San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2017-2018
(ovp). The work done by the Peacekeepers in OVP is valuable and necessary but hard to measure in terms of
⚠️ 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 21 findings
F1
1 The division into two groups made Peacekeepers frustrated and had a negative effect on morale.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
1.1 The Grand Jury recommends the OVP reassess the division by December 31 with input from the Peacekeepers about whether or not it is effective.
R3
1.1 The Grand Jury recommends that all management and staff be in one location. As Stockton has purchased a large building on the Waterfront to serve as a new City Hall, when city offices move there, the OVP should be in one office or adjacent offices.
F2
1 Management has neither addressed the issues nor resolved them, leading to a tense office environment. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 Management needs to establish a code of conduct and enforce it. 3.0 The OVP has offsite Management. While the Deputy City Manager is the nominal head of the OVP, he has many other duties and agencies to oversee and cannot be expected to manage the day-to-day operations of the office. For those duties, the OVP has a Manager. However, both the Deputy City Manager and the OVP Manager and her small office staff are located in City Hall. The eight Peacekeepers and two supervisors are located at least six blocks away in an obscure and hard-to-find office (for security reasons). The OVP Manager comes to the Peacekeepers’ office only about once a week. As a result, Peacekeepers go to the Manager’s City Hall office to talk about concerns and complaints, bypassing the chain of command.
F3
1 The separation leads to a lack of close supervision.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
1.1 The Grand Jury recommends that all management and staff be in one location. As Stockton has purchased a large building on the Waterfront to serve as a new City Hall, when city offices move there, the OVP should be in one office or adjacent offices.
F4
1 Communication with the public is not happening, causing a lack of understanding of the work of the OVP.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
1.1 By December 31, the Data Dashboard be made available to Community-Based Organizations (CBO’s) and the public.
F5
1 It is unclear who is in charge of running the call-ins, resulting in confusion among the CBO’s.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
1 The call-ins have a clearly-designated chair, either: 1. the OVP Manager or the Police Chief, 2. both as co-chairs, or 3. another designee as chair.
F6
1.1 No system of pre-approved expenditures exists to meet the immediate needs of clients, making it difficult for Peacekeepers to provide these needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
1 The OVP should set up an adequate fund in its budget easily accessed by the Peacekeepers with supervisors’ approval.
F7
1 Past conflicts have strained relations between CBO’s and the OVP, causing some CBO’s to have difficulty working with the OVP. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
1.1 The purpose of the Community Engagement Coordinator is to work with CBO’s; the person hired for the position must be skilled and effective in reaching out.
F8
1 Some CBO’s and city officials would like to create a county-wide coalition to coordinate and improve services to reduce group gun violence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
1 The OVP Manager should bring this idea to city and county government agencies to see if there is merit to the idea, if the time is right to move ahead with this proposal, and if there is appropriate and adequate interest among the various stakeholders.
F1.1
The division into two groups made Peacekeepers frustrated and had a negative effect on morale.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2
The division was suggested by consultants who claim it is based on “best practices” in similar programs across the nation, but the Grand Jury found no evidence [insufficient evidence] for this assertion.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1
Management has neither addressed the issues nor resolved them, leading to a tense office environment. 5
No recommendations for this finding
F3.1
The separation leads to a lack of close supervision.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.2
Bypassing the chain of command leads to distrust and feelings of favoritism among the Peacekeepers.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.1
Communication with the public is not happening, causing a lack of understanding of the work of the OVP.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.1
It is unclear who is in charge of running the call-ins, resulting in confusion among the CBO’s.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.2
“Extra” attendees at the call-ins lead to consternation among the CBO representatives who attended the planning meetings about who makes the final decisions on whom to invite.
No recommendations for this finding
F6.2
The reimbursement for their own funds Peacekeepers spend on clients is slow and cumbersome.
No recommendations for this finding
F7.1
Past conflicts have strained relations between CBO’s and the OVP, causing some CBO’s to have difficulty working with the OVP. 8
No recommendations for this finding
F8.1
Some CBO’s and city officials would like to create a county-wide coalition to coordinate and improve services to reduce group gun violence.
No recommendations for this finding
F6.1.1
No system of pre-approved expenditures exists to meet the immediate needs of clients, making it difficult for Peacekeepers to provide these needs.
No recommendations for this finding
F6.1.2
Peacekeepers often must rely on the willingness of Community-Based Organizations to meet clients’ pressing needs.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The work of the Office of Violence Prevention in the city of Stockton is vital and necessary if the city is to see a much-desired decrease in the number of gang-related gun homicides. Yet the OVP is not operating at the highest-possible level of efficiency. The Grand Jury has made a number of recommendations to improve the work of the office. Greater transparency about its work, especially a larger and more frequent release of data, and changes in its internal organization and operations are necessary to justify its existence and the Measure A money it expends each year. Disclaimers 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 9 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 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 within 90 days of receipt of the report. The Stockton City Council shall respond to all findings and recommendations. Please mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Linda L. Lofthus, Presiding Judge Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin 180 East Weber Avenue, Suite 1306J Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at grandjury@sjcourts.org 10