Score: 0
(0/2/0)
Ventura County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
Administration of Proposition 36 in Ventura County: a Review
⚠️ 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 39 findings
F01
Probation was designated Lead Agency for Prop 36 on March 7, 2006.
No recommendations for this finding
F02
Each year, counties are required to submit a plan to the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs by May 1 that describes the planning, delivery, and funding of services under Prop 36. The plan, proposed by Probation, was submitted to the State on May 1, 2006.
No recommendations for this finding
F03
The FY 2006-07 State funding for Prop 36, allocated at $2,855,244 with a projected rollover of $200,000, totaling $3,055,244 will be available on July 1, 2006.
No recommendations for this finding
F04
Probation has contracted through an annual Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with BHD/ADP for certain treatment, drug testing, and aftercare services. BHD/ADP, in conjunction and with input from Probation, is responsible for the selection of community-based treatment service providers.
No recommendations for this finding
F05
Probation and BHD/ADP staff will also seek input from the Prop 36 Oversight and Operations Committees and the County Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board regarding selection of service providers.
No recommendations for this finding
F06
All outpatient treatment providers will be required to seek approval for Drug Medi-Cal certification as a part of their contractual responsibilities in FY 2006-07.
No recommendations for this finding
F07
The BHD/ADP Central Assessment Center will be closed July, 2006; when a client is sentenced to Prop 36, they will report directly to the newly formed Quick Start Assessment Center (Quick Start) located in the Government Center’s Hall of Justice.
No recommendations for this finding
F08
The FY 2006-07 Plan provides for processing of treatment violations on clients under summary probation to be transferred from the Office of the District Attorney (DA) to Probation.
No recommendations for this finding
F09
A new protocol for processing treatment violations has been implemented for all cases, with the goal of moving information to the Court more quickly.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
A new computer system, intended to increase the efficiency of data sharing between Probation, the Court, and Providers, is being installed.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Approximately 45% to 50% of the clients assigned to Providers have some degree of psychological or psychiatric problem.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Of those drug offenders with psychological or psychiatric problems, only 25% receive appropriate treatment for those problems, none of which are funded through the Prop 36 program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02
Probation and BHD/ADP should jointly ensure that appropriate psychological and psychiatric treatments are available to Prop 36 clients. (C-06) Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-02) County Executive Officer (R-01, R-02) Health Care Agency (R-01, R-02) Probation Agency (R-01, R-02) (This page intentionally blank)
F13
Criminal justice officials often assert that the psychological or psychiatric conditions suffered by drug offenders are a consequence of drug abuse.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Drug treatment professionals assert that drug abuse is often a consequence of psychological or psychiatric conditions (contrary to the assertions indicated in
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The Prop 36 program has hired a Licensed Clinical Social Worker to assist in determining required care for clients. Implementation of the 2003-2004 Grand Jury Recommendations After quoting a recommendation from the report of the 2003 Grand Jury, the current status of that recommendation — as determined by the current Grand Jury — is presented.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
(R-01) The Board of Supervisors undertakes the reorganization of Prop 36 implementation within Ventura County in order to better accomplish the statutory mandates and scheme intended under Prop 36. --- Implementation of this recommendation is currently underway under the leadership of Probation.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
(R-02) The Board of Supervisors withdraws the Lead Agency designation from BHD/ADP and designates the County Executive Officer (CEO) as the Lead Agency for Prop 36 management and oversight functions. This recommendation was superceded by the 2004 Grand Jury recommendation that Probation be the lead.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
(R-03) Having assumed responsibility for leading Prop 36 treatment programs in the past, BHD/ADP may function as the County’s expert in recommending treatment methods and the standards of successful treatment program completion. This is now being done.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
(R-04) The County should address the issue of “unamenability,” as described in the statute and case law, with a view toward bringing the concept to bear in County Practice. This is a stated goal of Probation that is not yet attained.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
(R-05) In order to organize and provide actionable information to the probationary supervision, top priority should be given to implementing an integrated information system designed for that purpose. This is in progress. Complete implementation is expected early in FY 2006-07.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
(R-06) Probation develops a basic risk management system or protocol to look at key indicators of a client’s profile to determine the risk to society. The status of this recommendation is unknown.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
(R07) The immediate establishment of a meaningful treatment completion standard in accordance with the spirit and intent of Prop 36. The status of this recommendation is unknown.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
(R-08) The Operations and Oversight Committee be re-constituted as the representative body for all stakeholders. Little progress toward this recommendation has been observed.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
(R-09) The drug testing protocol should be tightened immediately. Drug testing has increased from one to three times per week.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
(R-10) Though, by policy, drug testing is to be used for treatment purposes, public safety concerns require that Probation continue to conduct drug testing. The need for this has been overcome by a new protocol.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
(R-11) A goal of early and positive supervision experience should be pursued to initially set the tone for Prop 36 treatment. The Quick-Start office has been established within the courthouse.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
(R-12) The Operations and Oversight Committee should institute thoughtful and allowable sanctions for offenders who fail in treatment, submit positive drug tests, or who miss treatment classes. This remains a goal. Implementation of the 2004-2005 Grand Jury Recommendations After quoting a recommendation from the report of the 2004 Grand Jury, the current status of that recommendation — as determined by the current Grand Jury — is presented.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
(R-01) Immediately remove BHD/ADP as Lead Agency of Prop 36. Contact the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to coordinate and emergency halt to the submitted County Plan. The County Plan has been changed to designate Probation as the Lead Agency and was submitted to the State on May 1, 2006.
No recommendations for this finding
F29
(R-02) Immediately designate Probation as the Lead Agency for Prop 36. Probation is now the Lead Agency.
No recommendations for this finding
F30
(R-03) Immediately disband the Prop 36 Oversight Committee and establish guidelines for the Operations Committee to operate in an organizational fashion and make decisions, with provisions to obtain approvals from department heads when necessary. The Oversight Committee still exists with a better defined purpose and function. Guidelines for the Operations Committee have yet to be developed.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
(R-04) Immediately initiate action to close the BHD/ADP Prop 36 CAC and free the funding and other resources for more direct treatment use. The CAC is being closed and replaced by the Quick Start office within the courthouse.
No recommendations for this finding
F32
(R-05) Formally request through the courts that all Prop 36 offenders be placed on formal probation. Because of a lack of sufficient resources to handle the case load that this recommendation would create, this is opposed by Probation. Reorganization of the Prop 36 program under Probation may make this unnecessary.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
(R-06) Allow Probation, as Lead Agency, to make arrangement for assessment and treatment referral at a location of their choosing, immediately after Court sentencing. This is now being done at the Quick Start office within the courthouse.
No recommendations for this finding
F34
(R-07) As the lead agency, allow Probation and treatment providers to determine, with input from the Operations Committee, the best delivery model for treatment services and required communications. BHD/ADP remains the treatment expert.
No recommendations for this finding
F35
(R-08) Move the addiction specialists from the CAC to the county-operated treatment centers and establish additional DMC reimbursed treatment capacity. The status of this recommendation is unknown.
No recommendations for this finding
F36
(R-09) Under Probation leadership, provide financial accountability and oversight of all Prop 36 funds. Bring funding allocation decisions back to the Operations Committee. This recommendation has been implemented.
No recommendations for this finding
F37
(R-10) Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin. The status of this recommendation is unknown.
No recommendations for this finding
F38
(R-11) Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro-bono basis. This problem became severe at the beginning of FY 2005-06, placing the providers at risk of fiscal crises and prompting the current Grand Jury investigation. However, it now appears that this problem is being resolved.
No recommendations for this finding
F39
(R-12) In the interest of cost, efficiency, and treatment delivery; BHD/ADP should not be encouraged or even allowed to participate in leadership of any future court-ordered treatment programs. BHD/ADP remains the treatment expert. Conclusions C-01. Many of the recommendations of the 2003 and 2004 Grand Juries have been adopted and implemented. (F-01, F-07, F-09, F-10, F-16, F-18, F-20, F-24,
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R01The Grand Jury requests feedback on progress towards completing those recommendations from prior reports that are still underway. (C-02)
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 6C-01. Many of the recommendations of the 2003 and 2004 Grand Juries have been adopted and implemented. (F-01, F-07, F-09, F-10, F-16, F-18, F-20, F-24, F-26, F-28, F-29, F-31, F-33, F-36, F-38) C-02. Other recommendations of the 2003 and 2004 Grand Juries are in the process of being implemented. (F-19, F-20, F-23, F-27, F-30) C-03. The status of still other recommendations of the 2003 and 2004 Grand Juries remains unknown. Since the Prop 36 program is undergoing a significant revision under Probation, the current Grand Jury chooses not to investigate further into those recommendations at this time. (F-01 through F-03, F-21, F-22, F-35, F-37 C-04. A more formalized and coordinated approach appears to be taking place. (F-04, F-05) C-05. With a new agency designated Lead Agency in May 2006 and a new County Prop 36 Plan taking effect July 1, 2006; the entire program will be in a period of transition well into the first quarter of FY 2006-2007. (F-01 through F-03) C-06. A lack of psychological and psychiatric treatment for drug offenders may reduce the effectiveness of the Prop 36 program. (F-11 through F-14)
Agency Responses 6
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Camarillo Health Care District
Special District
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office