Yolo cOuNT Y GRANd JuRYP

“The DESS “by exception” method of time keeping can engender fraud, either accidental or intentional.” The respondent agrees with the finding. The County’s current voluntary system of time tracking does not prevent misrepresentation of time reporting. While no system is 100% accurate, the County has reviewed software which would minimize the amount of discrepancy between actual time worked and time reported. Funding for this system is being investigated. There is no evidence to support that vacation and sick leave times were misrepresented. The Grand Jury was furnished with supporting documentation that explained the reporting procedures used when employees are on disability leave. Each pay period, employees earn leave time and are paid for that leave time. This is in accordance with County policies and procedures. The Grand Jury was provided with evidence that an Yolo County Response to 2009/2010 Grand Jury Final Report 56 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL SERvICES employee who was credited with working part-time, did in fact work part-time, based upon a modified duty release from the employee’s doctor.

“If properly used and managed, the new electronic time keeping system should help to reduce misuse of time reporting.” Auditor-Controller’s response sent under separate cover August 2, 2010: We agree with this finding. The Auditor-Controller has always advocated the use of time sheets with supervisorial approval as a countywide timekeeping method. This system reduces abuse and errors in time reporting. However, certain county departments have chosen the less burdensome method of reporting time by exception, which is more prone to abuse and errors. The electronic timekeeping system that the county was considering would help to reduce misuse of time. However, due to current severe budget constraints, this plan is on hold. As an alternative, the County Information Technology Department is developing and piloting an absence management program which may be useful to DESS.

“The arbitrary allowance of paid time for non-work related activities suggests favoritism and may be a misuse of public funds.” The respondent disagrees with the finding. There is no evidence that non-work-related activities were performed by non-exempt employees during paid time. Employees are entitled to perform purchasing activities during paid hours as long as purchases are work-related. While there is no evidence exempt employees took inordinately long lunch breaks, there is no restriction on the amount of time taken for lunch by an exempt employee. It is the acknowledged responsibility of department heads and managers to ensure that FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) exempt employees are performing their duties.

“The CAO and DESS have not enforced rules for the use of XTE, telecommuting, and cellular phone use.” The respondents disagree with the finding. For purposes of a response, it is assumed this finding relates to the County’s Extra Time Off (XTO) program. This program allows employees to schedule unpaid time off. There have been no reports or evidence of violations of County policies covering XTO, telecommuting or cellular phone use. The Department of Employment & Social Services (DESS) discontinued the use of the formal telecommuting program during the 2008/09 fiscal year. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) governs these issues and would prevent the partial-day deduction of an exempt employee’s wages. Requiring exempt employees to report hourly would be in violation of the FLSA. An exempt employee “telecommuting by cellular phone” would not be a violation of County policies and procedures for exempt employees so long as the employee is performing his or her required work. Yolo County Response to 2009/2010 Grand Jury Final Report 57 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL SERvICES

“HR did not exercise due diligence regarding the MQ for newly-hired or transferring DESS employees.” The respondents disagree with the finding. Human Resources (HR) is regularly audited by Merit System Services, a branch of the California Personnel Services Agency. Their audits have found no violations of the County’s hiring or transfer practices for the Department of Employment & Social Services (DESS). Auditor-Controller’s response sent under separate cover August 2, 2010: This finding pertains to an area outside of the purview and expertise of the Auditor-Controller. The County Human Resources Department is responding to this finding.

“Proposed employee layoffs do not include written criteria and input from all ELT and the employee supervisors.” The respondents agree with the finding. Budget decisions are the responsibility of the Director of the Department making recommendations to the County Administrator who then makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. These recommendations are used in making final budgetary determinations. Once the allocated positions are reduced in order to meet budgetary constraints, the Human Resources department implements layoffs based upon the written criteria outlined in bargaining unit contracts. Written criteria include a process for appeal; they do not include a process whereby a supervisor has any discretion or provides input as to which employees should be laid off. It is primarily by seniority in classification.

“Within the department, there is a perception of favoritism concerning job and client assignments.” The respondents agree that employee perceptions present ongoing management challenges. Supervisors have the authority to set employee workloads and assignments and due to employee layoffs, adjustments have been necessary. The County has a process in place for reporting disparate treatment. No reported problems have been brought to the attention of the Department. Workload and efficiency are areas of paramount interest and ongoing analysis and evaluation.

