2009 - 2010*

Recommendations 15

• R1
  School administration should discuss with all personnel better ways of maintaining the teaching facilities and storage areas, in a more organized fashion.
• R1A
  relocation site for the Morgue should be determined. COMMENTS The Coroner's working area is exceptionally clean and well maintained. RESPONSE REQUIREMENT Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Kings County. Kings County Coroner's Department (90 days from the time of receipt of this report) FIRST FIVE SYNOPSIS The First 5 Kings County Children and Families Commission has set forth a number of local objectives to best address the needs of children and families in Kings County. The Grand Jury conducted an investigation to ascertain if these objectives have been met. WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Previous Grand Jury reports indicated that Kings County First 5 needed to be monitored on an on-going basis. The reports investigated how funds appropriated from the state and through grant writing were to be administered and allocated to benefit the needs of all Kings County children 0 to 5. AUTHORITY California Penal Code Section 925. The Grand Jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury interviewed employees of First 5, and also employees and former employees of the First 5 funded Family Resource Centers. The Grand Jury reviewed the First 5 budgets, internet web site, audits and the evaluations mandated by Proposition 10. The Grand Jury visited the First 5 office, Family Resource Centers, and attended some First 5 Commission meetings. BACKGROUND AND FACTS First 5 Kings County was established as a result of Proposition 10 which was passed by California voters in November 1998. It imposed a fifty-cent-per-pack state sales tax on cigarettes as well as a tax on all other tobacco products. The intent of the legislation was to fund a comprehensive, integrated system of early childhood (0 to 5 years 11 months) development services for California children to enter school healthy and ready to learn. Kings County currently receives approximately $2,500,000 of declining revenues annually to accomplish this goal. Proposition 10 requires that every county First 5 provide an outside audit and performance evaluation. Allocations to each county are based on the number of births per year. According to First 5 documents, the Kings County birth rate has increased since 2000 and in 2009 is estimated to be 2,520 and expected in 2010 to rise to 2,580. Based on First 5 statistics, the approximate number of children 0 to 5 in Kings County is 14,000. Only 3,572 of these children (25%) were served by First 5 in 2009. Of these 3,572 children, 1,189 were involved in a one-time-a-year Back Pack Program which distributes a backpack to each new kindergartner regardless of economic need. Kings County Ordinance 609, established the parameters for First 5, where the Executive Director of First 5 is hired and given performance evaluations by the Kings County Board of Supervisors who also appoint the Board of Commissioners to direct and manage First 5. The current Commission members are department heads of the following County agencies: Human Services, Health Department, Mental Health Services, Kings County Superintendent of Schools and the County Administrative Officer. The Children's Services Deputy Director, and a member of the Board of Supervisors are mandated Commissioners by the County Board of Supervisors. Two additional members may be appointed by the Board of Supervisors from members of agencies or groups concerned with local children's affairs. The Kings County First 5 organization sponsored a total of eight Family Resource Centers in the fiscal year 2008-2009, but this is being reduced to five in the current budget year. Currently, Kings County First 5 is funding only the Corcoran, Avenal, Lemoore, Kettleman City and Hanford Family Resource Centers while eliminating the funding for the Armona, Home Garden Resource Center and the Hanford Family Connection. The recommended and requested Kings County budget for 2009-2010 shows an increase in fixed assets, professional services, regular employees, salaries and benefits. County salaries for First 5 employees are funded by First 5. Four additional employees were hired in 2009, increasing the total of First 5 County employees to 13. These new County employees were former First 5 private contracted vendors. Now they are eligible for County employee salaries and all the additional benefits provided to Kings County employees. According to 2009-2010 budget recommendations, the salary and benefits for these 13 First 5 County employees is estimated to be $833,997 (Exhibit A).
• R2
  A resolution with the union should be made to enable volunteers to be used in the library. This could be resolved by contract negotiations between the District and the union.
• R2a
  An "Information Risk and Vulnerability Assessment" be conducted immediately, as previously recommended and funded. We agree with this finding. Implementation of the IT Department Policy and Procedure Manual, Equipment upgrades, and the implementation of an Intrusion Prevention System were completed during the last year in preparation for the Assessment. Funding to complete the Assessment is included in the FY 2008/2009 budget and will be completed by the end of the fiscal year.
