📋

Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Orange County Grand Jury • 2014-2015

Required Responses

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 3 findings

F4 Page 15

AB109 offenders are at a higher risk for reoffending with 88% of them having a drug abuse history. Orange County does not have adequate residential drug treatment beds available for the number of AB109 offenders, thus limiting the use of this preventative alternative.

F5 Page 15

AB109 has placed Probation Officers at greater risk, however the Orange County Probation Department has placed a high priority on officer safety by providing adequate defensive tools to the officers including firearms, batons, pepper spray, and protective vests.

F6 Page 15

OCPD has provided many additional tools to probation officers under AB109 to ensure officer safety, with the exception of a Taser. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of AB109 and Community Safety in Orange County, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations:

Recommendations 2

R1
Page 15

The Health Care Service Agency and/or the Probation Department should review the cost of services provided to probationers, and/or on enforcement actions, to determine if any of these services or actions provide less consistent benefits toward reduced recidivism than residential treatment beds and, using funds that would otherwise be spent on those services or actions, increase the number of residential drug treatment beds. (F.4.)
R2
Page 15

The OCPD should provide Tasers as an option for AB109 probation officers. (F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Required Reponses Orange County Board of Supervisors: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., R.1., R.2. Requested Responses Orange County Probation Department: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., R.1., R.2. Health Care Agency (HCA): F.4., R.1. AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury