📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Butte County Grand Jury • 2006-2007

Lp<nd of N a T U R a L Wealth a N D B E a U T Y Butte County Library Headquarters 1820 Mitchellavenue

Published: June 12, 2008 18 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 15 findings

F1 Page 99
"Although it has now been comcteed, in the past, money raised by the Grid& FOL was used toficnd extra hoursfor a patit-time poition." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 2. "There eiis a lack of overallfudngfor the Butte Couno Libnay ystem. The mmty is re&ng on FOL monies to sz.pp.$ some ofthe basics.." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 3. "There is demandfor inmased horn of operation." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department 4. "The stjc branch libraries ab not have inkdual dismtioonay budgets.." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department 5. "There are dmited opportunitiesfor communication among the branch librarian^.^' The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 6. "The Libra y faciltieies are rieten'orating." The respondent agrees with this finding. The County has a number of aging facilities and is in the process of implementing a plan to address these needs. On June 26, 2007 the Board of Supervisors approved a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which lays out a 20 year plan to address facility needs throughout the County. Sqgdicant remodeling and expansion of County libraries is planned for 2015, but this schedule may be modif5ed dependent conmbutions from the community. In addition to addressing these large capital budget needs, the County is addressing maintenance needs. For example, in the current fiscal year the Board of Supervisors appropriated funds to replace the flooring in the Oroville Library and in the Chico Branch Library's conference room, 7. "The roofhaks and moM damage at the Gn'dhy Libray took over twoyears to resoIve.." The respondent agrees with the finding as stated However, it should be noted that although the resolution took two years, the problem was promptly addressed. Over the course of the two years a series of professional roohng contractors were retained, but failed to locate the source of the leak and remedy it. Finally, County staff, by an extensive effort, was able to locate and remedy this unique situation. Newly acquited equipment should allow for more prompt resolutions in the future. 8. "The Bzks Library buiMng is not owned by the county, is in poor condiz%onw ithout reJtmom facilities, and is not ADA accenibLe." The respondent agrees with this finding. The buildmg in which the Biggs Branch Library operates is owned by the City of Biggs and leased to the County at essentially no cost This facility, while not ideal, does allow for Library services to be provided in the City of Biggs. The City recently provided access to a restroom both for library staff and for patrons, and approached the County with an offer to discuss other City facilities that may become available for use by the library. Other County libraries, for example Gridley, which is nearby, are ADA accessible. 9. "Handic~pedparkinga ccess is a p b ha t the Paradise Librq." The respondent agrees with this finding. Although the Paradise Branch Library has handicapped parking directly in front of the main entrance, there appears to be a problem with the slope of those parkmg spaces. There are few, if any, level parking spaces at this library. The General Services Department will analyze the extent of the problem with these parktng spaces, and the most appropriate remedy as part of the ongoing effort to eliminate ADA issues thtoughout the County. 10. "The library Strategic Pkzn is &years OM and is curnntb in theprocess $being trphted" The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department 11 . "The Board ofStrpenirors needr a cIeam understandng $Butte County dbrq is~m.'' The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department.
F2 Page 102
According to our research, the county previously has cleared the ditch. Currently, the county is neglecting to perform a function for which they had previously accepted responsibility. The Respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Respondent agrees that the County road crews have previously cleared the ditch located with the road right of way. The Respondent disagrees that we are neglecting to perform a function for which we have previously accepted responsibility. The County has and will continue to annually mow the weeds in the drainage ditch located within the road right of ways.
F3 Page 103
Currently, the responsibility for maintenance of this drainage ditch constructed by Butte County has not been accepted or acknowledged by the County. The Respondent disagrees with the finding. The County did not construct this drainage ditch which flows primarily across private property and ultimately drains into Wyman Ravine. However, a section of this drainage ditch is located within the County road right of way that runs parallel to South Villa and Railroad Avenues. The County has accepted responsibility to maintain this section of drainage ditch and annually mows the vegetation. This area is within a FEMA designated 100 year flood zone. Public Works staff is unaware of any homes flooding in this area except during the State and Federal declared flood emergencies of 1995,1997 and 2005106. After the 1997 State and Federally declared flood disaster, the County received a FEMA mitigation grant to replace a private culvert which was located downstream from the County's maintained section. The private culvert was undersized causing a constriction in the drainage ditch and flood water flows. The FEMA grant allowed the County to replace the culvert with a bridge which increased the capacity of the drainage ditch. The FEMA grant funds also allowed the removal of a large beaver dam and general cleaning of the adjacent section of this private drainage with the property owner's permission. 1997 FEMA mitigation funding also allowed Private Industry Council (PIC) crews to manually remove vegetation and small trees within this County maintained section of drainage ditch as well as many sections of privately owned and maintained sections when permitted by the property owner. Grand Jury Recommendations
F4 Page 104