• R2b
  The recently issued Incident Response Policy provides a listing of departments to whom an incident "may" be reported; this should be revised to "shall". All department/agency heads should be immediately notified of any security breach or threatened breach. We agree with this finding. The policy will be modified to make the recommended change to the language as well as procedures for notifying all department/agency heads of an actual or potential breach of security. 3. A lack of continuing training is evident with both the customer and also with IT Department employees. Interviews indicated that "train the trainer" is not adequate. Other than training provided with introduction of a new business application system, very little updated education is provided.
• R3
  None COMMENTS The Grand Jury commends the local agricultural community for the contributions made to the Avenal High School scholarship program. The Grand Jury understands the current financial situation but feels that the school library has to be utilized to benefit the students. The Grand Jury also feels that the teachers working with the students can improve the classroom organization and appearance to better serve the students and their opportunity to learn. THE BASTILLE BUILDING (Former Kings County Jail) SYNOPSIS After touring the City Parks and interviewing Parks Superintendent, the Grand Jury invited the Hanford Recreation Director and the City Council members to discuss the possibility of refurbishing the Bastille building. Several churches have expressed interest in working with the City of Hanford to turn the Bastille into a "Teen Center". WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED During an interview with the Director of Parks and Recreation and with the Hanford City Council members, it was mentioned that the City of Hanford has been approached by church groups expressing interest in working with the City to develop the Bastille as a teen center. AUTHORITY California Penal Code 925a. The Grand Jury may at any time investigate and report on the operations of any incorporated city in the county. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury toured the Bastille building to look into the feasibility of using the Bastille as a teen center. BACKGROUND AND FACTS The Bastille is a county-owned building leased by the City of Hanford. This building was originally constructed in 1897 and served as the Kings County jail and sheriff's office until 1964. At that time the ceiling caved in, and the building was condemned. A new and much larger sheriff's office and jail were constructed about one mile to the west on Lacey Boulevard, and the original jail was closed. Over the years the building has been used as an art gallery, several restaurants, and nightclubs. It is interesting to note that there have been reports from the cooks in the kitchen of some unseen presence trying to frighten them. Pots and pans would be moved and the cooks felt like someone was always watching them. There have been other reports of a heavy presence in the old solitary confinement chambers, and there are rumors that after a new stairway was built that the “presence” appeared to become old and frail.
• R3a
  Continuing educational opportunities should be provided for IT Department employees. A suggested method would be to bring in experts from various vendors or local universities to minimize the expense of travel and lodging for employees and to enable a greater number to attend. We agree with this finding. The IT Department always evaluates the ability to hold training locally. As an example, training was held onsite the week of July 21, 2008 and 12 IT staff was able to attend. However, this is usually the exception because of the specialized nature of staff assignments. OULIDE TRAINING + INTERNET TRAINING
• R3b
  Customer training needs to be improved. The IT Department should ensure that there is a trainer available for any customer requesting training for their employees of their business application system. It is the responsibility of the customer to request this training. We disagree with this finding. While the IT Department assists customers in coordinating application specific training, it is the responsibility of the department to determine whether "train the trainer" is sufficient or not. We do agree that it is the responsibility of the customer to request training for customer specific application systems. WHAT PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE WHEN CUST REQUESTS TRAINING 4. Internal communication is conducted sporadically, or on an as needed basis, according to management, except for the Enterprise Services/Office Automation Division. There can never be enough effective communication.
• R4
  More consideration should be made before making large purchases, especially when Resource Centers and programs for children 0 to 5 are being reduced.
• R5
  The Grand Jury believes that such an evaluation could be less costly. When compared with other similar counties, Kings County First 5 spends considerably more for these state-required evaluations/audits, based on the Kings County First 5 Annual Report. The Grand Jury recommends that the Kings County First 5 solicit bids from other auditing firms to compare costs. There appears to be an opportunity for significant financial savings to Kings County First 5. COMMENTS Based on the current financial condition in California, the Grand Jury concludes that the First 5 Commission and Director must stay focused on serving the children 0 to 5 in Kings County. The Grand Jury is of the opinion that the First 5 Commission and Director must be judicious in their discretionary spending, be it fixed salaries, outside evaluations or capital expenditures. Although the First 5 revenues are declining, a projected $2,500,000 funding is a great opportunity to benefit the needs of all children 0 to 5 in Kings County. Previous Grand Juries have recommended that First 5 be investigated on an on-going basis. The current Grand Jury concurs. RESPONSE REQUIREMENT Pursuant to California Penal Code 933 and 933.05 the following agency and its Director are required to respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report Kings County Board of Supervisors, response time 90 days First 5 Commissioners, response time 90 days First 5 Director, response time 90 days HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT SYNOPSIS The Hanford Cemetery District consists of four cemeteries: Hanford, Calvary, Lakeside, and Kings River. The Grand Jury visited each of the four cemeteries. Hanford Cemetery is made up of two locations across the street from one another on 10th Avenue, just south of Highway 198. The District Office is located on the grounds of Hanford Cemetery next to the military tank. Calvary Cemetery is located southwest of the district office, Lakeside Cemetery is on Kent Avenue south of Hanford, and Kings River is located on Dover Avenue north of the city of Hanford. WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED Public interest. AUTHORITY California Penal Code 925a. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury interviewed the District Manager and the Administrative Assistant, followed by a visit to each cemetery site. Cemetery staff provided documents which were reviewed by the Grand Jury. BACKGROUND AND FACTS The Hanford Cemetery District was created in 1882. It consists of four cemeteries: Hanford Cemetery consists of 17 acres, Calvary has 18 acres, of which 13.2 acres are to be developed; Kings River is expanding an additional 1.5 acres, and Lakeside Cemetery, originally a family plot, is a very small area. Each of the cemeteries has one gate left open at all times to accommodate the public. Hanford Cemetery and Calvary Cemetery have special areas called "Babyland" for the burial of infants and small children. The District is non-denominational. Calvary Cemetery has been vandalized several times, which led to the installation of security cameras on the property. Lighting has also been added around the District Office. Deputies from the Kings County Sheriff's office patrol the cemeteries in the evening hours. The Cemetery District needs a new and larger maintenance/storage facility. The building currently being used is old and deteriorating. The building is neat and well organized. New sprinkler systems are being installed at each district cemetery and existing systems are being upgraded. The District employs nine people, and also utilizes youth from the Job Training Office during the summer months. The jury was told there is a low turnover rate among the employees. The District consists of a five-member Board of Trustees appointed by the Kings County Board of Supervisors. Each appointee must be a registered voter and reside within the cemetery district. Members serve a four-year term, and normally meet monthly. At this time the members receive an allotment of $50 per meeting for serving on the board; however, after the new draft Policies of July 2009 are finalized, the rate will be increased to $100 per meeting, not to exceed four meetings per month.
• R6
  Adjust the sprinklers.
