⚠️ 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 5 findings
F1
In the Proposition 36 Court, the severity of drug addicted crimes and criminal sophistication are higher than projected by County planners.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Assess the factors related to Probation violations during participation in Proposition 36 and implement corrective measures. (Finding 1)
F2
When an individual is determined to be eligible under the terms and conditions of Proposition 36 there is a need for immediate assessment, treatment, follow-up and drug testing to begin.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
Continue efforts to increase treatment and provisions for expediting a timely assessment of the defendant to achieve immediate placement into treatment following sentencing. (Finding 2) 8
R3
Prepare a plan and implement action to increase testing and supervising of the participants under the terms and conditions of Proposition 36. (Finding 2).
F3
Crime rates in some Orange County Cities show increases since the inception of Proposition 36 that may be attributable to Proposition 36 or to other factors, such as economy downturns, and drug driven property crimes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Examine county and city arrest and incarceration records and statistical data of persons enrolled in Proposition 36 Court to determine the program’s effectiveness relative to reducing criminal involvement in serious crimes. (Finding 3).
F4
Funding is inadequate to support sufficient residential and intensive outpatient needs.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
County departments (Probation, District Attorney, Health Care Agency and Public Defender) involved with Proposition 36 are absorbing additional cost shortfalls not currently included in SACPA cost projections. Responses to Findings 1- 5 are required from the Board of Supervisors, the District Attorney, and the Sheriff-Coroner. Responses to Finding 3 are required from the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. Responses to Findings 1- 5 are requested from the County Executive Officer. Responses to Findings 1, 2, 4 & 5 are requested from the Orange County Public Defender, the Probation Department, and the Health Care Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Provide costs for current year (2002-2003) and projected cost for future years (two), for departments for beds and personnel to support Proposition 36. (Findings 4&5) Responses to Recommendations 1-5 are required from the Board of Supervisors; based upon
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R36received November 25, 2002. SACPA Progress Report by the SACPA/Proposition 36 Implementation Committee, for the period of July 1, 2001 through March 31,2002, released June 18, 2002. Item V of Minutes from OC Criminal Justice Coordinating council Meeting of September 20, 2002 4 Memorandum from OC Probation Department to OC Grand Jury re: Probation Department Needs, dated July 25, 2002. Superior Court of California County of Orange Commissioner for Proposition 36 Court, October 1, 2002. 9
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.