“At the time of the interviews, the policy regarding listing of at-will employees had not been followed.” The respondents disagree with the finding. All Department of Employment & Social Services (DESS) at-will positions were included in the Board-approved At-Will Resolution for all of 2009/10. There were no changes made during the period of layoff and there have been no changes for DESS classifications for the past three years. Yolo County Response to 2009/2010 Grand Jury Final Report 58 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL SERvICES

“DESS has not followed its written policy regarding employee performance evaluations.” The respondent disagrees with the finding. Please see the response to 10-15 for additional evidence that the Department of Employment & Social Services (DESS) policy for evaluations has in fact been substantially followed.

“Copies of the evaluations are not readily available to the employee.” The respondent disagrees with the finding. Copies of evaluations are readily available in each employee’s official personnel file in Human Resources. Employees are given copies of their evaluation and any employee who wishes an additional copy may contact Human Resources. Departments are not required to maintain a separate file with extra copies of evaluations. Human Resources reports there have been no requests for copies of evaluations which they were unable to grant. 10-9 “Follow proper procedures for recording XTE and XTO.” The recommendation has been implemented. County employees request and are subsequently granted a specified quantity of unpaid time off, i.e. XTO. The County has found no evidence of improper recording of XTO. XTO is recorded in the same manner as any other available leave. No errors in recording the use of this leave in the Department of Employment & Social Services have been identified to date. Should an error be discovered by either an employee or an auditor, the remedy will be to immediately rectify the employee record and adjust the employee work schedule accordingly. 10-10 “Conduct an audit regarding DESS use of XTE.” Auditor-Controller’s response sent under separate cover August 2, 2010: We agree with this recommendation and have added this audit task to the countywide payroll audit which is in progress and scheduled to be completed in September 2010. 10-11 “Stop allowing paid work time for non-work activities.” The recommendation has been implemented. Employees are allowed work-related purchase time and are not paid work time for non- work activities. 10-12 “Enforce the written rules for cellular phone use and telecommuting.” The recommendation will be implemented. Yolo County Response to 2009/2010 Grand Jury Final Report 59 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL SERvICES The Department of Employment & Social Services discontinued the use of the telecommuting program during the 2008/09 fiscal year. Auditor-Controller’s response sent under separate cover August 2, 2010: This recommendation pertains to an area outside of the purview and expertise of the Auditor- Controller. The County Administrator is responding to this recommendation. 10-13 “Enforce HR and BOS policy listing at-will employees.” The recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Supervisors will continue the review and publication of all at-will employee positions. 10-14 “Enforce MQ requirements listed in county job descriptions before approving the hiring of employees (whether new hires, transfers, or promotions). HR should not allow individual departments to make changes to the requirements without BOS approval.” The recommendation has been implemented. Human Resources (HR) strictly enforces adherence to the minimum qualifications (MQ) requirements of a classification for all new hires. Every two years, HR policies and procedures are audited by Merit System Services and there have been no adverse audit findings. Departments are not allowed to make changes to the MQ requirements of a classification. In the past, departments were able to approve transfer requests without the involvement of HR. That is no longer part of the promotion process. In reviewing incumbents in management positions at the Department of Employment & Social Services, there are no incumbents who did not meet the MQs at the time of appointment to their position whether from promotion or new hire. 10-15 “Conduct employee performance evaluations as required by County policy.” The recommendation has been implemented and the Department will strive for 100% compliance. Employee performance evaluations are conducted in accordance with County policy. A listing of the evaluations for Department of Employment & Social Services employees shows there are less than 1% of employee evaluations past due and no evaluations are more than one year past due. The County strives to have all evaluations delivered in a timely manner. Transfers and employee leaves can often delay delivery of evaluations. Evaluations are not part of the layoff process. The lack of an evaluation would have no bearing on a layoff, transfer, demotion or promotion. 10-16 “Perform a cost-benefit analysis regarding fraud amount exclusions and amend the MOU to establish policy.” The recommendation has been implemented. Yolo County Response to 2009/2010 Grand Jury Final Report 60 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT & SOC. SERv. • YOLO COUNTY JUvENILE DETENTION FACILITY • MONROE DETENTION CENTER For many years prior to 2009, the Department of Employment & Social Services (DESS) had funded a dedicated prosecutor within the District Attorney’s (DA) office that handled all welfare fraud cases regardless of the dollar amount of the loss. Since 2009, DESS has been unable to fund a dedicated welfare fraud prosecutor. As a result, all potential fraud cases are now referred to the general prosecution unit in the DA's office. Due to limited staff and resources, the DA set a loss threshold to limit the number of cases that actually resulted in prosecution. The threshold was set at an amount that was/is consistent with other District Attorney offices. On average, it takes approximately 15 hours to investigate an alleged fraud at an employee cost of $1,015. The average time it takes to review the case, file charges and prosecute can be as low as five hours or as high as 120 hours which would represent an employee cost of $9,900. These are strictly the costs of the main employee contact for investigating or prosecuting. It does not include supplies, overhead or support staff. Based on these expenses, the cost benefit analysis demonstrated that it is generally not reasonable to pursue lower-dollar-amount fraud cases. Currently the DA and the Director of DESS maintain the flexibility to address issues of fraud regardless of the dollar amount. The approach to date has been reasonable and has provided the maximum amount of flexibility. Yolo County Juvenile Detention Facility 10-23 “Provide mesh wash sacks to detainees so they may keep track of clothing originally allocated to them, and to give the detainee a sense of ownership and self respect.” The recommendation can not be implemented due to safety and resource concerns. (Note: separate response previously provided by F. Ray Simmons, Superintendent, Juvenile Detention Facility under separate cover dated August 3, 2010) While maintaining a sense of ownership of clothing is a legitimate concern for minor detainees, the recommendation is not practical in Yolo County largely due to the fact that the clothing of minors is laundered by jail inmates at the jail. The use of mesh sacks would not ensure the same clothing returns to the minors. Further, because all clothing has to be thoroughly searched upon return from the jail laundry facility, use of mesh wash sacks would significantly increase the time spent opening each individual bag to search and replace clothing. Monroe Detention Center 10-24 “The county should pursue additional federal and state funding for jail expansion to keep up with the county’s population growth.” This recommendation has been implemented and the County continues to pursue additional funding. In 2008, Yolo County applied for Assembly Bill 900 funding to expand the jail. $30 million was awarded contingent upon siting of a re-entry facility for those leaving state prison and returning to Yolo County. Ultimately, the siting agreement with the State was Yolo County Response to 2009/2010 Grand Jury Final Report 61 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY JUvENILE DETENTION FACILITY • MONROE DETENTION CENTER revoked due to considerable obstacles associated with the chosen site and the significant possibility that the County wouldn’t receive the awarded $30 million due to the State’s budget situation at the time. The County may continue to seek funding for a jail expansion, but at this time, budget constraints make it prohibitive to staff an expanded jail. The County’s current population and the recent decrease in criminal activity in the county do not support a near-term jail expansion. However, potential State budget actions which may increase the number of prisoners serving time at the local level will certainly require re-evaluation. 10-25 “To reduce recidivism the county should consider seeking partnerships to provide additional educational and training programs for inmates.” This recommendation has been implemented. Currently inmates are offered a variety of education and training programs intended to reduce recidivism, many through partnerships with other agencies. Most programs are funded through the Inmate Welfare Fund. The General Education Diploma program is offered to inmates in partnership with the Woodland Public Library’s literacy program. Inmates also have training opportunities in the kitchen and laundry and with the facility maintenance and landscape crews. Anger management and parenting programs are offered through an independent contractor. Drug and alcohol treatment is offered by the Yolo County Department of Alcohol, Drug & Mental Health as well as through Narcotics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous and various religious organizations. The Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Center provides domestic violence training. Lastly, through the jail medical program contract, relaxation therapy and administrative segregation socialization programs are provided to inmates. Further expansions of programs to reduce recidivism could be possible should additional resources become available. Yolo County Response to 2009/2010 Grand Jury Final Report 62 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERvICES County of Yolo HHOOWWAARRDDHH..NNEEWWEENNSS,, CCIIAA,,CCPPAA AUDITOR-CONTROLLER and TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR www.yolocounty.org AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR PO BOX 1268 PO BOX 1995 WOODLAND, CA 95776 WOODLAND, CA 95776 PHONE: (530) 666-8190 PHONE: (530) 666-8625 FAX: (530) 666-8215 FAX: (530) 666-8708 August 2, 2010 Honorable Janet Gaard Judge of the Yolo Superior Court 1100 Main Street, Suite 300 Woodland, CA 95695 Dear Judge Gaard: Response to the 2009-10 Grand Jury Final Report Regarding Yolo County Department of Employment & Social Services In its final report the 2009-10 Grand Jury has requested that the Yolo County Auditor- Controller respond to certain findings and recommendations pertaining to the Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services (DESS). Specifically, the Grand Jury requested responses to Findings F-2 and F-5 and Recommendation 10-12. We believe, and have informed the Foreman accordingly, that the request contains typographical errors and that we should respond to Finding F-2 and Recommendation 10-10. Finding F-2:If properly used and managed, the new electronic time keeping system should help to reduce misuse of time reporting. Auditor-Controller’s Response. We agree with this finding. The Auditor-Controller has always advocated the use of time sheets with supervisorial approval as a countywide timekeeping method. This system reduces abuse and errors in time reporting. However, certain county departments have chosen the less burdensome method of reporting time by exception, which is more prone to abuse and errors. The electronic timekeeping system that the county was considering would help to reduce misuse of time. However, due to current severe budget constraints, this plan is on hold. As an alternative, the County Information Technology Department is developing and piloting an absence management program which may be useful to DESS. ASSURANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY 63 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERvICES HHoonnoorraabblleeJJaanneettGGaaaarrdd HHoonnoorraabblleeJJaanneettGGaaaarrdd August 2, 2010 August 2, 2010 Finding F-5:HR did not exercise due diligence regarding the MQ for newly-hired or Finding F-5:HR did not exercise due diligence regarding the MQ for newly-hired or transferring DESS employees. transferring DESS employees. Auditor-Controller Response: This finding pertains to an area outside of the purview Auditor-Controller Response: This finding pertains to an area outside of the purview and expertise of the Auditor-Controller. The County Human Resources Department is and expertise of the Auditor-Controller. The County Human Resources Department is responding to this finding. responding to this finding. Recommendation 10-10:Conduct an audit regarding DESS use of XTE. Recommendation 10-10:Conduct an audit regarding DESS use of XTE. Auditor-Controller Response: We agree with this recommendation and have added Auditor-Controller Response: We agree with this recommendation and have added this audit task to the countywide payroll audit which is in progress and scheduled to be this audit task to the countywide payroll audit which is in progress and scheduled to be completed in September 2010. completed in September 2010. Recommendation 10-12:Enforce the written rules for cellular phone use and Recommendation 10-12:Enforce the written rules for cellular phone use and telecommuting. telecommuting. Auditor-Controller Response: This recommendation pertains to an area outside of the Auditor-Controller Response: This recommendation pertains to an area outside of the purview and expertise of the Auditor-Controller. The County Administrator is purview and expertise of the Auditor-Controller. The County Administrator is responding to this recommendation. responding to this recommendation. We appreciate the opportunity to provide responses to the Grand Jury Final Report. We appreciate the opportunity to provide responses to the Grand Jury Final Report. Sincerely, Sincerely, Howard Newens Howard Newens Auditor-Controller and Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector Treasurer-Tax Collector Cc: Members, Yolo County Board of Supervisors Cc: Members, Yolo County Board of Supervisors Patrick Blacklock, Yolo County Administrator Patrick Blacklock, Yolo County Administrator ASSURANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY ASSURANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY 64 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report Yolo CountY JuVenile detention FaCilitY 65 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY JUvENILE DETENTION FACILITY • MONROE DETENTION CENTER 66 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY JUvENILE DETENTION FACILITY • MONROE DETENTION CENTER 67 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report 68 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report First 5 Yolo 69 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report FIRST 5 YOLO 70 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report City of Woodland Fire department 71 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report CitY oF Woodland Fire departMent 72 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report CitY oF Woodland Fire departMent 73 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report CitY oF Woodland Fire departMent 74 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report CitY oF Woodland Fire departMent 75 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report CitY oF Woodland Fire departMent 76 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report CitY oF Woodland Fire departMent 77 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report 78 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report Washington unified School District 79 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report WASHINGTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 80 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report WASHINGTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WASHINGTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 81 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report WASHINGTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 82 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report WASHINGTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 83 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report WASHINGTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report WASHINGTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Received by the Yolo County Grand Jury on December 9, 2010 from Washington Unified School District. Addendum to response from September 9, 2010. Report issued June 30, 2010. ; full report on Yolo County Grand Jury Website. SINGLE PLAN FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT YOLO HIGH SCHOOL EVERGREEN ELEMENTARY EVERGREEN MIDDLE SCHOOL 57726945739552 57726940120220 57726940120238 CDS Code Date of this revision: May 20, 2010 The Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) is a plan of actions to raise the academic performance of all students to the level of performance goals established under the California Academic Performance Index. California Education Code sections 41507, 41572, and 64001 and the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) require each school to consolidate all school plans for programs funded through the School and Library Improvement Block Grant, the Pupil Retention Block Grant, the Consolidated Application, and NCLB Program Improvement into the Single Plan for Student Achievement. For additional information on school programs and how you may become involved locally, please contact the following person: Contact Person: J. Rachel Thoene Position: Principal Telephone Number: 916.375.7740 ext.1571 Address: 919 Westacre Road, West Sacramento, CA 95691 EmailAddress: rthoene@wusd.k12.ca.us Washington Unified School District The District Governing Board approved this revision of the School Plan on June 3, 2010 85 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report 86 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report Yolo County Housing authority 87 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 88 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 89 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 90 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 91 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 92 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report YOLO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 93 2010–2011 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT/APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2009–2010 Final report 94 22001100––22001111 YYOOLLOO CCOOUUNNTTYY GGRRAANNDD JJUURRYY FFIINNAALL RREEPPOORRTT//AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX:: RREESSPPOONNSSEESS TTOO TTHHEE 22001009––22001101 FFiinnaall rreeppoorrtt RESPONSES TO THE 2010–2011 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report 95 22001100––22001111 YYOOLLOO CCOOUUNNTTYY GGRRAANNDD JJUURRYY FFIINNAALL RREEPPOORRTT//AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX:: RREESSPPOONNSSEESS TTOO TTHHEE 22001009––22001101 FFiinnaall rreeppoorrtt 96 22001100––22001111 YYOOLLOO CCOOUUNNTTYY GGRRAANNDD JJUURRYY FFIINNAALL RREEPPOORRTT//AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX:: RREESSPPOONNSSEESS TTOO TTHHEE 22001009––22001101 FFiinnaall rreeppoorrtt Yolo County department of Employment and Social Services 97 22001100––22001111 YYOOLLOO CCOOUUNNTTYY GGRRAANNDD JJUURRYY FFIINNAALL RREEPPOORRTT//AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX:: RREESSPPOONNSSEESS TTOO TTHHEE 22001009––22001101 FFiinnaall rreeppoorrtt YOLO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERvICES 98 22001100––22001111 YYOOLLOO CCOOUUNNTTYY GGRRAANNDD JJUURRYY FFIINNAALL RREEPPOORRTT//AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX:: RREESSPPOONNSSEESS TTOO TTHHEE 22001009––22001101 FFiinnaall rreeppoorrtt YOLO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERvICES 99 22001100––22001111 YYOOLLOO CCOOUUNNTTYY GGRRAANNDD JJUURRYY FFIINNAALL RREEPPOORRTT//AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX:: RREESSPPOONNSSEESS TTOO TTHHEE 22001009––22001101 FFiinnaall rreeppoorrtt 100 22001100––22001111 YYOOLLOO CCOOUUNNTTYY GGRRAANNDD JJUURRYY FFIINNAALL RREEPPOORRTT//AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX:: RREESSPPOONNSSEESS TTOO TTHHEE 22001009––22001101 FFiinnaall rreeppoorrtt Yolo County Elections Office 101 22001100––22001111 YYOOLLOO CCOOUUNNTTYY GGRRAANNDD JJUURRYY FFIINNAALL RREEPPOORRTT//AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX:: RREESSPPOONNSSEESS TTOO TTHHEE 22001009––22001101 FFiinnaall rreeppoorrtt YOLO COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE 102 22001100––22001111 YYOOLLOO CCOOUUNNTTYY GGRRAANNDD JJUURRYY FFIINNAALL RREEPPOORRTT//AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX:: RREESSPPOONNSSEESS TTOO TTHHEE 22001009––22001101 FFiinnaall rreeppoorrtt 103