons and documents to obtain information on subjects under investigation. The Grand Jury acts in the public's interest by investigating and reporting on the operation, management and fiscal affairs of local government in the county. It may review and evaluate procedures, methods and systems used by county and city governments to determine whether more efficient and economical programs may be used. The Grand Jury is also mandated to inspect prisons, jails and other detention facilities in the county. The Grand Jury reviews complaints submitted by citizens alleging misconduct by officials or other concerns of government inefficiencies. Complaints are acknowledged and investigated for their validity. Jurors are sworn to strict confidentiality pertaining to complaints, witnesses or content of investigative matters. They may not disclose any information they receive within the confines of the jury or the identity of anyone appearing before them. The Grand Jury is an independent entity and it serves a democracy in which individuals can be involved for civil service on behalf of their community. Complaint Procedure Any citizen may submit a written complaint to the Grand Jury and all communications are confidential. A citizen may ask the Grand Jury to conduct an investigation into misconduct or inefficiencies by county governmental agencies. The Grand Jury can act on complaints relating to a county department, any city within the county, all school districts and special purpose or taxing districts in the county. The Grand Jury may consider complaints of willful or corrupt misconduct against public officials and policies, county and city employees; including the abolition or creation of offices and the equipment for performing duties of county government. The Complaint Form should be submitted by citizens after all attempts to correct an issue have been explored, and without success. Instructions for preparing the Complaint Form: Include your name, address and phone number Name the agency and/or person(s) you are complaining against SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 222 E. Weber Ave., Room 303 Stockton, CA 95202 Phone: (209) 468-3855 COMPLAINT FORM All communications to the Grand Jury are confidential. The Grand Jury is the avenue for county residents to bring attention to what they believe are injustices not resolved by public agencies, after other reasonable efforts have failed. What is your name, address and phone number? What agency and/or person are you complaining against? (Name of agency and all individuals, including their addresses and phone numbers) Please explain the nature of your complaint providing as many details as you can, including dates, times, and places where the events took place. (Attach extra sheets if necessary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Action taken. Please list other persons and/or agencies you have contacted in an attempt to resolve this complaint and any actions you have taken yourself. ____ Witnesses. Please provide names and telephone numbers of anyone else who can substantiate your complaint. ____ The information in this form is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE: _____ DATE: ____ Responding to Findings and Recommendations Provided here are extracts of California Penal Code Section 933 that establish the requirements for responding to Grand Jury reports. The timetable for responses is found in Section 933(C): No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and