Review of Orange County Detention Facilities Review of Orange County Detention Facilities

Additional Recommendations 3

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R1
  Continue to keep facilities in clean and good condition as well as keep inmate disruption at a minimum.
• R2
  Collect and analyze data to evaluate the present financial impact of the ICE program on Orange County.
• R4
  Continue to assess and present evidence-based data from the S.A.F.E. Division of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to enhance transparency, provide effective law enforcement and reduce civil litigation. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Orange County Sheriff-Coroner F.1, F.2, F.3, F.4, F.5, F.6 R.1, R.2, R.3, R.4 Orange County Board Of Supervisors F.3, F.5, F.6 R.2, R.4 In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 the 2010-2011Grand Jury requests responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Orange County Probation Department F.3 R.3 REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code §933(c) requires 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 agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that 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 comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (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 therefor. (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 time frame 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 time frame 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 therefor. (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.