Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
Continuity�The Beginning of the Never-ending ReportFollow-up on the 2008-2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
⚠️ 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 2 findings
F1
The implementation of Recommendation 5 to reinstate the School Resource Officer was delayed due to staffing and budgetary restrictions but no timeframe was provided for the reinstatement.
F2
The responses to Recommendations 9 and 12 indicated the District would conduct further analyses of the suggestions in the recommendations but there were no explanations, no descriptions of the scope and parameters of the analyses or studies, and no timeframes. Continuity…The Beginning of the Never-Ending Report ∫ 169 2008-2009 Recommendation Respondent 2008-2009 Response 5 SVUSD should work with the Scotts SVUSD SVPD Has not been Valley Police Department (SVPD) to implemented but will be reinstate the School Resource Officer to implemented in the future the high school campus when budgetary restrictions allow. All staff members who teach or counsel SVUSD Requires further analysis students regarding alcohol prevention should be part of the planning team that addresses prevention and intervention solutions. The many resources provided through county agencies should be available for use by staff. SVUSD should involve students in self- SVUSD Requires further analysis help strategies such as peer counseling and conflict resolution, as well as county-wide programs such as Friday Night Live and the Together for Youth collaborative. Current Recommendations
Recommendations 3
-
R1SVUSD and SVPD should provide the Grand Jury with an update on the status of reinstating a School Resource Officer to the high school campus.
-
R2SVUSD should provide the Grand Jury with status reports on the analyses associated with Recommendations 9 and 12. Section 2: For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card Synopsis Santa Cruz County departments rely on a centralized purchasing system to acquire almost $30 million in goods and services to sustain County functions. The processing of purchases costs the County in excess of $500,000 annually in administrative costs. These costs are allocated to individual departments based on the number of purchase orders processed for that department. Other purchasing options are available, including CAL-Card, a Visa card offered by U.S. Bank through a contract with the State of California. The Grand Jury investigated the benefits and drawbacks to using the CAL-Card system to encourage and maximize savings. Current Findings
-
R8were inconsistent, with PVUSD responding that the recommendation “Has Been Implemented” but without a description of the implementation, and the SCCOE responding that the recommendation “Has Not Yet Been Implemented But Will Be Implemented in the Future” without providing a timeframe for the implementation. 2008-2009 Recommendation Respondent 2008-2009 Response 8 PVUSD and the SCCOE should discuss PVUSD Has been implemented the SERP process and clarify the roles of SCCOE Has not yet been each agency prior to, during, and after implemented but will be implementation. implemented in the future Current Recommendation