• R7
  Repair the surface of the water feature. Earl F. Johnson Park
• R8
  Information Technology Computer Support
• R9
  Buccal Collection of PC 269 DNA Samples Manual
• R10
  Sexual Harassment Policy When the manuals were introduced into the Intranet system the person who entered the data received various emails of the updates from many sources throughout the Department. The emails were entered as attachments into the Intranet and the formatting problem was discovered. These formatting issues did not interfere with the content contained in the documents and did not affect all of the attachments. If someone needed to print a page or a policy they just had to go through and fix the formatting issues presented. In March 2010 personnel were assigned to take the data from the Intranet and reconfigured it into the proper Word format in the "H" Driveve. The reconfigured documents will then be removed from the "H" Drive and recentered into the Intranet. At this point in time all of the documents have already been transferred to the "H" Drive. The Administration Commander has also been assigned to work with the Lexipol Company to review/update the entire manual. The "Findings and Recommendations" indicates that the procedure states that all complaints received from "any source" should be reviewed. Sections 3.2 POLICY already states that the Department is to accept all complaints of misconduct of any employee of this department. Grand Jury Recommendation 1 Update current Sheriff's Department Procedure 3.3 "Citizen Complaint Reception and Investigation Procedure" dated June 1, 2005. This procedure should reflect how all actual complaints are to be handled. Response I agree with this recommendation. In March 2010 personnel were assigned to take the data from the Intranet and reconfigured it into the proper Word format in the "H" Drive. The reconfigured documents will then be removed from the "H" Drive and recentered into the Intranet. At this point in time all of the documents have already been transferred to the "H" Drive. The policy does address how complaints are to be handled. The Administration Commander has also been assigned to work with the Lexipol Company (Company that gives legal updates to law enforcement manuals) to review/update the entire manual. Grand Jury Finding 2 It was very clear from the testimony, that the Sheriff's Department management personnel were not familiar with the actual procedure for handling complaints. The Sheriff is the only person who can authorize an internal affairs investigation. Response I do not agree that the Sheriff's Department management were not familiar with the procedure. I do agree that the Sheriff is the only person who can authorize an internal affairs investigation. It is the responsibility of every employee to be familiar with and understand all policies and procedures of the Department. Section 1.03 General Provision and Title states the following: 1.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND TITLE This volume, concerning general policies, shall be known as the Policy and Procedure Manual. An essential requirement in the operation of any law enforcement agency is ability and willingness of all personnel to carry out assigned duties as directed by their superiors. This manual documents many of the directives which have stood the test of time and form the foundation for the effective operation of the Department. Employees of the Department shall become thoroughly familiar with the contents of the Policy and Procedure Manual and shall conform to and abide by them. As employees of the County of Kings, all Department personnel shall fully comply with all Administrative Regulations and other directives issued by order of the Sheriff, whenever applicable. Update training on the procedure for management personnel is completed. The policy does dictate that the Sheriff is the only person who can authorize an internal affairs investigation. Grand Jury Recommendation 2 All the employees of the Sheriff's Department should receive orientation on the procedure as revised, because there appears to be a lack of understanding of the procedure for handling complaints. Response I agree with the recommendation that training should be ongoing. Review of the Citizens Complaint Reception and Investigation Procedure with a supervisor at the time of each annual evaluation has been implemented. Inclusion in the fourteen week Field Training Officer (FTO) new employee orientation program has also been initiated. Grand Jury Finding 3 Sworn testimonies of the Sheriff's Department personnel indicate a thorough investigation of the complaint was never made, nor was a final report ever submitted to the Sheriff, as required. The Sheriff testified that this complaint may have "fallen through the cracks." Response I agree with the finding. The case has been assigned to a Commander for investigation. Grand Jury Recommendation 3 Create a written tracking system so all complaints are resolved, and there is not a chance of one "falling through the cracks." Response I agree with the finding. A tracking and numbering system has been in place for a long time. Grand Jury Finding 4 At the time of the Grand Jury's investigation it was found that the internal affairs division consists of one individual. Response I agree with the finding. The Administrative Commander is assigned to Internal Affairs, overseen by an Assistant Sheriff who oversees the Sheriff's Administration Division. Internal Affairs is in itself not a division, but a section of the