Napa River Reclamation District

Conclusions 3

• CL1
  During our facility inspection in October 2015, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury enquired regarding "Findings and Recommendations" from both the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 Grand Jury investigations. Both previous Grand Juries found and recommended that outdated video surveillance cameras, which produced poor quality and uneven sequencing of images, be replaced. These Grand Juries also found that some areas of NCJH were not covered adequately by camera surveillance, thus creating "blind spots". During our investigation and interviews the 2015-2016 Grand Jury learned that, in spite of previous recommendations, video equipment had not been replaced and additional cameras were not installed to address the blind spots. In the fall of 2015, the Grand Jury was told that funding for the video camera upgrade continued to be delayed due to the strain on the Napa County Budget as a result of the August 2014, earthquake. The Grand Jury was assured by Juvenile Hall management that camera upgrades were scheduled to be made in late 2015 or early 2016. In addition, the Grand Jury learned that two way radios 36 used by staff had poor quality sound and that there were "dead spots" in a few areas with no reception. In early 2016, new radios were purchased to improve radio communication throughout Juvenile Hall. The Grand Jury was also advised that as of spring 2016, NCJH was in the process of purchasing new camera equipment, but that installation would take time since a decision had been made to update the entire video surveillance system at Juvenile Hall. No completion date for the camera installation and system update was available as of the writing of this report. The 2015-2016 Grand Jury is satisfied that inconsistent radio communication at Juvenile Hall was addressed in early 2016. However, the Grand Jury is concerned that video surveillance cameras have needed updating for the past several years and, although recommended by the two Grand Juries, upgrades still have not been completed. This issue continues to pose a possible safety risk to both staff and youths at Juvenile Hall.
• CL2
  Monitoring activity trends, productivity, and service levels is an important part of managing any well run organization, and the interviews conducted by the Grand Jury indicate that the county management team universally employs those tools in its management practices. However, those measurements were developed by county managers for their own use and have nothing to do with the PMR. It is clear to the Grand Jury that the Performance Measurement Reports which are intended to help county managers develop and employ performance metrics and inform the Board of Supervisors and the public about the activities of the county government aren’t living up to expectations. Activity levels reported in the PMR are too delayed to be of any use other than establishing long term trends. Many of the productivity and service level measurements do not measure either productivity or service. Preparation of the PMR has come to be a rote task for divisions and departments, completed because it is a required task, not because it is of any use to them, other than providing the Board of Supervisors some summary level information 78 about their operations. Given an annual cost to produce the report of about $60,000, the jury questions the justification for continuing the report in its current form.
• CL3
  The Grand Jury did not observe any systemic issues, disturbing patterns or events with the complaint resolution process or the underlying Retail Food Program. Throughout the investigation, committee members observed a noteworthy level of professionalism and dedication to the community. Program activities go beyond enforcement --- employees work diligently to: P Conduct inspections so as to minimize food risks to the public, P Respond quickly to complaints, P Partner with other agencies to minimize potential food-borne illness threats, and P Educate businesses about major and minor risks, prevention and food safety practices.

Commendations 3

• CM1
  The 2015-2016 Napa County Grand Jury commends the Napa County Chief Probation Officer, the superintendent, assistant superintendent, supervisors, and counselors for their courtesy and professionalism, and for their dedication to successful rehabilitation of the youths at Napa County Juvenile Hall. 37 DISCLAIMER Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 38 NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY 2015-2016 May 23, 2016 FINAL REPORT GANG ACTIVITY IN NAPA COUNTY The Positive Impact of Pro-Active Measures 39 40 GANG ACTIVITY IN NAPA COUNTY The Positive Impact of Pro-Active Measures SUMMARY An investigation was conducted by the 2015-2016 Napa County Civil Grand Jury to determine the nature and extent of gang activity in Napa County with particular emphasis on gang activity in Napa County High Schools. The investigation included interviews with law enforcement at both the County and City levels, Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD) administrators and principals, and staff at each of Napa County’s high schools. The Grand Jury found that because of the pro-active efforts of Napa Valley law enforcement agencies, school administrators and staff, and the unique characteristics and demographics of Napa County, gang activity generally has been controlled, and overt gang activity in the high schools of Napa County has been reduced to a non-threatening level. Some Napa County high schools have no visible gang activity at all. Where school yard gang activity is present, direct and effective programs have been implemented with strong coordination between all stakeholders–law enforcement and school administrators and staff. Continued vigilance and expansion of successful programs is recommended.
• CM2
  The Grand Jury commends the professionals employed by Napa County’s Environmental Health Division for their persistent and dedicated actions to minimize food-borne illness risk to Napa County residents and visitors. DISCLAIMER Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 113
• CM3
  The County Board of Supervisors should commend the Correctional Officers for excelling in an extremely difficult environment. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: Napa County Board of Supervisors: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8; R1, R2, R3, R4, R5; Commendation From the following individuals: Napa County Executive Officer: R1, R2, R3, R4 DISCLAIMER Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY Board of State and Community Corrections 2012-2014 (bi-annual inspection of jails) NCDC Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Napa County Performance Measurement Report January 2016 Napa County Adult Correctional System Master Plan Update 2007 SB 863 Jail Construction Funding Application –Napa County Jail Phase 1 - August 2015 Napa County Adult Correctional System Master Plan Organization Charts Incident Reports Training Records CFMG Contract Personnel Complaints NCDC Operational Procedures Manual Napa County Policy Manual, Section 37K Harassment/Discrimination/Retaliation Napa County Grand Jury Reports (NCGJ) 2006-2007, 2008-2009, 2009-2110, 2010-2011, 2011- 2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 “Manipulation Revisited”by Lenard Vare, American Jails, September/October 2015 “Of elephants and men –What do humans and elephants have in common…”by Lenard Vare, American Jails, November 2014 Newspaper articles from Napa Valley Register, St Helena Star 127

Observations 1

• OB1
  A. Timeliness Of the twelve responses received to the six 2014-2015 Grand Jury reports, seven were received on time. The other five varied in lateness from a one or two days to about three weeks. Details of the dates final reports were delivered and the dates of responses to them are shown in Table 1. Table 1. 2014-15 Grand Jury Reports and Responses Responses Report Date Issued Replies Required Due Date Sent Days Late Juvenile Hall 2/18/15 Chief Probation Officer 4/19/15 3/24/15 On Time HHS Agency 3/30/15 Board of Supervisors 6/28/15 6/9/15 On Time Groundwater 6/2/15 Board of Supervisors 8/31/15 8/11/15 On Time Sanitation District Board 8/31/15 8/5/15 On Time City of Napa 8/31/15 9/24/15 24 Fire Department 5/13/15 Napa County Fire Chief 7/12/15 7/14/15 2 Volunteer Fire Chiefs 8/11/15 8/31/15 20 Napa County Executive 7/12/15 7/14/15 2 Board of Supervisors 8/11/15 7/14/15 On Time Napa County Treasurer 7/12/15 7/13/15 1 Wineries 5/18/15 Board of Supervisors 8/16/15 8/11/15 On Time Napa County Jail 5/15/15 Board of Supervisors 8/13/15 7/14/15 On Time B. Response Content Altogether, the 2014-2015 Grand Jury made 30 recommendations, to which 37 responses were made by County officials or agencies. Twenty of these responses accepted the Grand Jury’s recommendation. Of these, twelve were either already implemented, in progress, or scheduled for implementation; three were accepted with the notation that implementation would be delayed indefinitely by earthquake damage; and seven were accepted with no information given about 4 implementation. Seventeen responses either rejected the recommendation or stated that it needed further study. A recap of the responses received is given in Table 2 in the Appendix. II. REVIEW OF RESPONSES TO THE 2014-15 GRAND JURY REPORT ON ITS ANNUAL JUVENILE HALL REVIEW

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.