Orange County Grand Jury
• 2007-2008
A Snapshot of Juvenile Facilities in Orange County
⚠️ 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 2 findings
F1
Los Piños Conservation Camp is in the fourth year of a ten-year plan to refurbish and upgrade the facility with some projects completed, some projects in progress, and other projects in the planning stages.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Complete the ten-year plan to refurbish and upgrade the facilities at Los Piños Conservation Camp.
F2
Some of the older rooms at Juvenile Hall do not have toilets. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-2 are requested from the Chief Probation Officer of the Orange County Probation Department. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Authorize a study of the facilities at Juvenile Hall to determine if portions of the older living quarters without toilets should be remodeled or replaced. Responses to recommendations R-1 through R-2 are requested from the Chief Probation Officer of the Orange County Probation Department. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe 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. 10
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.