Administration Division. Citizen's complaints come from all of the divisions, sections and units of the Sheriff's Department. As a result of this, Internal Affairs investigations can be assigned to various supervisors and managers throughout the Department. Therefore, the Administrative Commander is not the only manager or supervisor used to conduct internal affairs investigations in the Department. The assignment to conduct an internal affairs investigation can be based on current workload, severity, and assignment location. Grand Jury Recommendation 4 The internal affairs division should be expanded to a committee of Sheriff's department supervisory personnel. Response I disagree with the recommendation as the current system of case assignment is adequate. The Administrative Commander is assigned to Internal Affairs, overseen by an Assistant Sheriff who oversees the Sheriff's Administration Division. Internal Affairs is in itself not a division, but a section of the Administration Division. Citizen's complaints come from all of the divisions, sections and units of the Sheriff's Department. As a result of this, Internal Affairs investigations can be assigned to various supervisors and managers throughout the Department. Therefore, the Administrative Commander is not the only manager or supervisor used to conduct internal affairs investigations in the Department. The assignment to conduct an internal affairs investigation can be based on current workload, severity, and assignment location. Sincerely, Chris Jordan, Sheriff Coroner-Public Administrator OFFICE OF SHERIFF COUNTY OF KINGS P.O. BOX 986 HANFORD, CA 93232-0986 PHONE 559/582-3211 FAX 559/583-1553 CHRIS JORDAN SHERIFF-CORONER PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR June 16, 2010 Honorable Steven Barns, Superior Court Judge Kings County Government Center Hanford, California 93230 Dear Judge Barns, The following information is furnished in response to the 2009-2010 Grand Jury's Final Report of the Kings County Sheriff's Department. Area of Inquiry: Kings County Sheriff's K-9 Unit Grand Jury Finding 1: The Sheriff's Department K-9 Unit is budgeted for 5 animals and their handlers, but has only three in service at this time. Response: I agree with this finding. The Sheriff's Department currently has three canine units in service. Testing is currently underway to look at adding at least one more position at this time. Grand Jury Recommendation 1 It is recommended that the K-9 unit be brought up to full strength of 5 animals and handlers as soon as practical to do so. Response This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable at this time. Many factors must come into play to add additional dogs to the program besides just a number you are budgeted for. With the economic times we find ourselves in the Sheriff's Department has six (6) vacant and five (5) frozen deputy sheriff positions. This means we are a total of eleven (11) positions understaffed from the time that five (5) dogs were approved. One of the five canine positions was for the City of Avenal, which as of January 1, 2011 will not exist. Also, because of the forming of the Avenal Police Department we now find ourselves in a position to have to keep our vacancies open so we will be able to absorb the deputy positions currently working under the Avenal contract (13 positions). A canine unit is more specialized than a regular generalist patrol unit and as such is less flexible as to its assignment on patrol. When you are down eleven positions it is better to work with generalist as opposed to specializing your forces. Being a canine handler takes a special person adept to the discipline, physical and personality traits necessary to properly perform the tasks. It is my duty as Sheriff to find and select the most capable deputies. Not every deputy is cut out to perform canine duties and not all of them are eager to take these additional responsibilities on. Sometimes these skills need to be groomed before one hands out the keys to the car. To train a canine unit requires 200 hours of training or five weeks away from the county in the San Bernardino area. With our depleted manpower we would have to backfill the deputy in training with another deputy on overtime (time and a half). Sending staff to training for five weeks when you are so shorthanded and backfilling on an already overtaxed overtime budget is not being fiscally responsible. Another obstacle we will have to overcome deals with the company we purchase dogs from. The owner of Master Canine, Danny LeMaster, passed away unexpectedly recently and we are now researching as to where we will make our next canine purchases from. The safety of the deputies and the community is always held as upmost importance for all law enforcement managers. We continue to staff the three canine positions we have. These dogs are all available for call out on the one shift that doesn't staff a canine as part of its shift make-up. The canine program only exists in the department because Sheriff's have championed the cause and have solicited donations from generous private financial donors. Without this private funding this program would not exist. Not all law enforcement agencies in the County have the luxury of having a canine program and we are fortunate to have one. The only expense to the County General Fund is for the use of manpower and this important resource must be managed with upmost care. Sincerely, Chris Jordan, Sheriff Coroner-Public Administrator Stratford Public Utility District "This institution is an equal opportunity provider, and employer." Phone: 559-947-3037 Fax: 559-947-9312 P.O. Box 85 19681 Railroad Street Stratford, CA 93266 Monday-Friday 8 AM to 12 Noon COPY RECEIVED MAY 17 2010 May 12, 2010 Presiding Judge Superior Court of Kings County 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. Hanford, CA 93230 Subject: Grand Jury Final Report – Stratford Public Utility District Your Honor: The Board of Directors of the Stratford Public Utility District has reviewed the above referenced report and concurs with the findings and recommendations. The Board recognizes that agendas for meetings need to clearly indicate if action will be taken on specific items. Attached is an example of the current agenda format being used by the District. Respectfully Ronald Bales President Stratford Public Utility District FINAL RESPONSES PENDING 2009-2010 Avenal High School California State Prison — Corcoran First Five Hanford Cemetery District Jail, Kings County Water Issues FINAL RESPONSES FOR 2008-2009 Kings County Human Services Agency Peggy Montgomery, Director Employment Services Benefit Services Child Protective Services Adult Services Foster Home Services Family Preservation Services KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO 2008/2009 GRAND JURY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF CONTRACTS WITH KINGS COMMUNITY ACTION ORGAINIZATION (KCAO) June 18, 2009 Grand Jury's Finding 1 The KCAO is regularly investigated regarding fiscal matters but is not effectively investigated regarding program. Recommendation 1: The Human Services Agency should create an effective method to evaluate KCAO programs for which they are the contractor. Agency's Response 1: The Agency partially agrees with the recommendation in that the Agency currently does evaluate the KCAO programs so there is no need to create a method to evaluate. The Agency meets regularly with KCAO on its agreements to review actions in program and to monitor services as required. 1) Child Care: The Agency's child care liaison has regular (daily, weekly and monthly, as needed and dictated by programmatic issues) discussions with KCAO Resource and Referral staff to work out issues of direct services, resolve problems with hours of services or providers of care, and cooperatively develop solutions to problems in coordinating services between different child care components (i.e. changes between child care Stage 1, 2 and 3 vs. Head Start and Alternative Payment Programs.) 2) Cal Learn: The Agency meets quarterly with KCAO Cal Learn/AFLP staff to discuss any issues of reporting, services at the client level and problems that may be occurring in communication. Since there are a small number of Cal Learn cases, these cases are assigned to two experienced eligibility workers who provide ongoing contact with KCAO Cal Learn/AFLP case managers. The Agency will continue to evaluate the KCAO programs as described. Grand Jury's Finding 2: The 2008-2009 Kings County Grand Jury believes that the Grand Jury should have both programmatic and fiscal over sight of the contracted programs with Kings County. Recommendation 2: All Contracts between Kings County and KCAO should include a statement permitting Kings County Grand Jury programmatic oversight. Agency's Response 2: The Agency partially disagrees with the recommendation. The Agency agrees that the Grand Jury should have over sight of the contracted programs with Kings County but to include a statement stating that is unnecessary. All contracts are reviewed by Kings County Counsel and County Counsel advises the Agency what is necessary in the contracts. Human Services will continue to follow the directives of County Counsel regarding what is to be included in agency contracts. The County Counsel has advised the Human Services Agency Director that the Grand Jury already has jurisdiction to review the activities engaged in by Kings Community Action Organization on behalf of the County of Kings under contracts such as the Cal-Works contract. Therefore, it is not necessary or essential for the agency to include such wording in its contracts with Kings Community Action Organization. Grand Jury's Finding 3: Some contracts currently in force will expire on June 30, 2009. Recommendation 3: Timely consideration by County Counsel should be given to include wording which allows oversight by the Grand jury. Agency's Response 3: The Agency agrees with the recommendation. All contracts are submitted to County Counsel for review and approval. County Counsel reviews contracts as soon as possible and returns the contract to the Agency for Board approval. RECEIVED City of Avenal July 6, 2009 2009 JUL - 8 PM 1:40 TODD H. BARTON, CEO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KINGS 919 Skyline Blvd. Avenal, CA 93204 Phone (559) 386-5766 Fax (559) 386-0629 DEPUTY Honorable Judge George Orndoff, Presiding Judge Kings County Superior Court 1426 South Drive Hanford, CA 93210 RE: Response to 2008/09 Grand Jury "Finding & Recommendation" City of Avenal Dear Judge Orndoff: On behalf of the City of Avenal, I apologize for the late response, but due to a change in personnel earlier this year; the individual's misunderstanding of the Grand Jury Report; and, the need for a timely response, my office was not aware of the report until July 1, 2009 when a call was received from Ms. Carollyn Hartley, Kings County Grand Jury. The following is the City of Avenal's response to the "Finding and Recommendation" as per the 2008/09 Grand Jury Report: