📋
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.

San Joaquin County Grand Jury • 2022-2023

Section 2: Investigations San Joaquin County Custodial Facili�es:

Published: June 10, 2023 102 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 53 findings

F3 Page 105
3.1 The minutes of Board and Steering Committee meetings are difficult to locate on the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website and sometimes are not posted for months or at all, resulting in frustration for interested parties and a lack of transparency.
F1.1 Page 21
The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office has failed to ensure that a mandated PREA audit (28 CFR 115.401) by a Department of Justice certified auditor has ever been done where one is required to be completed every three years. Failure to complete audits by a Department of Justice certified auditor diminishes transparency, could put inmates and detainees at risk, and could erode public trust.
F1.2 Page 21
The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office is not in compliance with 28 CFR 115.33(f), which requires them to provide adequate written materials and visible posters that explain inmate rights and the Sheriff’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse or sexual harassment. This could 20 result in delays in reporting and investigating, thereby exposing the Office to potential lawsuits, financial liability, and reduction in Federal grant funding.
F1.3 Page 22
The San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office does not provide adequate means to report sexual abuse or harassment confidentially and privately to an independent public or private entity as required under 28 CFR 115.51 which is a violation of PREA standards and could result in a reduction of Federal grant funding.
F1.4 Page 22
There is no video or audio recording equipment in interrogation rooms. There should be no area in the jail, absent issues of mandated privacy, where an inmate could be with officers in secluded settings. A potential claim of sexual or physical abuse without providing visual evidence also means the Sheriff’s department would be unable to effectively defend such a claim.
F2.1 Page 23
Every three years PREA Audits by a Department of Justice certified auditor must be completed. The Probation Department for Juvenile Detention has never scheduled nor completed this mandated audit. This failure diminishes transparency, could put juvenile residents at risk, and could erode public trust, exposing the Probation Department and the Juvenile Detention Facility to potential lawsuits and financial liability.
F2.2 Page 23
The Probation Department for Juvenile Detention has failed to conduct an annual review, mandated by 28 CFR 115.401(b), or updates for required procedures since 2019, which is a violation of PREA standards and could result in reduction of funding or other financial liability.
F2.3 Page 23
The Probation Department for Juvenile Detention lacks published material explaining how separation between juveniles and older residents is to be maintained. Failure to maintain separation and ensure steps are taken to protect juvenile residents from unsupervised older residents could result in undesirable interactions leading to potential lawsuits and financial liability. 22
F2.4 Page 24
The Probation Department for Juvenile Detention has failed to provide a written policy or procedure to ensure a sexual assault or harassment victim’s report to the Women’s Center Sexual Assault Crisis Line will remain confidential.
F2.5 Page 24
The Probation Department for Juvenile Detention’s website and other public media fail to explain or reference how a third party can make a confidential report on behalf of a juvenile resident, which creates a lack of transparency and fails to provide required confidential accessibility options to file a report.
F2.6 Page 24
The Probation Department for Juvenile Detention staff members demonstrated a lack of understanding that all federally mandated PREA standards apply to San Joaquin County’s Juvenile Detention Facility. A lack of comprehensive understanding of all PREA standards that apply could result in a failure to adequately protect juvenile residents, contractors, and employees.
F2.7 Page 24
The Probation Department for Juvenile Detention does not consistently provide training for educators, third party contractors, and volunteers with refresher training every two years, which is a violation of PREA Standards 28 CFR 115.331 and 28 CFR 115.332 and could compromise the safety of staff, volunteers, and juvenile residents.
F2.8 Page 40
A few districts do not make any part of the CSSPs available to the public, withholding important information about steps taken by the district to reduce the probability and impact of safety risks. Other districts post the CSSPs in their entirety, failing to keep confidential information about tactical responses, potentially revealing sensitive information to the public.
F2.9 Page 40
Many districts have CSSPs that fail to identify incident command roles and the individuals who are to perform those roles in case of an emergency, exposing students and staff to the potential for confusion and increased risks during an emergency.
F3.1 Page 25
The Lodi Police Department is not in full compliance with 28 CFR 115.33(f), which requires them to provide written materials and visible posters explaining inmate rights and the Department’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse or sexual harassment at the jail. This could result in delays in reporting and investigating, exposing the Office to potential lawsuits, financial liability, and reduction in grant funding.
F3.2 Page 44
Some of the districts failed to send representatives to the 2022 School Safety Summit, thereby missing an opportunity to work together to make schools safer.
F3.3 Page 44
The Grand Jury learned through interviews, surveys, and site tours that many districts fail to include safety topics during regular meetings with teachers and support staff throughout the school year, minimizing the importance of safety.
F3.4 Page 44
The Grand Jury learned through interviews, surveys, and site tours that many school sites fail to assure substitute staff receive the information they will need in the case of a school safety emergency, leaving the substitute staff ill-prepared for an emergency.
F3.5 Page 44
Many districts fail to include the utilization of communication and incident command protocols (ICS-100) during safety drills throughout the school year, causing miscommunication in an emergency. 43
F3.6 Page 45
Many district cabinet-level positions (e.g., Superintendent, Chief Business Officer) are not trained in ICS protocols (ICS-402), causing a lack of unified response to districtwide emergencies.
F3.7 Page 45
Many school sites do not vary the time of day when routine safety drills are conducted or when students are not in classrooms, making drills predictable and leaving students unprepared for emergencies that may occur at any time.
F3.8 Page 45
Many school sites fail to include support staff (classified personnel) in probable real-life roles during safety drills, leaving them unprepared to assist students in emergencies.
F3.9 Page 45
Most school sites fail to conduct a post-incident report after drills analyzing what went well, what went wrong, and what needs to be changed in the future to improve plans and drills, undermining the effectiveness of drills.
F4.1 Page 48
Not all school sites have check-in procedures in place that were followed consistently, posing serious security threats.
F4.2 Page 48
Perimeter fencing or an “open” campus each pose security challenges and require careful consideration to mitigate security shortcomings. 47
F4.3 Page 49
Evacuation maps that are posted inconsistently or do not adequately illustrate evacuation routes cause confusion and prolonged evacuation times, making staff and students vulnerable to harm in both classrooms and common areas.
F4.4 Page 49
Inconsistent door-locking policies and failure to follow policies create opportunities for perpetrators to enter classrooms and common areas.
F4.5 Page 49
Most school sites utilized flip charts that identify steps to be taken in case of emergencies, however, none of the sites posted them in all rooms used by students, staff, parents/guardians, and the general public.
F4.6 Page 49
Insufficient window coverings give perpetrators a clear line of sight, creating risk for students and staff.
F4.7 Page 49
Most school sites, regardless of age, were well maintained and showed school pride. One school site demonstrated multiple maintenance shortcomings, which can negatively impact safety.
F4.8 Page 49
Good relationships among administrators, certificated and classified staff, parents, and students are vital to promptly identify and address areas of concern, particularly regarding student behavior. Relationships varied greatly from campus to campus.
F4.9 Page 49
The culture of safety is best developed by public transparency and involvement by all parties. Few of the school sites visited by the Grand Jury demonstrated meaningful public engagement in safety planning.
F1.2.1 Page 95
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority has provided no public information events on the status of the adoption and implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan since July 2021, leaving the public largely unaware of what the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority is doing regarding groundwater sustainability and the associated effects and costs of Groundwater Sustainability Plan implementation.
F1.2.2 Page 95
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority developed but never formally approved or adopted an engagement and public outreach plan, and although the Department of Water Resources is now funding a consultant firm to work with the Board of Directors to develop one, public communications and engagement efforts so far have been limited and ineffective.
F1.3.1 Page 96
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority’s efforts to identify and engage with people who are members of disadvantaged communities have been limited, potentially excluding members of these communities from learning about and having a voice in groundwater sustainability plans.
F1.3.2 Page 96
Informational materials used to communicate with and inform residents of the subbasin have been in English and Spanish only, thus leaving subbasin residents who speak and read other languages potentially uninformed about the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority and its activities.
F2.10 Page 40
Many districts have CSSPs that fail to describe the system to reunite parents/guardians with their children in the event of a campus-wide evacuation, creating confusion and additional anxiety in the event of a safety emergency.
F2.1.1 Page 98
The Memorandum of Agreement with Cal Water benefits the County and its taxpayers by reducing the cost allocation paid by the County and incorporates Cal Water’s expertise and support into the Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and implementation.
F2.11 Page 40
Many school site CSSPs do not account for specific dangers unique to the school site (e.g., train tracks, flooding, freeways).
F2.1.2 Page 98
Zone 2 property fees are collected by the County within the Cal Water-County GSA boundaries. Therefore, it is reasonable and equitable that Cal Water-County GSA receives the same reduction to its member cost allocation as all other County Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to reflect the property fees paid into the Zone 2 fund. 2.2 Transparency and Ease of Access to Financial Information During its investigation, the Grand Jury requested, received, and reviewed the following financial data: Zone 2 Fund Reports (2016-2022), ESJGWA Fund Reports (2018-2022), Countywide annual audits (2014-2021), Chart of Accounts, Vendor Payments (2015-2022), ESJGWA and Zone 2 projected and actual budgets, and annual County proposed budget reports prepared for the Board of Supervisors. In addition, Grand Jury members reviewed the County’s OpenGov Financial Data Transparency Portal. The Grand Jury also heard testimony from County officials familiar with ESJGWA financial processes. The San Joaquin County Public Works Department provides accounting services for the ESJGWA and develops budgets for approval by the ESJGWA Board and the County Board of Supervisors (JPA, Article 4.10). The Grand Jury found the annual proposed budgets on the County Administrator’s Office (CAO) Budget public website to be an excellent overview of both Zone 2 and ESJGWA origination, purpose, and fiscal year planning. Revenues collected for Zone 2 and the ESJGWA are held separately in the County Treasury (JPA, Article 5.7). The Zone 2 fund is not audited separately from the District, and the County Auditor-Controller’s Office does not prepare a separate financial statement. The Flood Control & Water Conservation District posts on its website the annual Engineer’s reports for the beneficial use Zones 9 and 10. These reports include services provided, the budget to provide the services, and the criteria. However, according to witness testimony, the District does not post an annual report for Zone 2 accountability. ESJGWA is audited annually in accordance with JPA Article 5.8 and is included in the “County of San Joaquin, California” annual audit, which is conducted by an independent auditor. Within this audit, the ESJGWA is labeled a “Nonmajor Special District Governed by the Board of Supervisors.” Audits reviewed by the Grand Jury from 2014 to 2021 include ESJGWA from 2017 on, with a brief description of “Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority… established in 2017.” However, from 2018 to 2021, the balance sheet column heading lists the ESJGWA as the “Eastern San Joaquin Ground Water Banking Authority,” which is a different agency established prior to the ESJGWA, and which terminated in 2022. A review of preceding audits does not include any Eastern San Joaquin authorities. The Grand Jury also received ESJGWA fund reports (labeled “21451”) from the 97 Auditor-Controller’s Office and compared fund balances. The Grand Jury noted that year-end balances between the audits and the fund reports differ, as summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Differences Between County Audited Year-End Balances and the 21451 Fund Report Audit Combining Balance Sheet 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 – 386,618 (641,657) (483,152) 474,139 Audit Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures – 369,813 (641,657) (483,152) 275,982 ESJGWA 21451 Fund Report 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 370,409 380,025 (553,577) (328,783) 442,117 Neither the County nor ESJGWA provides easy access to ESJGWA financial information. The County’s OpenGov Financial Data Transparency Portal can be utilized to examine how Zone 2 funds are used, but the Grand Jury found it very difficult to locate and access this information. The Zone 2 budget link leads to a page with only minimal information. More information regarding Zone 2 and projects is available elsewhere on the District’s website, but it is difficult to find that information. Similarly, the ESJGWA’s website does not provide a convenient link to ESJGWA budgets or financial information. That information can only be found by searching through agenda meeting packets of the Board and the Steering Committee. Even so, budget information presented at a meeting might not be included in the packets. For example, on February 8, 2023, the Steering Committee considered a draft budget proposal, but the proposal was not included in the meeting packet available to the public. The Grand Jury requested and received a copy of the proposed budget presentation, but it was not clear how the public would know to request that information. Findings
F2.2.1 Page 99
Important Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority financial information is not readily available on the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website, effectively depriving the public access to this information.
F2.2.2 Page 99
Important Zone 2 financial information is not readily available on the San Joaquin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District’s website, therefore does not meet the public’s need for transparency.
F2.2.3 Page 99
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority is included in the annual San Joaquin County independent audit, but the audited fund balance differs from the fund balance report, calling into question the data included in the reported financials.
F2.2.4 Page 99
The independent auditor lists and discusses the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority in the “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.” The balance sheet column heading listing the 98 previous Ground Water Banking Authority (GBA) is incorrect, lessening public confidence in the audit.
F3.1.1 Page 101
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website does not provide the State- required Financial Transaction Report or a link to the State Controller’s website, which decreases transparency.
F3.1.2 Page 101
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website does not list the Board compensation report or a link to the State Controller’s website, reducing transparency. 100
F3.1.3 Page 102
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website does not provide an Enterprise System Catalog, which violates public records and transparency reporting requirements.
F3.1.4 Page 102
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website does not meet the accessibility requirements established by Government Code Section 7405, which could make it difficult for some members of the public to access the site and could expose the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority to legal action.
F3.1.5 Page 102
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website is not updated in a timely manner, causing frustration for site visitors and the appearance of a lack of transparency.
F3.2.1 Page 104
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board routinely holds its meetings at times that differ from those stated in its Bylaws and on its website. Together with cancellations and a reduction in the number of Board meetings, this creates confusion and reduces opportunities for public engagement.
F3.2.2 Page 104
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Technical Advisory Committee is a de facto standing committee but does not follow noticing and transparency requirements for its meetings, violating the Brown Act and giving the public no insight or input into its activities.
F3.2.3 Page 104
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority does not identify the individuals who serve on the Board of Directors on either its website or its agendas, making it difficult for the public to ascertain who governs the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority and who from each Groundwater Sustainability Agency sits on their Board.
F3.3.1 Page 105
The minutes of Board and Steering Committee meetings are difficult to locate on the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website and sometimes are not posted for months or at all, resulting in frustration for interested parties and a lack of transparency.

Recommendations 5