The DVIOR program, while worthwhile in intention, often effective, and possibly within the letter of the law, does not conform to the spirit of the law as. addressed in the legislative findings to Penal Code $1203.097 which states ta~iversionpr ograms for perpetrat" 0f domestic violence . . . are inadequate to address domestic v~olencea s a serous [sic] crime." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The Chief Probation Officer does not provide any statutory oversight, or participation in the District Attorney's DVIOR Program and therefore directs the response of this finding to the District Attorney's Office.
F5 Page 105
Some victim advocates are concerned that the 32-week batterers' program, as compared to the 52-week program mandated by law for convicted offenders on probation, is not legal nor in the spirit of the law which mandates the 52-week program. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The Chief Probation Officer does not provide any statutory oversight, or participation in the District Attorney's DVIOR Program and therefore directs the response of this finding to the District Attorney's Office.
F6 Page 105
According to Penal Code $1203.097, the Probation Department approves and certifies batterer's educational programs for Butte County. Offenders may select which program they wish to attend. If offenders wish to switch to the other program, they may with good cause and with the approval of Probation. The respondent partially disagrees with the findings. The Chief Probation Officer has direct statutory oversight of the Batterers Treatment Programs established pursuant to Penal Code 1203.097. There are currently two certified Batterers Treatment Programs within Butte County for which the Chief Probation Officer has direct oversight. Potential clients ordered to complete a 52- week Batterers Treatment Program are provided the names of both programs by the Court Compliance Unit of the Superior Court, from which they may choose. On the rare occasion, and for a showing of good cause, the probation officer may request of the Court upon behalf of a client that they be allowed to change providers. The ultimate decision of whether a client is allowed to switch Batterers Treatment Program Providers rests with the Court.
F7 Page 105
DVIOR offenders are only allowed to attend the batterer's educational program provided by FVEP, even though there is another certified program available through another provider, NB. The DVIOR offenders do not have a choice of programs. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The Chief Probation Officer does not provide any statutory oversight, or participation in the District Attomey's DVIOR Program and therefore directs the response of this finding to the District Attomey's Office.
F8 Page 105
DVIOR offenders who are assigned the 32-week program are taught in the same classes as are the convicted domestic violence offenders on probation who are enrolled in the statutory 52-week program. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The Chief Probation-Officerd oes not provide any statutory oversight, or participation in the District Attorney's DVIOR Program and therefore directs the response of this finding to the District Attorney's Office.
F9 Page 105
The Grand Jury could find no rational basis for the exclusion of NB from the DVIOR Program batterers' education intervention component. Research in the Social Sciences has found that people may often benefit from one programltherapy while not benefiting from another. Based on this research, clients deserve a choice. The respondent neither agrees pisagrees with the findings. The Probation ORicer does not provide any statutory oversig t, or participation in the District DVIOR Program and therefore directs the response of this finding to the District Attorney's Office.
F10 Page 106
In the State of California auditor's report entitled Batterer Intervention Programs released in November of 2006 wherein Butte County's programs were audited, there was no mention of the DVIOR Program. The Grand Jury concludes that the audit committee was not aware that it existed. The Respondent agrees with this finding.
F11 Page 106
Probation approved the Family Violence Education Programs (FVEP) in 1996 and New Beginnings in November of 2004. The license of the FVEP administrator is listed as "Inactive" and the licenses of the New Beginnings administrators are listed as "Clear." The Respondent agrees with this finding.
F12 Page 106
In Butte County, there currently is no comprehensive domestic violence court to hear cases from start to finish before one specific judge. The District Attorney is supportive of implementing such a court. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The respondent is unable to comment on the position of the District attorney on a comprehensive domestic violence court.
F13 Page 106
According to Penal Code §1203.097, certified batterer's educational program providers are to re- apply for certification annually. Twice during the year, the Probation Department is required to audit the programs. The Respondent agrees with this finding.
F14 Page 106
The Probation Department has not been keeping up with program audits and with the re- application process. Probation did begin the re-application process in January of 2007. The Respondent agrees with this finding.
F15 Page 106
Statistics for the number of offenders entering batterer's educational intervention programs and successfully completing the program were not available. In addition, recidivism rates for offenders were not available. The respondent partially disagrees with the fmdings. The Butte County Probation Department keeps a number of statistics and other information concerning the Batterers Treatment Programs. One such statistic is the number of clients referred to either of the two programs by the Court. The Butte County Probation Department can also provide statistics as to the number of clients referred by the Court, and who are supervised by the Probation Department. Recidivism rates are extremely difficult and costly to track, as once a client is no longer on probation it becomes very difficult to keep up with their activities or whereabouts. Clients may also ultimately be sentenced to the California State Department of Corrections and become the responsibility of State Parole. Recidivism is also difficult to define. It may not be truly reflected simply because a client is re-arrested once completing a Batterers Treatment Program, as their arrest may not be directly related to their history of domestic violence, charges may not be filed, or charges may be dismissed. The respondent agrees with the Grand Jury finding as to when cost effective, and possible within the resources available, clients placed by the Court in a Batterers Treatment Program be tracked for recidivism. *

Recommendations 15