Child Protective Services

Recommendations 50

• R1
  water supplies. Health Specialists who, in addition to their pro- When contamination makes system water unsafe 01-02 fessional qualifications, have undergone a year of to drink, the Yolo County Health Department training specific to Yolo County in more than one should require operators of water systems to discipline. The Grand Jury was impressed with their provide bottled water to consumers within 24 knowledge and professionalism. hours. EH's ability to assure safe drinking water is impaired
• R2
  by inadequate staffing, which may be aggravated by RESPONDENTS the county's inability to match pay scales offered by Board of Supervisors (Recommendations 01-01 and neighboring counties. 01-02)
• R3
  Given the risk factors in Yolo County and seasonal Yolo County Health Department (Recommendation changes in the water table, EH cannot assure safe 01-02) drinking water without the cooperation of system operators, who are on site more frequently than field
• R4
  paper work and answer phones and still observe the wards in the monitors. (REVIEWS: Juvenile Hall- 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT assigned to the room and sitting at the desk to many professionals who come to observe how a modern, glancé up and observe the monitors. well-designed facility operates. Leinberger Center RESPONDENTS The Leinberger Center is primarily a working facility, Probation Department (Recommendation 01-41) designed to house sentenced inmates who work at various city, county, and state agencies to reduce their jail time.
• R6
  There was only one staff person on duty at the shelter 01-03 The county Department of Employment & Social at the time of his violation. Services should ask the Community Care Licens-
• R7
  The physical layout of the shelter was not sufficient ing division of the state Department of Social to separate residents by gender. Services to investigate the management and
• R8
  Because nightly monitoring of wards was not sched- supervision of the juvenile shelter for consid- uled randomly, residents had the opportunity for eration of continued licensing. inappropriate and illegal behavior. 01-04 The Yolo County Board of Supervisors should
• R9
  The Welfare & Institutions Code requires that county require the directors of the departments of Em- departments of probation and social services develop ployment & Social Services and Probation and joint treatment plans for Juvenile Court sentencing the Public Defender to jointly develop and en- determination. dorse a plan to bring the County into compli-
• R10
  The juvenile's case record did not include a coherent, ance with the Welfare & Institutions Code. unified treatment and sentencing plan as required by 01-05 A draft of any such plan should be submitted for law. review by the Family and Juvenile courts, the
• R11
  Private attorneys and public defenders have the legal Yolo County Family Law Bar Association, and right to examine any proposed treatment program the County Counsel prior to its codification. for their juvenile clients and have an obligation to determine whether treatment plans will benefit their (INVESTIGATIONS: Juvenile Shelter- 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 01-06 The juvenile shelter should increase night-moni- With such a broad subject to investigate, the Grand toring staff, reconfigure the facility to enable Jury narrowed its focus to the three areas we felt needed proper separation of wards by gender, and insti- the most attention:
• R14
  On election night, ballots arrive at the Elections the Elections Office to assemble election-day Office escorted by sheriff's deputies. Boxes of ballots materials, conduct vote counts, and store ballots are time-stamped and logged in on arrival. All ballot as required by law. handling and vote counting is done by at least two 01 - 39 The Elections Office should work to improve the people working together in public view. A continu- accuracy and timeliness of its communications ous video feed of the count can be viewed on election with city clerks. night on the Office's web site (www.yoloelections.org).
• R15
  To help its staff keep abreast of new laws, techno- RESPONDENTS logical advances, and general trends, the Elections Board of Supervisors (Recommendation 01-38) Office belongs to a state association of election Clerk-Recorder (Recommendation 01-39) officials and registrars. All staff attend a conference on new laws each year. The Office also belongs to
• R01-01
  The County should provide funding for full staf- CONCLUSIONS fing of EH sufficient to assure the safety of rural Yolo County employs well-qualified Environmental 1. water supplies. Health Specialists who, in addition to their pro- When contamination makes system water unsafe
• R01-02
  fessional qualifications, have undergone a year of to drink, the Yolo County Health Department training specific to Yolo County in more than one should require operators of water systems to discipline. The Grand Jury was impressed with their provide bottled water to consumers within 24 knowledge and professionalism. hours. EH's ability to assure safe drinking water is impaired 2. by inadequate staffing, which may be aggravated by RESPONDENTS the county's inability to match pay scales offered by Board of Supervisors (Recommendations 01-01 and neighboring counties. 01-02) 3. Given the risk factors in Yolo County and seasonal Yolo County Health Department (Recommendation changes in the water table, EH cannot assure safe 01-02) drinking water without the cooperation of system operators, who are on site more frequently than field METHODOLOGY inspectors can be. When a system is out of compli- ance, to the potential detriment of its consumers, EH Persons Interviewed must negotiate a difficult balance between securing Complainant cooperation by working with system operators and pursuing enforcement of the law when cooperation (INVESTIGATIONS: Small Public Water Systems- fails. 4. 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Former and current Environmental Health Specialists, children through one of two methods: demonstrating Yolo County change and appropriate behavior to CPS or complying District Representative, State Department of Housing with remedies that are ordered by a judge under the and Community Development Welfare & Institutions Code. Director, Yolo County Environmental Health FINDINGS Director, Yolo County Health Department Health Officer, Yolo County The complainant failed to meet court-ordered reme- 1. Member, Yolo County Board of Supervisors dies. Chief of Public Health Laboratory Services, Yolo 2. The court granted the complainant three extensions County to comply with court-ordered remedies. The court's orders included the complainant's attend- Documents Examined 3. ing a drug diversion program and parenting training Complainant's file at Yolo County Environmental meetings. Health Relevant sections of the Health and Safety Code CONCLUSIONS Delegation Agreement between California Department of Health Services and Yolo County The Grand Jury found no evidence to support the 1. complainant's allegations of wrongdoing by CPS or Lab results from water samples the staff member identified by the complainant. Wells Sampled 2. CPS is in compliance with court orders, including To assess the efficacy of current regulations, the Grand protective custody. Jury oversaw the testing of water from five Small Public The Court made reasonable efforts, while protecting 3. Water Systems, including the complainant's, operating and providing for the children, to accommodate the under permit in different parts of Yolo County. One complainant. sample, the complainant's, tested positive for bacterial contamination. When that system was later retested, again METHODOLOGY at the request and under the oversight of the Grand Jury, it tested negative. System operators were not charged for Persons Interviewed the cost of Grand Jury tests. Social Work Practitioner, Yolo County Department of Employment & Social Services Documents Examined Child Protective Services Official case file Welfare & Institutions Code Section 300 et seq. REASON FOR REVIEW In response to a citizen's complaint alleging wrong- Juvenile Shelter doing by a member of the Child Protective Services (CPS) division of the Yolo County Department of Employment & Social Services, the Grand Jury investigated the han- REASON FOR REVIEW dling of the complainant's case. The Grand Jury did not In response to a complaint alleging negligent ward do a full investigation of CPS. supervision at a Woodland juvenile shelter, the Grand Jury investigated conditions at the shelter. The complaint BACKGROUND also alleged that the court's response to a crime that Under the Welfare & Institutions Code, CPS is respon- occurred at the shelter was incorrect because insufficient sible for the safety and welfare of children whose parents information was presented by county agencies. or guardians are unable or unwilling to provide adequate care. CPS takes custody of children referred to the courts by mandated reporters, or in response to reports by (INVESTIGATIONS: Juvenile Shelter- 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT BACKGROUND clients. The state Department of Social Services' division of 12. According to the Public Defender, the absence of a Community Care Licensing establishes and licenses group treatment plan reduced his ability to fully represent homes and shelters, as well as family homes, to house the juvenile's best interests. juveniles who are victims of, or at risk for, physical and 13. According to Superior Court judges interviewed, many juvenile offenses are directly related to family psychological abuse, parental neglect, and abandonment. The Child Protective Services (CPS) division of the dysfunction and Family Court cases. Yolo County Department of Employment & Social Ser- 14. Superior Court judges we interviewed say the Yolo County Family and Juvenile courts have an informal vices investigates local cases of child endangerment and cooperative relationship that is not currently official petitions the court for custody of children when war- ranted. CPS has no jurisdiction over the shelter, but it policy. may and does place children there. CONCLUSIONS FINDINGS CPS was right to remove the child from his parents' 1. 1. A juvenile was brought to the attention of CPS home. because of suspected child endangerment. 2. Our investigation substantiated the allegations that 2. CPS investigated the case and found probable cause ward supervision and conditions allowed for juvenile to remove the juvenile from his family's home. misbehavior. After a court hearing, CPS placed the juvenile in a 3. Ward supervision and conditions at the shelter may 3. local juvenile shelter. have contributed to the juvenile's crime and subse- 4. While in custody of the shelter, the juvenile was quent incarceration. accused of contributing to the delinquency of a minor 4. Since Yolo County does not have an adequate written and was placed in Yolo County Juvenile Hall. policy for treatment and sentencing plans, the de- 5. Following a Welfare & Institutions Code hearing at partments of Probation and Employment & Social which the child was represented by the Yolo County Services are out of compliance with the Welfare & Public Defender, the child was declared a ward of Institutions Code. the Court and placed in a California Youth Authority facility. RECOMMENDATIONS 6. There was only one staff person on duty at the shelter
• R01-03
  The county Department of Employment & Social at the time of his violation. Services should ask the Community Care Licens- 7. The physical layout of the shelter was not sufficient ing division of the state Department of Social to separate residents by gender. Services to investigate the management and 8. Because nightly monitoring of wards was not sched- supervision of the juvenile shelter for consid- uled randomly, residents had the opportunity for eration of continued licensing. inappropriate and illegal behavior.
• R01-04
  The Yolo County Board of Supervisors should 9. The Welfare & Institutions Code requires that county require the directors of the departments of Em- departments of probation and social services develop ployment & Social Services and Probation and joint treatment plans for Juvenile Court sentencing the Public Defender to jointly develop and en- determination. dorse a plan to bring the County into compli- 10. The juvenile's case record did not include a coherent, ance with the Welfare & Institutions Code. unified treatment and sentencing plan as required by
• R01-05
  A draft of any such plan should be submitted for law. review by the Family and Juvenile courts, the 11. Private attorneys and public defenders have the legal Yolo County Family Law Bar Association, and right to examine any proposed treatment program the County Counsel prior to its codification. for their juvenile clients and have an obligation to determine whether treatment plans will benefit their (INVESTIGATIONS: Juvenile Shelter- 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• R01-06
  The juvenile shelter should increase night-moni- With such a broad subject to investigate, the Grand toring staff, reconfigure the facility to enable Jury narrowed its focus to the three areas we felt needed proper separation of wards by gender, and insti- the most attention:
• R01-07
  The assistant county administrative officer (CPO), to assist the CPO in developing and maintaining county counsel, and the auditor-controller should revisions to the County Code and Administrative meet at least quarterly to assess the county's pro- Policy Manual, stand-alone software for procure- curement system. ment, a county procurement manual, and basic
• R01-08
  The Board of Supervisors should reconsider the and advanced procurement training for relevant amendment to the Administrative Policy Manual county personnel. that allows the CAO to approve $10,000-$25,000 service contracts. The CPO is clearly the pur- Policies and Procedures chasing professional within the county as pre-
• R01-09
  A county procurement manual should be assem- with this office noted. Minimum qualifications bled from all relevant materials derived from the need to be established. County Code and the Administrative Policy Man- 01 - 16 No departments or executive agencies should be ual. A desktop guide and/or computer-generated exempt from the established procurement system. assistance program would be beneficial both for All authority should be vested to the CPO and reference and for training. so noted in the County Code. The County Code needs a section detailing a code
• R01-10
  01-17 The County Code should specifically address the of ethical conduct by all county administrative delegation of authority by the CPO and the poli- employees, with language on how to recognize cies and procedures to which those with procure- conflict of interest in all county matters, includ- ment authority must adhere. ing procurement. A similar reference should be 01 - 18 All changes to the County Code or Administrative included prohibiting county employees from Policy Manual should have the advice and con- accepting gifts and gratuities beyond a reasonable sent of the auditor-controller, CPO, and county value. counsel. The Board of Supervisors should con-
• R01-11
  Stand-alone procurement software should be sider and approve all changes. developed separate from the current General Competitive Processes in Acquiring Goods and Ledger system, especially in the vendor listing Services and updating functions. Alternatively, the county
• R01-12
  The duties of the CPO should include partici- curement. Although we understand the database we pating in the planning and budgeting process, and investigated is used for more purposes than procure- be so noted in the County Code. ment alone, it was apparent that newer technologies 01 - 13 The Grand Jury wholeheartedly encourages and need to be considered. supports the participation of our administrative personnel in professional groups or associations RECOMMENDATIONS that will assist them in advancing Yolo County's General procurement system.
• R01-14
  An additional staff person should be considered
• R01-15
  The duties and responsibilities of the assistant scribed by the State Code. As such, the CPO county administrative officer should be clearly should have responsibility for all purchasing delineated within the County Code, and the inte- matters put before the Board of Supervisors. gration of the purchasing agent's responsibilities
• R01-19
  The County Code should be updated with specific could establish a procurement system which language on competitive bidding procedures. operates as part of an integrated financial network based on the needs of the relevant administrative (INVESTIGATIONS: Yolo County Procurement- 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Current economic conditions should be taken into planning and payment schedules before any pur- consideration in establishing purchasing thresh- chase order or contract is submitted to the Board holds. Sealed bids should be mandated for all of Supervisors. All policies and procedures purchases and contracts over $10,000. should emphasize the importance of including the auditor-controller's office in the earliest phases
• R01-20
  The administration of the bidding and award of planning for any large purchases of goods or process (public notice, time periods, bid opening, services. This will help ensure Yolo County's identical low bids, adequate competition levels, appeals process, non-collusion affidavits, confi- long-term economic welfare. dentiality, use of multiple vendors, etc.) needs to
• R01-21
  amount. The CPO or designee should be respon- waived should be defined in the County Code sible for enforcing the standards to ensure that and subject to approval by the Board of Super- the county is receiving the best value for its visors. Similarly, the CPO's authority to approve purchase. All purchase orders or contracts should or recommend a quote or bid which, based on include penalties for non-compliance. quality or service issues, may not be the lowest The County Code should include all relevant
• R01-22
  The County Code should prescribe progressive
• R01-23
  Procurement Training Issues appropriate guidelines for payment criteria and
• R01-24
  those who are new or have minimum procure- procurement manuals or guides should include ment responsibilities and advanced training for policies and procedures which specifically ad- those intimately involved in procurement. dress standard contracts, short-term contracts,
• R01-25
  of rapidly changing economic conditions, it may counsel, risk management, auditor-controller, information technology, human resources, etc.) be prudent to encourage long-term contracting, should assist in developing and implementing especially in areas such as health care and main- procurement training programs. tenance. The Board of Supervisors should adopt The County Code should be amended to define a reasonable contracting term limit which allows
• R01-26
  (INVESTIGATIONS: Yolo County Procurement- in all procurement matters and approve budgetary 2000-2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RESPONDENTS the city is in the process of revamping the department. Board of Supervisors (all recommendations) For that reason, the Grand Jury decided it could more County Administrative Office (all recommendations) profitably use its time assessing the reforms now being Auditor-Controller (all recommendations) instituted than investigating past practices, however County Counsel (Recommendations 01-07, 01-10, 01- egregious. 18, 01-26, 01-29 through 01-34) BACKGROUND YCPARMIA (Recommendation 01-28) The efforts to overhaul the building division began in METHODOLOGY 1999 when Woodland's newly appointed city manager Persons Interviewed hired a new director for the CDD. At their urging, the County Administrative Officer City of Woodland hired a consultant to perform an audit Assistant County Administrative Officer (CPO) of the building division, which issues building permits, Auditor-Controller enforces building codes, and inspects buildings. The audit County Counsel identified these deficiencies: Director, General Services
• R01-27
  The County Code should specify standards (in- be clearly defined in the County Code and the cluding inspection and testing) for goods or Administrative Policy Manual. services that cost more than a predetermined Circumstances under which competition can be
• R01-28
  bid, needs to be noted in the County Code. The insurance requirements for vendors and service conditions and reporting structure to the Board providers. The Risk Management department of Supervisors need to be defined as well. should help draft this addition. The local-vendor preference of 3 percent should
• R01-29
  be removed from the County Code to assure fair disciplinary measures for vendors or county em- play and to maximize efficiency of tax dollars ployees who intentionally violate the county's spent. policies and procedures. The CPO and auditor-controller should include
• R01-30
  The county should establish an ongoing training price negotiations in the Administrative Policy program for all essential personnel that annually Manual and any future procurement manuals or reviews policies and procedures, laws, and codes. software. The program should provide basic training for
• R01-31
  The Administrative Policy Manual and any future
• R01-32
  Training manuals and/or software should be an rental or lease contracts, multi-year contracts, and integral part of the training program. option contracts. All multi-year or option con- The CPO should be responsible for developing tracts should require approval of the Board of
• R01-33
  and overseeing procurement training programs. Supervisors. All relevant administrative departments (county To promote stability and efficiency in a climate
• R01-34
  procurement training programs as the responsi- the CPO maximum flexibility in obtaining the bility of the CPO. best overall value. The auditor-controller's office should participate
• R01-35
  The City of Woodland should continue imple- services and consultants. menting the MAPCDD remedies promised the Construction Inspection 2000-2001 Grand Jury. By December 31, 2001, the Building Inspection Services
• R01-36
  The City of Woodland should, in its next budget, will be functioning in a businesslike fashion. allocate the needed funds identified in the In October 2000 a contract Building Official possessing MAPCDD. current and appropriate certifications was hired. On November
• R01-37
  The 2001-2002 Grand Jury should review the 28, 2000, the Supervising Building Inspector, who did not have operations of the CDD to determine if the current skills and certifications, retired, and the position was promised remedies have been implemented and eliminated. The Consultant Building Official is currently review- ing all records, systems and is developing new procedures to if the department is functioning professionally maximize inspection time and workload. [The City Manager] and consistently. will recommend in the FY2001/2002 budget that a qualified Building Official position be authorized as permanent staff or RESPONDENTS that a contract position be maintained depending on construc- Woodland City Manager (Recommendation 01-35) tion activity. This effort is demonstrating a professional and Woodland City Council (Recommendations 01-35 and fresh perspective to the building division and is eliminating 01-36) outdated and poor past practices. Current construction slow-down, staff turnover and imple- METHODOLOGY mentation of new policies and procedures are creating new opportunities of improvement. Persons Interviewed Complainants Building Division Policy/Procedures The Building Division has lacked standard written policies City Manager, City of Woodland and procedures. The City contract building official ... has been Director of Community Development, City of reviewing examples of manuals from comparative cities and Woodland has been crafting a draft manual for staff review. The prelim- inary draft manual will be available for distribution at the January 23 [2001] City Council meeting. The Policies and Procedures Manual will be implemented and personnel will (INVESTIGATIONS: Woodland Community Development Department- be trained by April 1, 2001. 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT FINDINGS Documents Examined To increase enfranchisement, California law encour- "Management and Action Plan to Improve the 1. Department of Community Development ages people to register to vote when they apply for (Building Division) of the City of Woodland," or renew a driver's license. dated January 22, 2001. 2. California law allows for provisional voting: voters "Management Assessment of Building Inspection who, on arriving at their polling place, find their Services, City of Woodland, California: Final names are not on the rolls may vote provided they Report" meet certain criteria. Their sealed ballots are segre- Complainants' files gated from the ballots of registered voters whose names do appear on the rolls, and they are counted only if the Elections Office determines that the voters Yolo County Elections were in fact eligible to vote. To reduce the likelihood of fraudulent voting, the 3. Elections Office compares absentee and provisional REASON FOR REVIEW voters' signatures with scanned images of the signa- The Grand Jury reviewed the Elections Office to tures on their registration cards, as required by state determine whether Yolo County elections are conducted law. fairly and accurately, focusing on how, if at all, Yolo The Elections Office must adhere to the strict pro- 4. County is protected from the kinds of mistakes and cedures of the federal Voting Rights Act before problems seen in Florida in the November 2000 election. removing a voter from the rolls. California law requires counties to notify each other when voters BACKGROUND move, but there is no federal law that requires this The Elections Office is responsible, under state and kind of notification between states. federal election laws, for registering voters, selecting the During a 30-day canvass period following each 5. equipment and ballots used in elections, finding polling election, the Elections Office performs a hand count places, recruiting and training pollworkers, counting of random samples of ballots, following a formula votes, and reporting results to the public. The office is dictated by state law, to verify the accuracy of the directed by the Clerk-Recorder, assisted by a deputy clerk election-night machine count. The canvass period is recorder and six full-time election workers. In the days also when the legitimacy of provisional votes and before and after elections, when more people are needed, absentee votes not counted on election night is part-time workers swell the staff of the office. verified and those ballots are counted. The city clerks in Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, Yolo County uses the Datavote voting machine, 6. and Woodland work closely with the Elections Office which uses a staple-like tool to punch holes through year-round and share responsibility for elections in their ballots, leaving no partially punched holes. cities. 7. Ballots are imprinted with each issue and candidate, Some statistics may help illustrate the scope of the eliminating the confusion that occurs in counties that Elections Office's job. In November 2000, 83,385 people print only reference numbers on their ballots. had registered to vote in Yolo County. Of that number, 8. Because the Datavote punches cleanly and because 61,950, or 74.2 percent of registered voters, voted in the Yolo County uses ballots that identify candidates and November 2000 election, and 15,668, or 18.7 percent of propositions, voters can clearly see how they voted them, voted by absentee ballot. To prepare for that elec- when they remove their ballots from the machine. tion, 64,355 ballots were printed. Between elections, voting machines are stored by 9. Most of the Elections Office budget comes from the Sequoia Printing Company, which cleans and inspects county general fund, supplemented by reimbursement the machines and certifies that they are functioning from the state for certain state-mandated costs and reim- bursement from municipalities and districts for the costs (INVESTIGATIONS: Yolo County Elections- of their elections. 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT its Datavote machines with newer, more techno- properly before each election. logically advanced equipment. Since research and 10. Converting to touchscreen voting would cost Yolo development of new technologies is underway, it County at least $3 million, and there are unresolved makes sense to wait until there are more and better concerns about the security and practicality of this choices available. technology. Given the long workday, increasing pay for poll- 3. 11. Finding a sufficient number of polling places is a workers is probably not in itself a solution to the chronic problem, particularly for countywide elec- shortage of volunteers. tions in which turnout is expected to be high. The Grand Jury is impressed with the extensive 12. Recruiting a sufficient number of pollworkers is a 4. continuing education Yolo County provides for its chronic problem. State law requires three pollworkers Elections staff. present at all times at each site, so the county assigns four workers per site to allow for the breaks workers Although instances of human error are unavoidable, 5. will need during a workday that can exceed 15 hours. the Grand Jury believes the Elections Office is assid- uous in its efforts to ensure fair, accurate elections 13. Current pay for pollworkers ranges from $60 to $75 in Yolo County. per election, depending on the level of responsibility they undertake. Pollworkers are also paid $10 for attending a training class prior to the election, and RECOMMENDATIONS they may be reimbursed for their mileage.
• R01-38
  The county should provide adequate space for 14. On election night, ballots arrive at the Elections the Elections Office to assemble election-day Office escorted by sheriff's deputies. Boxes of ballots materials, conduct vote counts, and store ballots are time-stamped and logged in on arrival. All ballot as required by law. handling and vote counting is done by at least two 01 - 39 The Elections Office should work to improve the people working together in public view. A continu- accuracy and timeliness of its communications ous video feed of the count can be viewed on election with city clerks. night on the Office's web site (www.yoloelections.org). 15. To help its staff keep abreast of new laws, techno- RESPONDENTS logical advances, and general trends, the Elections Board of Supervisors (Recommendation 01-38) Office belongs to a state association of election Clerk-Recorder (Recommendation 01-39) officials and registrars. All staff attend a conference on new laws each year. The Office also belongs to METHODOLOGY a national organization that sponsors university class- The Grand Jury witnessed demonstrations of signature es that allow election officials to become certified. verification. 16. City clerks in Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and Persons Interviewed Woodland are in frequent contact with each other Clerk-Recorder and have good working relationships with Elections Deputy Clerk-Recorder Office staff, although they complain about sometimes City Clerk, Davis receiving incomplete or inaccurate information from City Clerk, West Sacramento the Office. Longtime temporary elections worker Storage and work space is inadequate. Former candidate for the office of Clerk-Recorder 18. According to Elections Office staff, their funding is Chair, Yolo County Democratic Central Committee sufficient. CONCLUSIONS Yolo County's Datavote system is accurate and reli- 1. able. (INVESTIGATIONS: Yolo County Elections- 2000-2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Documents Examined "Statement of Votes Cast: Presidential General Election, November 7, 2000," Yolo County Office of Elections, November 16, 2000. "Touch screen voting unneeded," by Tony Bernhard, Davis Enterprise, March 25, 2001. "Flawed balloting: Lawsuits put pressure on election reform," editorial, Sacramento Bee, April 20, 2001. . 2000-2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Reviews Juvenile Hall REASON FOR REVIEW 5. Juvenile Hall has added two Senior Child Care The 1999-2000 Grand Jury recommended that the Workers to its classification system. 2000-2001 Grand Jury revisit the Yolo County Juvenile 6. In November 2000 Yolo County detention officers Hall to determine how well it was functioning after received an 11.2 percent pay increase and, in June initiating some of the changes recommended by last 2001 safety retirement, retirement benefits for peace year's Grand Jury. officers that previously were not available to officers who work at Juvenile Hall. Detention officers will BACKGROUND be vested in the retirement plan after five years; On August 3, 2000, members of the Grand Jury toured supervisors will be vested after two years. the Juvenile Hall facility at 238 West Beamer Street in 7. As of November 2000, there was a staff turnover Woodland. Under the authority of California Juvenile rate of 44 percent and a vacancy of 8 out of 18 Court Law, Juvenile Hall helps protect the public from positions (44 percent). the delinquent acts of minors by providing for their safe and secure reception and temporary care. CONCLUSIONS The original facility was built in the 1960s and ex- With some exceptions, the physical problems (short- 1. panded in 1976-1977 to a facility with a rated capacity term needs) of the Juvenile Hall appear improved. It of 30. It is not unusual, however, for the facility to house is difficult to recommend major physical corrections more than 40 juveniles. The director predicts that con- to the present facility. Such items as walk-through struction of the new Juvenile Hall will begin in April metal detectors and additional video cameras are 2002 and be completed by June 2003. needed, but the expenditure does not seem warranted In its report, the 1999–2000 Grand Jury recommended in an obsolete and soon-to-be-abandoned facility. a number of short-term remedies for the problems it It is too soon to judge whether increased salaries 2. identified at Juvenile Hall: nonfunctioning security moni- and safety retirement will provide enough impetus tors, insufficient surveillance cameras, and no metal to remedy the serious understaffing we found at the detector at the entrance to the facility. The Grand Jury Hall. Yolo County is facing stiff competition in hiring also recommended increased salaries and benefits for the and retaining competent personnel to staff its Juve- corrections officers who work there. nile Hall. To this end the administrators in the Proba- tion Department, the Department of Human Re- FINDINGS sources, and the Board of Supervisors appear to be 1. There is often no one available to use the wand to trying to do their best. scan visitors entering the Juvenile Hall. RECOMMENDATIONS 2. The surveillance cameras have been repositioned and
• R01-40
  The 2001-2002 Grand Jury should review the are working. Juvenile Hall to determine if the promising reme- The design of the control room is such that the person 3. dies are working. working there must sit facing away from the moni- tors.
• R01-41
  In the control room, at the very least, mirrors should be installed that would allow the person It is impossible for the control room person to do 4. paper work and answer phones and still observe the wards in the monitors. (REVIEWS: Juvenile Hall- 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT assigned to the room and sitting at the desk to many professionals who come to observe how a modern, glancé up and observe the monitors. well-designed facility operates. Leinberger Center RESPONDENTS The Leinberger Center is primarily a working facility, Probation Department (Recommendation 01-41) designed to house sentenced inmates who work at various city, county, and state agencies to reduce their jail time. METHODOLOGY The 15,150-square-foot facility houses inmates dormi- Persons Interviewed tory-style. Rated to house 112 male and 30 female Chief Probation Officer inmates, the center acts as an overflow facility for Monroe Juvenile Hall Director Center. Potential inmates are strictly screened for transfer Assistant County Administrative Officer, Human to the lower-security facility. In addition to work oppor- Resources tunities, inmates may participate in programs similar to the ones available at Monroe. Yolo County Jails The Leinberger Center administrative offices house the Sheriff's Work Program, which offers alternatives to incarceration. Two programs are currently being offered: REASON FOR REVIEW Sheriff's Working Inmate Program and Electronic Sur- The state Penal Code instructs grand juries to inquire veillance. During the 1999-2000 fiscal year, there were into the condition and management of public prisons 268 Electronic Surveillance participants who spent 8,964 within their county. Yearly the Yolo County Grand Jury days out of jail. has reviewed the Monroe Detention Center and the Walter J. Leinberger Memorial Minimum Security Detention FINDINGS Facility. In the absence of complaints or obvious prob- The Yolo County detention facilities are understaffed. 1. lems, the review has historically consisted of a one-day Peace Officers Standard Training review showed that overview. This is the procedure the 2000-2001 Grand the Monroe facility was short 30-32 staff. Jury followed. 2. Because it is difficult to recruit and train a large number of new officers at one time, recruitment and BACKGROUND hiring is an ongoing process. Monroe Detention Center As of June 2000, annual overtime expenditures 3. The Monroe Detention Center is the main jail for Yolo required to keep the facility fully manned were County. This 12-year-old, 93,000-square-foot facility is $832,067. able to house 313 inmates of virtually every security 4. Those overtime expenditures would more than cover classification. All controls and instrumentation are fully the cost of hiring 12 new corrections officers. electronic, and Monroe is described as a "new generation" or direct-supervision jail. When the inmates are out of Turnover is low; the Sheriff's Department has lost 5. their cells, they have unlimited access to indoor and only seven deputies in the last three years. outdoor exercise and recreation equipment, including CONCLUSIONS television, table games, and basketball. Educational op- The Grand Jury found safe, clean facilities staffed 1. portunities abound: GED tutoring, literacy, parenting, by well-trained correctional officers who take pride alcohol and drug counseling, anger management, HIV in their profession and the job they are performing. counseling, computer education, and women's support. The equipment and educational programs are purchased RECOMMENDATIONS with funds generated when the inmates purchase items
• R01-42
  Yolo County should keep hiring until the Monroe from the inmate commissary store or use the telephone. and Leinberger detention centers are fully staffed. The Sheriff reports that Monroe Detention center is one of a few county jails in California operating without a law suit. It is considered a "showcase" facility, drawing (REVIEWS: Yolo County Jails- 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RESPONDENTS quarantined animals, and dogs not eligible for adoption. Yolo County Board of Supervisors During "cat season," when cats are breeding, the cat room quickly reaches capacity. There is also a barn on site, as METHODOLOGY well as trailers and storage areas. The Grand Jury conducted a daylong tour and review Most of the shelter's operating costs are paid by cities of the facilities, including a seminar by Sheriff Ed Prieto. within the county that use Animal Control services, Documents Examined supplemented by pet-licensing fees (raised in 2000 for Annual Report 1999-2000 Sheriff Coroner the first time since 1989) and donations, including pallets full of pet food given by various stores within the county. Yolo County Animal Shelter Yolo County Coroner's Office and Morgue REASON FOR REVIEW As part of its mandated annual review of the Sher- iff's Department, the Grand Jury inspected the Yolo REASON FOR REVIEW County Animal Shelter. As part of its mandated annual review of the Sheriff's Department, the Grand Jury inquired into the operations BACKGROUND of the Yolo County Coroner's Office and Morgue. The Yolo County Grand Jury toured the Animal Shel- ter on August 8, 2000. Part of the Administrative and BACKGROUND Special Services Division of the Sheriff's Department, A division of the Yolo County Sheriff's Department, the shelter has the capacity to hold 100 dogs and 75 cats. the Coroner's Office investigates sudden, violent, or In addition to domestic animals, the shelter can (and at unusual deaths to determine their cause. The office also times does) house exotic animals, livestock, and wildlife. is responsible for positively identifying any corpse; The Animal Shelter employs one manager, one supervisor, generally this is done through fingerprints and dental nine animal control officers, and one kennel technician. records. Inmates of the Walter L. Leinberger center help construct, clean, and maintain the cages. FINDINGS Upon entering the shelter, animals are vaccinated and The number of homicides, suspicious deaths, and observed to ensure that only healthy animals will be suicides in the county is increasing. The Coroner's offered for adoption. The Yolo County Animal Shelter case load varies seasonally, but typically ranges from finds homes for over 7,000 animals each year, or more
• R30-60
  cases a month. In 2000, the office investigated than half of all the animals that enter the shelter. 600 deaths. Animal control officers assist other local and state 2. To perform the work, there are three full-time staff law enforcement agencies when animals are involved, members, one part-time staff member, and up to three enforce pertinent code sections, assist postal employees interns who work two eight-hour days a week. At threatened by loose dogs, and respond to complaints about the time of our review, the office was ready to hire stray animals or animal abuse. an additional full-time staff person. Although it occupies a large site, the facility itself is 3. Deputy coroners investigate the scene of death; small and cramped. Half of the main building houses the serious crimes may take weeks to fully investigate. front office, ASPCA office (the ASPCA works with The average cost to investigate a death in Yolo 4. shelter staff to promote adoptions), staff offices, and a County is $3,000. To save time as well as money, public bathroom which is also used by staff who have no other place to change clothes (after certain "animal events," officers need to shower and change). The other half houses—in separate rooms—cats, adoptable dogs, (REVIEWS: Yolo County Coroner's Office and Morgue- 2000-2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT the office increasingly performs tasks in-house that had previously been contracted out. All personnel are trained in positive fingerprinting, whole body and dental x-rays, some drug testing, and film devel- opment. 5. Officers are allowed time off without pay when the stress of a difficult job becomes unmanageable. Low staff turnover is attributable to the interesting nature of the work and the extra training available. 6. The Sheriff is trying to find reliable transportation for deputies who travel to death scenes at night in isolated or unsafe areas. CONCLUSIONS 1. We found the staff enthusiastic and dedicated. 2. We support the Sheriff's efforts to secure reliable transportation for his staff. No county employee should be put at greater risk than necessary. 2000-2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT