Riverside County Grand Jury
2010-2011
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (11)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Testimony revealed that social workers are contacted several times a month to remove children from their homes in the Blythe area during late evening or early morning hours for alleged neglect or abuse and are held in the CPS office. This is because there are no temporary shelters available. Two (2) social workers must remain with these children to ensure the child’s safety and well-being until an appropriate placement can be arranged. Foster Homes
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
DPSS recruit and establish contracts with local licensed facilities to provide temporary shelters for placement of children who are removed from their homes during late evening or early morning hours. 4
F2:
In the fiscal year 2003-2004, there were seven certified foster homes in Blythe, but at the time of this current report there are only two. In emergency situations foster homes may be utilized as temporary shelter homes. Due to the low number of foster homes and lack of shelter facilities in Blythe, children must be transported to Indio or in some cases other communities as far away as Moreno Valley, Riverside, Corona, and Fontana or Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County. These trips can take up to 6-8 hours. This multiplies the time and expense incurred by the county, and the added emotional stress on the individual social workers as well as the anxiety placed on the recently displaced children. Investigation revealed foster parents have reported they were not always provided access to necessary resources and training (e.g., health services, mental health services, and special education services) to adequately provide for children’s needs. Security and Safety
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
DPSS implement a well-orchestrated recruitment effort to expand the number of certified foster care homes and shelter care facilities available in the Palo Verde area. Establish new foster care provider contracts and/or re-activate contracts with foster care providers for child placement, with approval of Community Care Licensing, in Blythe and Indio.
F3:
At the time of this report the exterior doors at the Blythe CPS office do not close completely when the staff enters at the back of the building, consequently the alarm system is not always dependable. Although there is lighting in the front of the building, it functions intermittently. Investigation and inspection of the Blythe CPS office revealed there are two security cameras on the rear of the building. However the poor resolution and improper placement negates the camera’s reliability, making identification of people or vehicles virtually impossible. Further investigation revealed that vehicles often operate in an unsafe manner within the interior of the parking lot near the CPS entrances utilized for moving children into and out of the facility. The geographical and physical setting of the office, especially in relation to other county facilities attracts a variety of individuals, including vagrants. The necessary night utilization of the facility, usually involving children, presents a definite security issue. Services
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Blythe CPS routinely inspect all entrances to ensure the doors properly close and the alarm system functions correctly. Report any maintenance problems to Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) Real Estate Division. Blythe CPS routinely inspect lighting in both front and rear of the building and report any maintenance problems to Riverside County EDA Real Estate Division for repair. Blythe CPS ensure that all security cameras are in working condition, DPSS to upgrade and expand coverage of the cameras, and the picture quality, as needed. DPSS place an additional security camera in the front of the building to cover the entrance area of the adjacent parking lot. DPSS request Riverside County EDA Real Estate Division to contact the property owner to install speed bumps in the back and front parking lots for safety of the employees and children.
F4:
The Blythe CPS social workers and their clients have limited access to local community services and county support systems in the Palo Verde Valley area. These support services are required for individualized intervention to families, which in turn, allow the opportunity for children to be raised in homes free of abuse and neglect. Examples of services required by families through CPS programs include parenting classes, drug treatment and testing, psychotherapy, life skills training services, transportation services and support services to relatives and foster caretakers. Many of these necessary support services are only available at distant locations such as Indio, Riverside or Moreno Valley. Interviews revealed excessive travel times to receive required services negatively impact social workers’ ability to effectively and efficiently manage their caseloads. Due to minimal staffing levels the Blythe Office of the Department of Mental Health is only able to respond to emergency CPS referrals. A Mental Health Clinical Therapist is needed to expand mental health services capacity to provide both routine and emergency counseling for CPS clients. Blythe CPS workers must often travel long distances to receive their required professional training. In an attempt to coordinate CPS activities, quarterly meetings are currently held between representatives of CPS, Mental Health and Probation Departments. However, these meetings are too infrequent to best meet the needs of the affected families.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
DPSS contract with local educational institutions such as school districts, Palo Verde College and local non-profit agencies to obtain needed child and family social services in areas such as parenting classes, drug treatment and life skills training. DPSS fund a Clinical Therapist position assigned to the Blythe Mental Health clinic. This position would expand capacity to provide mental health services for adults and minors referred by Blythe CPS. DPSS conduct required training of Blythe CPS social workers in Blythe, for example, one trainer coming to Blythe to train six or more social workers as opposed to six persons traveling to Indio or Moreno Valley. Blythe CPS hold monthly meetings between CPS, Mental Health, Probation and other support services deemed appropriate, in order to coordinate the efforts of each department. Report Issued: 06/28/2011 Report Public: 06/30/2011 Response Due: 09/26/2011 5
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Testimony revealed that social workers are contacted several times a month to remove children from their homes in the Blythe area during late evening or early morning hours for alleged neglect or abuse and are held in the CPS office. This is because there are no temporary shelters available. Two (2) social workers must remain with these children to ensure the child’s safety and well-being until an appropriate placement can be arranged. Foster Homes
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
DPSS recruit and establish contracts with local licensed facilities to provide temporary shelters for placement of children who are removed from their homes during late evening or early morning hours. 4
F2:
In the fiscal year 2003-2004, there were seven certified foster homes in Blythe, but at the time of this current report there are only two. In emergency situations foster homes may be utilized as temporary shelter homes. Due to the low number of foster homes and lack of shelter facilities in Blythe, children must be transported to Indio or in some cases other communities as far away as Moreno Valley, Riverside, Corona, and Fontana or Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County. These trips can take up to 6-8 hours. This multiplies the time and expense incurred by the county, and the added emotional stress on the individual social workers as well as the anxiety placed on the recently displaced children. Investigation revealed foster parents have reported they were not always provided access to necessary resources and training (e.g., health services, mental health services, and special education services) to adequately provide for children’s needs. Security and Safety
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
DPSS implement a well-orchestrated recruitment effort to expand the number of certified foster care homes and shelter care facilities available in the Palo Verde area. Establish new foster care provider contracts and/or re-activate contracts with foster care providers for child placement, with approval of Community Care Licensing, in Blythe and Indio.
F3:
At the time of this report the exterior doors at the Blythe CPS office do not close completely when the staff enters at the back of the building, consequently the alarm system is not always dependable. Although there is lighting in the front of the building, it functions intermittently. Investigation and inspection of the Blythe CPS office revealed there are two security cameras on the rear of the building. However the poor resolution and improper placement negates the camera’s reliability, making identification of people or vehicles virtually impossible. Further investigation revealed that vehicles often operate in an unsafe manner within the interior of the parking lot near the CPS entrances utilized for moving children into and out of the facility. The geographical and physical setting of the office, especially in relation to other county facilities attracts a variety of individuals, including vagrants. The necessary night utilization of the facility, usually involving children, presents a definite security issue. Services
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Blythe CPS routinely inspect all entrances to ensure the doors properly close and the alarm system functions correctly. Report any maintenance problems to Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) Real Estate Division. Blythe CPS routinely inspect lighting in both front and rear of the building and report any maintenance problems to Riverside County EDA Real Estate Division for repair. Blythe CPS ensure that all security cameras are in working condition, DPSS to upgrade and expand coverage of the cameras, and the picture quality, as needed. DPSS place an additional security camera in the front of the building to cover the entrance area of the adjacent parking lot. DPSS request Riverside County EDA Real Estate Division to contact the property owner to install speed bumps in the back and front parking lots for safety of the employees and children.
F4:
The Blythe CPS social workers and their clients have limited access to local community services and county support systems in the Palo Verde Valley area. These support services are required for individualized intervention to families, which in turn, allow the opportunity for children to be raised in homes free of abuse and neglect. Examples of services required by families through CPS programs include parenting classes, drug treatment and testing, psychotherapy, life skills training services, transportation services and support services to relatives and foster caretakers. Many of these necessary support services are only available at distant locations such as Indio, Riverside or Moreno Valley. Interviews revealed excessive travel times to receive required services negatively impact social workers’ ability to effectively and efficiently manage their caseloads. Due to minimal staffing levels the Blythe Office of the Department of Mental Health is only able to respond to emergency CPS referrals. A Mental Health Clinical Therapist is needed to expand mental health services capacity to provide both routine and emergency counseling for CPS clients. Blythe CPS workers must often travel long distances to receive their required professional training. In an attempt to coordinate CPS activities, quarterly meetings are currently held between representatives of CPS, Mental Health and Probation Departments. However, these meetings are too infrequent to best meet the needs of the affected families.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
DPSS contract with local educational institutions such as school districts, Palo Verde College and local non-profit agencies to obtain needed child and family social services in areas such as parenting classes, drug treatment and life skills training. DPSS fund a Clinical Therapist position assigned to the Blythe Mental Health clinic. This position would expand capacity to provide mental health services for adults and minors referred by Blythe CPS. DPSS conduct required training of Blythe CPS social workers in Blythe, for example, one trainer coming to Blythe to train six or more social workers as opposed to six persons traveling to Indio or Moreno Valley. Blythe CPS hold monthly meetings between CPS, Mental Health, Probation and other support services deemed appropriate, in order to coordinate the efforts of each department. Report Issued: 06/28/2011 Report Public: 06/30/2011 Response Due: 09/26/2011 5
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
When a person is arrested and brought to a Riverside County jail, it is necessary to determine the arrestee’s medical/mental health needs. At the time of initial booking into county jails detainees are screened by correctional officers. Due to budget cuts to Mental Health Detention Services (MHDS), there are no mental health personnel at intake for screening in the five Riverside County jails. The screening checklist relies primarily on the detainee’s self-reporting of his/her medical/mental history and current mental conditions including the use of prescription drugs. The checklist further records the booking officer’s observations of detainee’s behavior. Investigation revealed mental illness screening also makes use of records of prior hospitalization, prior or current use of psychotropic medications, exhibition of bizarre behavior and requests for care. Testimony revealed correctional officers may not recognize hidden medical and/or mental health problems that could be best observed by a medical/mental health expert. This could result in delaying needed treatment. Delays in Accessing Care – Mental Health Evaluation
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Mental health personnel should be assigned at each jail and used at the time of initial booking to screen for possible mental illness. The mental health personnel assigned to each jail should use a validated mental health-screening tool to increase the early identification of mental health and any co-occurring substance abuse problems of incarcerated individuals. A systematic program for screening and evaluating inmates by mental health personnel is needed to identify those in need of mental health care. Delays in Accessing Care – Mental Health Evaluation
F2:
Once an inmate has been determined to be in need of a mental health evaluation and treatment, there may be delays in access to necessary care in the mental health system. Investigation revealed inmates sometimes have to wait two or more weeks after booking to receive an initial mental health assessment and evaluation by a mental health specialist. Inmates with assessed moderate mental health problems such as neuroses, phobias, panic disorders, etc., are not always offered appropriate medication and counseling by qualified staff to get and maintain them in a stable condition. Investigation revealed MHDS has no confidential self-referral system by which inmates can request mental health care without revealing the nature of their request to correctional officers. Medication Administration
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
MHDS should provide an adequate mental health care evaluation of inmates who screen positive for possible mental illness. This should be done within 24-hours of booking into a county jail (excluding weekends and legal holidays as long as an urgent evaluation is not indicated). Within 72-hours of booking into the jail MHDS should provide a mental health care evaluation of inmates admitted on weekends or holidays. If the evaluation identifies a serious mental illness, e.g. depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, a brief initial treatment plan should be prepared. A qualified and appropriately trained mental health professional should, within 14-days of booking, complete and properly document an adequate mental health evaluation for each inmate who screened positive for possible mental illness. MHDS should develop and maintain a confidential self-referral system by which inmates can request mental health care without revealing the nature of their request to correctional officers. Medication Administration
F3:
Some inmates, due to the nature of their mental illness, should receive prescribed medications from medical staff several times during the day and at bedtime. However, medications are distributed only once or twice in a 24-hour period. Inmate Transfers to ETS and DCU.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Medications, once properly prescribed, should be distributed, and administered to meet the needs of the patients. In many cases this will require distribution 2-3 times a day. Inmate transfers to ETS and DCU
F4:
The Department of Mental Health Section VI, Policy / Procedure 604, Subject: Transfers to the Emergency Treatment Services (ETS) and Detention Care Unit (DCU) outlines the procedure used to assess and to transfer certain mentally disordered inmates to ETS at the Arlington Campus and DCU at RCRMC. Interviews revealed that when inmates are transferred to ETS, some non-inmate patients are unduly disturbed to see inmates in shackles accompanied by armed correctional officers. There are no secure cells where the inmates can be housed while undergoing evaluation and treatment at ETS. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4011 requires county correctional officials to maintain the necessary guards at all times when the inmate is out of jail for hospitalization. Medication Orders for Inmates
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Mentally disordered inmates should only be transferred to RCRMC / DCU for evaluation, treatment and possible admission. Inmates in county jails who can’t be safely housed in the jail due to being a danger to self, danger to others or to being gravely disabled should not be transferred to ETS for evaluation and treatment. Medication Orders for Inmates
F5:
RCRMC Policy P4.43, Medication Orders for Inmates (Revised Date 01/13/07) outlines the process to be followed when an ETS psychiatrist prescribes psychotropic medications over the phone for an inmate. The policy requires that a jail psychiatrist re-evaluate the inmate on a timely basis (e.g. next scheduled work day of the jail psychiatrist). The Blythe jail has no psychiatrists available. Inmates with mental health problems are transferred to jails with mental health personnel. At the other four jails a psychiatrist is assigned, but not on a full-time basis. Treatment Facility
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Medical/mental health staff should be employed in sufficient numbers to identify and treat, in an individualized manner, those treatable inmates suffering from serious mental disorders. In the interim, Policy P4.43 (Medication Orders for Inmates) should be reviewed and modified to reflect the capabilities of current staffing levels. Trained health care personnel should administer medications to ensure medication is in fact taken, to guarantee that the correct inmate takes it, and to observe any effects, especially adverse reactions of the medication. Treatment Facility
F6:
No Riverside County jail facility has been designated a ‘treatment facility’ for the sole purpose of administering court ordered antipsychotic medication to inmates identified as incompetent to stand trial, and who are unable to provide informed consent to medication due to a mental disorder. Testimony revealed that mentally incompetent inmates awaiting transfer to a state hospital are the most costly and difficult to manage. Typically these inmates will not voluntarily take prescribed medication when in the standard jail setting. Testimony revealed inmates usually get worse (decompensate) the longer they wait for admission to a state mental hospital or other approved ‘treatment facility’. Once an inmate is restored to competency and returned to jail from a state hospital they may again refuse to voluntarily take medication, could decompensate, and repeat the cycle. Transfers to State Hospitals
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County Board of Supervisors, the County Mental Health Director and the Riverside County Sheriff should designate the 96-bed psychiatric unit at the Smith Correctional Facility in Banning as a ‘treatment facility’, for the sole purpose of administering antipsychotic medication pursuant to a court order as authorized in Penal Code Section 1369.1. The Board of Supervisors should authorize the District Attorney, Public Defender and Department of Mental Health to make arrangements with the neighboring county’s jails to utilize their jail treatment facilities to treat Riverside County mentally incompetent inmates on an interim basis while awaiting transfer to a state mental hospital. The Department of Mental Health (DMH) should determine and designate appropriate public and private mental health facilities as other ‘treatment facilities’ within the meaning allowed by the Penal Code Section 1370.01(a)(1)(A). Transfers to State Hospitals
F7:
Jail detainees adjudicated incompetent to stand trial and judicially ordered to be transferred to a state hospital or other suitable treatment facility for examination and treatment to promote their speedy restoration to mental competence, are not transferred in a timely manner, but can sometimes spend up to 60 or more days in county jail awaiting transfer. During this time detainees do not receive the necessary broad spectrum of care otherwise available in state hospitals or in other fully accredited public and private psychiatric treatment facilities. Penal Code Section 1370 (b)(1) requires, in part, “within 90 days of a commitment made pursuant to subdivision (a) the medical director of the state hospital or other treatment facility to which the defendant is confined shall make a written report to the court… concerning the defendant’s progress toward recovery of mental competence.” When Patton State Hospital reaches its legislated bed capacity, this necessitates placing Riverside County on a one-for-one exchange status until the inmate population decreases. During a one-for-one exchange status, Patton must release a Riverside County patient in order to bring in a new Riverside County patient. Patton State Hospital notifies the Sheriff’s Transportation Unit in Riverside County on the availability of beds. Information Packets
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
When the court orders a detainee committed to a state mental hospital or other approved treatment facilities, MHDS and the Public Defender should ensure that the detainee is actually transferred within an appropriate period of time. This would allow the state hospital to properly assess and report back to the court within 90-days of the date of the commitment order as required by Penal Code Section 1370(b)(1). When there is a shortage of beds at state mental hospitals, MHDS should recommend to the court that inmates adjudicated incompetent to stand trial be placed in a community program in lieu of a period of state hospitalization. Programs are available through the Forensic Conditional Release Program, which is state financed and state directed, whereby patient mental health services are provided by local vendors. Examples of these vendors could be county mental health programs or private service providers that contract with the state.
F8:
The court orders the inmate’s information packets to be sent to Patton State Hospital. Once Patton staff receives the information packet, it is reviewed for compliance with the documentation requirements. Our investigation revealed many packets are missing critical documents. Patton will notify the County Sheriff’s business office to gather and submit the missing documents. This delay complicates the process for an inmate’s stabilization and adds to the county’s problem in dealing with inmates from both custody and mental health perspectives. (See Exhibit #2 for listing of required documents.) Exhibit #2 provided by Patton State Hospital. Mental Health Staffing Levels
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Court ordered packets sent to Patton State Hospital should have all required documents. (See Exhibit #2.) A checklist should be developed and followed by the Riverside County Sheriff’s business office to insure each packet is complete before sending to Patton. Mental Health Staffing Levels
F9:
Mental health staff is not available in any county jail facility in sufficient numbers to identify and treat in an individualized manner those treatable inmates suffering from serious mental disorders. (See Exhibit #3.) For example, there are no Behavioral Health Specialists assigned to any of the five jail locations to screen incoming inmates for mental illness and to respond to inmates mental health concerns at the time of admission. Exhibit #3 provided by RCDMH. The jail in Blythe has no medical or mental health personnel assigned. With the exception of the 24-hour coverage at RPDC, medical and mental health services at the other three (3) jails are only available approximately 12-hours a day. Occasionally, because of staff illness, vacation, unforeseen events, etc., even RPDC does not have full staff coverage during some 24-hour periods. The new 2010 expansion at the Smith Correctional Facility in Banning has the physical plant for a mental health housing unit, however the use of the unit is on hold due to lack of qualified mental health personnel, and budget constraints. Mental Health Records
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Department of Mental Health should provide mental health staffing at each jail on a 24-hour basis to ensure timely access to adequate mental health treatment. The Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility should be staffed to be used as a designated ‘treatment center’. DMH should review the ratio of number of psychiatrists per 100 inmates who require medication to make sure ratios are within mental health industry standards. Mental Health Records
F10:
Whenever inmates are transferred, mental health records are usually hand- carried between jail facilities. This procedure is labor intensive and creates an environment in which some records are misplaced, lost or not transferred in a timely fashion. Policies
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
RCRMC and DMH should create and implement a computer system that allows prompt up-to-date access to every inmate’s medical / mental health records. This system should be available to all jail locations. Policies
F11:
RCRMC’s Department of Psychiatry Policy / Procedure #P4.43, Medication Orders for Inmates, effective: June 12, 1990, authorizes ETS psychiatrists to prescribe psychotropic medications (via a telephone order) for jail inmates for up to 72- hours of treatment. The justification for this is the fact that the inmates will be re-evaluated by a jail psychiatrist on a timely basis (e.g. next scheduled work day of jail psychiatrist). This policy further authorizes the involuntary medication of inmates for up to 72-hours. Such involuntary medication should not be authorized since county jails have not been designated as 72-hour treatment and evaluation facilities according to Welfare and Institution Code Section 5150. Most of the policies and procedures provided to the Grand Jury by RCRMC required review and approval by the Assistant Hospital Administrator, Chief of Psychiatry and the Assistant Chief Nursing Officer. However, documents revealed only the Assistant Hospital Administrator signed the “approved by:” box. Mental Health Discharge Planning
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
RCRMC / Department of Psychiatry should review and modify Policy / Procedure #P4.43 to reflect the actual mental health personnel assigned or available at each detention facility, and insure policies are consistent with current law. The Assistant Hospital Administrator, Chief of Psychiatry and the Assistant Chief Nursing Officer should review all detention mental health policies and procedures and update annually and as required. Mental Health Discharge Planning
F12:
Testimony revealed that discharge planning for mentally ill inmates is not conducted in a comprehensive manner. Stabilized mentally ill inmates in jail are often released into society without making adequate provisions for continued care and other services. For example, inmates with mental illness are often released from county jail without housing arrangements, making it difficult for released inmates to succeed in managing their mental illness. Upon release an individual may receive information on how to get two weeks of needed psychotropic medications, with limited follow-up arrangements made for inpatient and outpatient individual and group therapy. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
DMH discharge plans should increase the possibility of successful community re- entry and reduce the rate of recidivism for offenders with mental illness, by identifying and arranging services needed to live successfully in the community. In addition to medications and therapy, the discharge plans should also include housing arrangements, government benefits assistance, veteran’s benefits (if applicable), employment opportunities, and other services. Report Issued: 05/11/11 Report Public: 05/13/11 Response Due: 08/09/12 9 2009 Jail Statistics The Staff requested for the Larry D. Smith Correctional Center is based upon an increase of inmate population and additional mental health services this will create. Jail Locations Housing Capacity Average Open Cases Percentage of Open Cases RPDC 1,095 350-400 40% SWDC 1,111 208 25% BANNING 986 271 27% INDIO 353 110 31% BLYTHE 150 20 13% TOTALS 3,695 • “Open cases” represent inmates who are receiving on-going mental health services; the services may include seeing one or more mental health staff a day, depending on the mental health needs. • The average number of open MH cases averages to 1/3rd of the total housing capacity. Exhibit 1a 10 2009 Jail Statistics After Banning Expansion Jail Locations Housing Capacity Average Open Cases Percentage of Open Cases RPDC 1,095 350-400 40% SWDC 1,111 208 25% BANNING 1,572 450 34% INDIO 353 110 31% BLYTHE 150 20 13% TOTALS 4,281 • With the addition of 586 total beds at the Banning Jail it is estimated that there will be 195 new Mental Health cases from the expansion. ADDITIONAL INCREASE OF SERVICES Dedicated mental health staff to provide daily programming and services to a 66-bed mental health unit. The acuity of this unit will require a full-time psychiatrist, nurse and clinical therapist. Exhibit 1b 11 PENAL CODE SECTION 1370 INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL AND PENAL CODE SECTION 1370.01 MISDEMEANOR INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL Authority: Penal Code Section 1370(a)(3)(A)-(H) When the court orders that the defendant be confined in a state hospital or other public or private treatment facility, the court shall provide copies of the following documents which shall be taken with the defendant to the state hospital or other treatment facility when the defendant is to be confined: (A) The commitment order, including a specification of the charges. (B) A computation or statement setting forth the maximum term of commitment in accordance with subdivision (c) (C) A computation or statement setting forth the amount of credit for time served, if any to be deducted from the maximum term of commitment (D) Summary criminal history information. Please Note: A manual CLETS is also required for cases where only part of the criminal history is automated. (E) Any arrest reports prepared by the police department or other law enforcement agency (F) Any court-ordered psychiatric examination or evaluation reports (G) The community program director’s placement recommendation report (H) Records of any finding of mental incompetence pursuant to this chapter arising out of a complaint charging a felony offense specified in Section 290 or any pending Section 1368 proceeding arising out of a charge of a Section 290 offense. COMMENTS: (B) and (C) above are usually written in the body of the commitment order and/or minute order, therefore, the clerk who is compiling the packet must review the orders for the language addressing those two requirements. If the pre-commitment documents do not address both (B) and (C), the admission will be deferred. Item (E) must be provided for each superior court case on which the patient is being committed pursuant to Penal Code PC 1370 or 1370.01. Items (A)-(H) will be shown numerically 1-8 on the “Listing of Patients Pending Admission to Patton State Hospital.” Item (G) – Pursuant to 1370(a)(2)(A) which states in part “…No person shall be admitted to a state hospital or other treatment facility or placed on outpatient status under this section without having been evaluated by the community program director or a designee…” admissions will be deferred until receipt of the community program director’s placement recommendation report. 1370.01 Misdemeanor Incompetent to Stand Trial “1370.01(a)(2)…No person shall be admitted to a state hospital under this section unless the county mental health director finds that there is no less restrictive appropriate placement available and the county mental health director has a contract with the State Department of Mental Health for these placements.” The hospital stay for all PC 1370.01 misdemeanant individuals is billed to the County. Therefore, a Short Doyle/Authorization for Payment is required from the County prior to admission. Exhibit #2 12 Involuntary Antipsychotic Medications: Effective January 1, 2005 Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1370(a)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) commitment orders pursuant to PC 1370 or 1370.01 shall include either of the following: 1) That the defendant with advice of his/her counsel consents to the Administration of antipsychotic medication pursuant to Penal Code 1370(a)(2)(b)(i) OR 2) That the defendant does not consent and after hearings pursuant to Penal Code 1370(a)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii) that the hospital is or is not authorized to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication to the defendant when as prescribed by the defendant’s treating psychiatrist. OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS – The following legal documents are not ordered pursuant to either the PC 1026 or PC 1370 statute therefore, admissions will not be deferred. However, because they are such a vital part of the admissions processing in a forensic psychiatric facility, Patton’s staff will work with the courts to obtain these documents, whenever possible, prior to admission. • A copy of the information, Indictment, and/or Complaint (including any amendments) The charging document is an essential element in the commitment packet. It aids Patton’s legal staff in abstracting correct forensic data that is ultimately used by clinical staff in the assessment and treatment process. If it is not provided with the commitment packet, Patton’s legal staff must request it, in writing, from the court, which takes time and resources from both Court and Patton staff. • Copies of any orders addressing plea, sentencing, or amendments. These are especially important if the defendant is committed pursuant to PC 1026; they aid the analysts in completing the Determinate Sentence Law computation of maximum term of commitment. • Copies of any probation officer’s reports, especially if the patient is committed pursuant to PC 1370 for a violation of probation. Required Medical/Health Care Summary Prior to Admission Pursuant to California Code of Requlations, Title 15, Division 1, Section 1206(n) and DMH Special Order 337 The California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Division 1, Section 1206(n) requires that a medical/health care summary for PC 1026, PC 1370 and PC 1370.01 individuals be transferred from a local jail, if available, to the State Hospital where the individual is to be confined, prior to transfer and admission. For some medical conditions, time is needed to obtain special external treatment appointments, devices, or drugs in order to prepare for appropriate care of the individual. In other cases, advance review will determine, and provide time for notification to the sending facility, that the receiving State Hospital does not have facilities for or is not licensed to handle the medical problems involved, and that an alternative placement within the State Hospital system may be necessary. Exhibit #2 13 Riverside County Mental Health Detention FTE’s Position Title FTE 07/08 FTE 10/11 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SPECIALIST II 8 1 CLINICAL THERAPIST I 1 CLINICAL THERAPIST II 13 3 M.H. SERVICE SUPV – A 1 M.H. SERVICE SUPV – B 2 3 M.H. SVCS MGR 1 1 MEDICAL RECORDS TECHNICIAN 2 OFFICE ASSISTANT II 8 5 PSYCHIATRIST III – PD 12 8 REGISTERED NURSE IV 13 7 REGISTERED NURSE V 1 SECRETARY I 1 1 SR CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST 1 SR MEDICAL RECORDS TECHNICIAN 2 STAFF PSYCHIATRIST IV 2 SUPV. OFFICE ASSISTANT I Detention Positions 62 35 Exhibit #3 14
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Improper Storage of Toxic Chemicals with Flammable Chemicals A variety of flammable and toxic chemicals used in the lab are stored in a flame resistant (color coded yellow) metal cabinet in the workroom located in Cooperative Extension Department, but not all chemicals are stored in this cabinet. Two examples of stored chemicals are Acetone and Potassium Cyanide. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) classified Acetone as EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE and the vapors of Acetone may cause a flash fire and are harmful if inhaled. The MSDS states, “…the Flash Point of Acetone is -4° F and should be handled under a vent hood with a proper ventilation system”. Potassium Cyanide is classified as EXTREME HEALTH HAZARD, POISON. MSDS states, “…Do not store near combustibles or flammables because subsequent fire fighting with water could lead to cyanide runoff. Do not store under sprinkler system”. Handling and storage for both chemicals should be in a cool, dry, well- ventilated location. The workroom where the chemicals are stored is maintained as an office space and is part of the buildings air conditioning system. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe store all chemicals in compliance with the appropriate MSDS.
F2:
Improper Ventilation in the Cooperative Extension Area The County Administrative Center in Blythe is designed to be office space with gaps under the doors, and centralized air conditioning units that serve multiple areas. A drying oven is located in the lab. The heated air from the oven is ventilated into the lab area. The air conditioner for the lab area also controls the temperature in a nearby conference room and a small office. The thermostat for the air conditioner is located in this conference room. At the request of Cooperative Extension Riverside County, the Maintenance Department adjusted the controls for the air conditioner to maintain a temperature of 68° F. Office employees in nearby offices stated this resulted in “the conference room and office areas being unbearably cold”. The County Administrative Center building was designed and built in 1997 to accommodate various departments in an open concept. Board of Supervisors Policy H4 states, the Facilities Management Department will: “Set air conditioning and heating controls to comply with settings so as not to cool below 76° F, and not to heat above 68° F. Where a single temperature set point is, or where a system cools and heats simultaneously, the equipment will be operated in a manner that minimizes the use of electrical energy.” The different sections of the building all join through open spaces therefore anything that enters the air system in the lab will be circulated throughout the entire building. MSDS states a hood is required for the proper handling of most chemicals used by the lab personnel. However, there is no laboratory hood located within the lab area. The MSDS do not identify a quantity level of unsafe hazardous materials; therefore all volumes and quantities must be treated as hazardous. Riverside County Economic Development Agency, Facility Maintenance conducted an investigation into the ventilation of the lab area and wrote a report a section which is identified as “Plan B” dated May 3, 2011, which recommended necessary changes so the lab could become a self- contained unit. • “Remove all existing ductwork (supply and return air) from AC 301 to this area. • Install a new rooftop package unit and ductwork solely dedicated for the lab. Estimated cost $10,000.00. • Install an appropriately sized exhaust fan to adequately ensure a negative pressure room. Estimated cost $1,300.00.” 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe remodel the lab as a self-contained unit by implementing “Plan B” of the Riverside County Economic Development Agency, Facility Maintenance Report dated May 3, 2011.
F3:
No Hazardous Materials Handler Permit California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and Riverside County Ordinance 651 states, “…any regulated substance or Federal Extremely Hazardous Substance or California Acutely Hazardous Substance below five gallons requires a Hazard Materials Business Emergency Plan and a permit with the County of Riverside Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health.” At the time of this report, the Cooperative Extension has not submitted a Hazard Materials Business Emergency Plan to the proper authorities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe create a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and obtain a Hazardous Materials Handlers Permit, as required by Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and Riverside County Ordinance 651.
F4:
No Hazardous Materials Identification on Building In accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 704, (Exhibit #1) requirements for handling hazardous materials and California Health & Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Section 25000-25520, requires that there should be identification on any building that stores or uses hazardous materials. This advises all persons and especially firefighters of the types of chemicals that are maintained within the building.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe place hazardous materials identification plaques on all entrances into the County Administration Center Building, Blythe in accordance with NFPA 704.
F5:
No Hazardous Waste Generator Permit County of Riverside Hazardous Waste Generator form (HWG form dated 12/2005) identifies one type of waste as “Pesticide: Unusable portions of active pesticides, unrinsed empty containers, rinse water”. For example the MSDS for Potassium Cyanide states: “Dispose of container and unused contents in accordance with federal, state and local requirements”. The lab personnel stated the chemical containers were washed in water and rinsed 3 times. At the time of this investigation, there was no Hazardous Waste Generator Permit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe obtain a Hazardous Waste Generator Permit, (HWG Form 12/2005).
F6:
Improper Form Used for Hazardous Materials Inventory The inventory list of chemicals (Exhibit #2) is not recorded on the correct form required by the County of Riverside. The correct form is Office of Emergency Services (OES) Form 2731 (Exhibit #3). A separate form is required for each chemical and updated when a chemical is changed or moved. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe conform to Office of Emergency Services (OES) Form 2731 used for inventory of hazardous materials. Exhibit #1 6 Chemical Inventory List – UCCE Blythe CA laboratory Chemical name Active ingredient Amount (metric) Asana Esfenvalerate 473 ml Acetone Acetone 946 ml Actara Thiamethoxam 100 g Admire Flex 4 Imidacloprid 475 ml Admire Flex 4 Imidacloprid 475 ml Admire Flex 4 Imidacloprid 475 ml Admire Pro Imidacloprid 1 L Agri-Flex Thiamethoxam 75 ml Agri-mek Abamectin 50 ml Ammonia Ammonia 3.8 L Avaunt Indoxacarb 100 g Captan Captan 20 g Capture Bifenthrin 120 ml Coragen Chlorantraniliprole 946 ml Coragen Chlorantraniliprole 946 ml Coragen Chlorantraniliprole 946 ml Dipel Df Baccillus thuringiensis 454 g Durivo Thiamethoxam 500 ml Dyne Amic Methyl esters of fatty acids 200 ml Dyne Amic Methyl esters of fatty acids 200 ml Dyne Amic Methyl esters of fatty acids 200 ml Ethyl Acetate Ethyl Acetate 3.25 L Fluon Teflon 236 ml Fulfill Pymetrozine 50 g Fulfill Pymetrozine 100 g Histo Clear 2 Histo Clear 2 3.8 L Induce Alkyl aryl polyoxylkane ethers 200 ml Leverage Imidaclophid 475 ml Movento Spirotramat 475 ml Movento Spirotramat 475 ml Exhibit #2 7 Mustang Zeta cypermethrin 50 ml NN1-0101 20 SC Pyrifiuquinazon 200 ml NN1-0101 20 SC Pyrifiuquinazon 50 ml Oberon Spiromesifen 120 ml Oberon Spiromesifen 200 ml Permount Permount 100 ml Potassium Cyanide Potassium Cyanide 100 g Radiant Spinetoram 100 ml Scorpion Dinotefuran 100 ml Switch Cyprodinil 100 g Synapse Flubendiamide 50 g Synpse Flubendiamide 50 g Thionex Endosulfan 473 ml Thionex Endosulfan 473 ml Venom Dinotefuran 50 g Venom Dinotefuran 100 g Vetica Fluebendiamide 100 ml Vetica Fluebendiamide 1 L Voliam xpress Chlorantraniliprole 200 ml Voliam xpress Chlorantraniliprole 500 ml XenTari Baccillus thuringiensis 453.59 g Exhibit #2 8 Report Issued: 06/28/2011 Report Public: 06/30/2011 Response Due: 09/26/2011 9
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Improper Storage of Toxic Chemicals with Flammable Chemicals A variety of flammable and toxic chemicals used in the lab are stored in a flame resistant (color coded yellow) metal cabinet in the workroom located in Cooperative Extension Department, but not all chemicals are stored in this cabinet. Two examples of stored chemicals are Acetone and Potassium Cyanide. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) classified Acetone as EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE and the vapors of Acetone may cause a flash fire and are harmful if inhaled. The MSDS states, “…the Flash Point of Acetone is -4° F and should be handled under a vent hood with a proper ventilation system”. Potassium Cyanide is classified as EXTREME HEALTH HAZARD, POISON. MSDS states, “…Do not store near combustibles or flammables because subsequent fire fighting with water could lead to cyanide runoff. Do not store under sprinkler system”. Handling and storage for both chemicals should be in a cool, dry, well- ventilated location. The workroom where the chemicals are stored is maintained as an office space and is part of the buildings air conditioning system. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe store all chemicals in compliance with the appropriate MSDS.
F2:
Improper Ventilation in the Cooperative Extension Area The County Administrative Center in Blythe is designed to be office space with gaps under the doors, and centralized air conditioning units that serve multiple areas. A drying oven is located in the lab. The heated air from the oven is ventilated into the lab area. The air conditioner for the lab area also controls the temperature in a nearby conference room and a small office. The thermostat for the air conditioner is located in this conference room. At the request of Cooperative Extension Riverside County, the Maintenance Department adjusted the controls for the air conditioner to maintain a temperature of 68° F. Office employees in nearby offices stated this resulted in “the conference room and office areas being unbearably cold”. The County Administrative Center building was designed and built in 1997 to accommodate various departments in an open concept. Board of Supervisors Policy H4 states, the Facilities Management Department will: “Set air conditioning and heating controls to comply with settings so as not to cool below 76° F, and not to heat above 68° F. Where a single temperature set point is, or where a system cools and heats simultaneously, the equipment will be operated in a manner that minimizes the use of electrical energy.” The different sections of the building all join through open spaces therefore anything that enters the air system in the lab will be circulated throughout the entire building. MSDS states a hood is required for the proper handling of most chemicals used by the lab personnel. However, there is no laboratory hood located within the lab area. The MSDS do not identify a quantity level of unsafe hazardous materials; therefore all volumes and quantities must be treated as hazardous. Riverside County Economic Development Agency, Facility Maintenance conducted an investigation into the ventilation of the lab area and wrote a report a section which is identified as “Plan B” dated May 3, 2011, which recommended necessary changes so the lab could become a self- contained unit. • “Remove all existing ductwork (supply and return air) from AC 301 to this area. • Install a new rooftop package unit and ductwork solely dedicated for the lab. Estimated cost $10,000.00. • Install an appropriately sized exhaust fan to adequately ensure a negative pressure room. Estimated cost $1,300.00.” 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe remodel the lab as a self-contained unit by implementing “Plan B” of the Riverside County Economic Development Agency, Facility Maintenance Report dated May 3, 2011.
F3:
No Hazardous Materials Handler Permit California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and Riverside County Ordinance 651 states, “…any regulated substance or Federal Extremely Hazardous Substance or California Acutely Hazardous Substance below five gallons requires a Hazard Materials Business Emergency Plan and a permit with the County of Riverside Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health.” At the time of this report, the Cooperative Extension has not submitted a Hazard Materials Business Emergency Plan to the proper authorities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe create a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and obtain a Hazardous Materials Handlers Permit, as required by Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and Riverside County Ordinance 651.
F4:
No Hazardous Materials Identification on Building In accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 704, (Exhibit #1) requirements for handling hazardous materials and California Health & Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Section 25000-25520, requires that there should be identification on any building that stores or uses hazardous materials. This advises all persons and especially firefighters of the types of chemicals that are maintained within the building.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe place hazardous materials identification plaques on all entrances into the County Administration Center Building, Blythe in accordance with NFPA 704.
F5:
No Hazardous Waste Generator Permit County of Riverside Hazardous Waste Generator form (HWG form dated 12/2005) identifies one type of waste as “Pesticide: Unusable portions of active pesticides, unrinsed empty containers, rinse water”. For example the MSDS for Potassium Cyanide states: “Dispose of container and unused contents in accordance with federal, state and local requirements”. The lab personnel stated the chemical containers were washed in water and rinsed 3 times. At the time of this investigation, there was no Hazardous Waste Generator Permit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe obtain a Hazardous Waste Generator Permit, (HWG Form 12/2005).
F6:
Improper Form Used for Hazardous Materials Inventory The inventory list of chemicals (Exhibit #2) is not recorded on the correct form required by the County of Riverside. The correct form is Office of Emergency Services (OES) Form 2731 (Exhibit #3). A separate form is required for each chemical and updated when a chemical is changed or moved. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Cooperative Extension Riverside County, Blythe conform to Office of Emergency Services (OES) Form 2731 used for inventory of hazardous materials. Exhibit #1 6 Chemical Inventory List – UCCE Blythe CA laboratory Chemical name Active ingredient Amount (metric) Asana Esfenvalerate 473 ml Acetone Acetone 946 ml Actara Thiamethoxam 100 g Admire Flex 4 Imidacloprid 475 ml Admire Flex 4 Imidacloprid 475 ml Admire Flex 4 Imidacloprid 475 ml Admire Pro Imidacloprid 1 L Agri-Flex Thiamethoxam 75 ml Agri-mek Abamectin 50 ml Ammonia Ammonia 3.8 L Avaunt Indoxacarb 100 g Captan Captan 20 g Capture Bifenthrin 120 ml Coragen Chlorantraniliprole 946 ml Coragen Chlorantraniliprole 946 ml Coragen Chlorantraniliprole 946 ml Dipel Df Baccillus thuringiensis 454 g Durivo Thiamethoxam 500 ml Dyne Amic Methyl esters of fatty acids 200 ml Dyne Amic Methyl esters of fatty acids 200 ml Dyne Amic Methyl esters of fatty acids 200 ml Ethyl Acetate Ethyl Acetate 3.25 L Fluon Teflon 236 ml Fulfill Pymetrozine 50 g Fulfill Pymetrozine 100 g Histo Clear 2 Histo Clear 2 3.8 L Induce Alkyl aryl polyoxylkane ethers 200 ml Leverage Imidaclophid 475 ml Movento Spirotramat 475 ml Movento Spirotramat 475 ml Exhibit #2 7 Mustang Zeta cypermethrin 50 ml NN1-0101 20 SC Pyrifiuquinazon 200 ml NN1-0101 20 SC Pyrifiuquinazon 50 ml Oberon Spiromesifen 120 ml Oberon Spiromesifen 200 ml Permount Permount 100 ml Potassium Cyanide Potassium Cyanide 100 g Radiant Spinetoram 100 ml Scorpion Dinotefuran 100 ml Switch Cyprodinil 100 g Synapse Flubendiamide 50 g Synpse Flubendiamide 50 g Thionex Endosulfan 473 ml Thionex Endosulfan 473 ml Venom Dinotefuran 50 g Venom Dinotefuran 100 g Vetica Fluebendiamide 100 ml Vetica Fluebendiamide 1 L Voliam xpress Chlorantraniliprole 200 ml Voliam xpress Chlorantraniliprole 500 ml XenTari Baccillus thuringiensis 453.59 g Exhibit #2 8 Report Issued: 06/28/2011 Report Public: 06/30/2011 Response Due: 09/26/2011 9
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
In March 2010, rather than consider renewing the existing Indigent Defense contracts, the Board of Supervisors voted to issue a new Request for Proposal (RFP) for Indigent Defense later in the year with more explicit contractual requirements, a response to alleged improprieties regarding the selection of 2009-2010 Indigent Defense contractors. Additionally, in an effort to ensure that any and all future RFP’s and contract processes be more open, transparent and fair, the Board of Supervisors tentatively approved a draft of a set of amendments to Section 2.48 of the Purchasing Manual entitled B.R.U.T.E., “Bid Review Under Transparent Environment.” B.R.U.T.E. consists of nine amendment items listed as “A” through “I”. The Purchasing Department was instructed to review this draft and submit alterations to B.R.U.T.E. The County’s current Purchasing Policy manual recognizes two types of bid requests: Requests for Quotations (RFQ’s) and RFP’s. The latter allows the bidders to be contacted by the Purchasing Department after the proposals are submitted and before the final decision is made to allow re- negotiation of a final price even after a bidder has been selected. B.R.U.T.E. requires that “Regular audits shall be done to ensure the County Contractor is performing all the duties associated with their contract.” Current Indigent Defense contract requirements do not address the type of audits to be conducted (such as financial, physical or operational) once a contract has been approved by the Board of Supervisors. B.R.U.T.E. states that all proposals should be delivered to the Clerk of the Board and requires the “Public unsealing of bids and read into the record.” Testimony revealed that this procedure was added to improve transparency and avoid any appearance of collusion. Investigation further revealed that due to the vast number of County contracts awarded, the public unsealing of bids at Board of Supervisors meetings is not feasible, cost effective or necessary to ensure B.R.U.T.E. is being followed. Further investigation revealed that the Clerk of the Board does not have the space, personnel or resources to record, receive and handle public unsealing of all County bids.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should review and place a finalized version of B.R.U.T.E. on its agenda for final vote as soon as possible. This finalized version should be expanded and refined as follows: • B.R.U.T.E. should state that responsibility of receipt of all proposals remain with the Purchasing Department and ensure a second witness is available when the proposals are delivered and certified. 5 • The Purchasing Department should continue handling the administration of the proposal process including providing a certified copy to the Clerk of the Board and posting RFP’s online including qualified evaluators. B.R.U.T.E. should identify which contract bids are to be opened at public Board of Supervisors meetings and which may be unsealed in another approved manner, and would include public oversight and therefore provide transparency. All RFP’s over $1 million should be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda for Board of Supervisors approval. • B.R.U.T.E. should require all Riverside County contracts over $1 million contain an audit provision and include the following: • Define specifically what type of audit is to be conducted such as financial, physical or operational to ascertain appropriate deliverables are being made. • Further define “regular” audits by such terms as annually or biennially. • Define who performs the audit and who pays for the audit.
F2:
In 2010, these Indigent Defense contracts totaled approximately $10.6 million per year and defined the provisions and requirements for providing Indigent Defense services. The 2010 cost of these attorney services totaled $9.6 million. The 2010 total annual amount of these trust accounts was approximately $1.0 million. An Indigent Defense contract is issued in two parts. The largest dollar part covers the attorney services provided in conflict cases. The other smaller part provides a trust account for ancillary non-attorney services. There is an existing provision in an Indigent Defense contract that stipulates the County may “audit/inspect files/books and/or financial records at any time”. However, investigation has revealed the Executive Office has been negligent in not requesting any audits of the larger contract portion, which provides attorney services. Indigent Defense contract provisions require that the trust account be audited each year by an external auditing firm. Investigation indicates that the trust accounts have only been audited five times in the past nine years. The auditors made many recommendations some of which were not implemented and many of the recommendations were repeated in subsequent audits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Riverside County Executive Office has a fiscal responsibility to the County taxpayers to request audits, either internally or externally, of one of its largest contracts and verify that the terms of contracts are being adhered to. The scope of specified audits of entities should include: • Reliability and integrity of financial and operating information. • Compliance with policies, procedures, and regulations. • Economical and efficient use of resources. • Accomplishment of established objectives and goals for contracted service. In addition to mandatory audits for the larger of the two contract components, the other components should periodically be audited for validation of overall compliance as well. The Auditor-Controller may perform the audits or an external auditor may be appointed to handle the physical and financial audits. 6
F3:
The Riverside County Executive Office has no approved written policies and procedures for processing monthly Indigent Defense payments for legal services or handling monthly payments to their trust accounts. Investigation revealed that prior to April 2010, the Indigent Defense contractors’ documentation submitted to the Riverside County Executive Office was in the form of brief memoranda rather than detailed invoices or activity reports. The Riverside County Executive Office authorized monthly payments for Indigent Defense legal services before the Riverside County Executive Office received any specific activity reports. This demonstrates that validation of contracted services did not occur before payments were processed. Investigation also revealed that as a result of the Riverside County Executive Office becoming aware of this lack of documentation for work performed, the Riverside County Executive Office demanded Indigent Defense contractors submit activity reports before any payments would be issued.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Riverside County Executive Office should immediately prepare and distribute detailed written policies and procedures for processing payments on all Indigent Defense contracts including the trust account payments. Activity reports must continue to be submitted by Indigent Defense contractors. The Indigent Defense contracts should be amended to provide provisions to withhold monthly payments until required documents have been submitted.
F4:
Investigation into Indigent Defense reporting revealed that Indigent Defense contractors stated they were unable to provide hours per case to the Riverside County Executive Office. Conversely, as Riverside County is one of nineteen counties in California which houses State prisons, when hearings for prisoners incarcerated in a State facility occur and defense is provided by the local County, Penal Code sections 4750-4755 and 6005 allow for reimbursement to the County that provides these defense services on behalf of the State of California. Evidence also revealed that the FAM-27 form has been submitted by the County to the State for reimbursement and required the County to include the number of hours of Indigent Defense provided. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Future Indigent Defense contracts should require legal contractors report the number of hours of defense services, track on a regular basis (i.e. monthly, quarterly) and at the conclusion of each case. This is important in establishing benchmarks for tracking appropriateness of legal services, cost relative to contracted services, and a viable audit trail for validating the cost of legal services provided.
F5:
Examination into the selection processes for the Indigent Defense contracts revealed that the methodology used in the 2009 RFP relied on seven technical evaluation categories: five of which were rated with varying subjective levels, and two categories were evaluated as “Pass or Fail”. Five evaluators were selected to provide technical evaluations, only one of which had any defense experience. The significant fault of this 2009 evaluation system was found in the subjective category entitled “Cost to the County”, which had a weight of 40%. Further examination revealed that these evaluators used a range in their ratings from one to five, five being the highest. Two qualified bidders were only $100 apart on the final bid of $6.9 million, a difference of only 0.00144%, although their weighted evaluations were significantly farther apart. This demonstrated the weakness of the subjective evaluation process. The subjective ratings based on “Cost to County” were very far apart although the final cost bids were relatively equal. Since the weight of this category was 40% of the decision making process, it showed the broad range of assigned ratings had influenced the final decision incorrectly. In March 2010, a steering committee was created to develop a new 2010 RFP based on the B.R.U.T.E. process. Members representing each of the Supervisors, the Riverside County Executive Office, the Public Defender, County Counsel and Purchasing were invited to participate in the construction of a new RFP for Indigent Defense. All members contributed, although one County Supervisor did not send a representative. The final RFP reflected many changes from the prior RFP’s: there were more Pass/Fail categories and the evaluators’ credentials were vastly improved. This latter major change came when three heads of Offices of Public Defenders from other counties were invited to evaluate the submitted proposals. Their years of public defense experience totaled over 80 years. They came from the Sacramento, San Mateo and Sonoma counties for three days to evaluate each technical category in depth and not examine cost until their technical evaluations were completed. Based on the final calculations of the weighted categories, a single firm received the highest number of points. This firm had technical scores ranging from 8 to 10. The current Indigent Defense contractors scored lower in these same categories. The results were incorporated into a Form 11 (formal recommendation) and presented to the Board of Supervisors for consideration of approval on December 7, 2010. The
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
To restore credibility and integrity to the Board of Supervisors, they should work together with the Purchasing Department to construct a workable RFP process to ensure transparency in future Indigent Defense contracts. Lack of oversight invites potential abuse in the use of County funds. Report Issued: 4/11/2011 Report Public: 4/13/2011 Response Due: 7/11/2011 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Several bus drivers testified that a document given to the Grand Jury by TVUSD management as a released document (Approved and Controlled) had not been disseminated to the bus drivers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Annually, the TVUSD Director of Transportation should provide an approved copy of the guidebook to each bus driver and obtain signature verification.
F2:
The guidebook does not show controlling information that most of the other documents contained, (example: date released, approval by, reviewed date to verify continued accuracy, etc.). The guidebook given to the Grand Jury, could not be verified that it was current or had been reviewed or approved by anyone. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The TVUSD Director of Transportation should complete the development of the guidebook for bus drivers. Obtain and document necessary approval for the guidebook from the appropriate District manager and CSEA.
F3:
Several of the employees interviewed stated they had made verbal and/or written complaints to the Director of Transportation in accordance with Administration Regulation and never received a response on the investigation of their complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The TVUSD Director of Transportation should investigate each complaint raised by the complainant and respond to the complainant regarding the resolution of the complaint, in accordance with their Administrative Regulation.
F4:
When asked, several of the personnel in the Transportation Department did not know to whom they reported. Many said they guessed it was the Director of Transportation. When asked who is assigned the responsibility and authority for the department when commitments require the Director to be absent, the Grand Jury learned many were not sure. The Grand Jury found there is no supervisor for the Transportation Department as there is for the Maintenance Department, which has two supervisors reporting to the director of the Maintenance Department. Working on personal property:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
TVUSD administrators should hire a front line transportation supervisor or designate a person with responsibility and authority to provide supervision for the Transportation Department employees during the absence of the Director of Transportation.
F5:
Several of the employees interviewed stated that it was permissible to work on personal property on their off duty time if they notified the Director of Transportation. This is in violation of the “Annual Employee Notification Packet 2010-2011”. The document on , addressing Board Policy BP 3512, first paragraph states: “School equipment may be used by staff members and/or students only for school-related task. District equipment may not be used for personal reasons”. It’s also stated within the document , Administrative Regulation AR 3512(a) first paragraph “Employees and/or students shall use District equipment only for school-related task. The superintendent or designee shall ensure that all employees understand that personal use of District property is prohibited and that violation may be cause for disciplinary action”. Fueling safety information missing from Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
TVUSD Transportation Department employees should comply with Board Policy BP 3512 and Administrative Regulation AR 3512(a) that prohibits employees from using District equipment and District property, respectively.
F6:
Bus drivers and a driver trainer testified there were plaques on the CNG buses to caution/remind drivers on fueling safety. The fueling process is different from other types of fuel and if done incorrectly could result in an explosion. These plaques have been removed and are now missing from the buses. Lack of Clarification for Recess Work Assignments:
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
TVUSD Director of Transportation must ensure fueling safety training for “CNG” bus drivers and reinstall “Fueling Plaques” on CNG buses to remind bus drivers of fueling safety.
F7:
The Collective Bargaining Agreement between Temecula Valley Unified School District and California School Employees Association (CSEA) Chapter 538, Article 7, subparagraph 7.9.7 states “the work shall be offered to unit members on an equitable basis” and “In making determinations regarding the assignment, management will consider the following non-order criteria: qualification for position, personnel needs of the District, seniority.” Following 2 the instructions listed within the Recess Work Assignments Article 7, subparagraph 7.9.7 are not based on an equitable basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
TVUSD management in collaboration with CSEA revise Article 7, subparagraph 7.9.7 regarding Recess Work Assignments for bus drivers considering that all bus drivers must be qualified for the type of bus they drive. As currently written, “non-ordered criteria” does not appear to be an equitable basis. Report Issued: 3/28/2011 Report Public: 3/30/2011 Response Due: 6/27/2011 3
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Several bus drivers testified that a document given to the Grand Jury by TVUSD management as a released document (Approved and Controlled) had not been disseminated to the bus drivers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Annually, the TVUSD Director of Transportation should provide an approved copy of the guidebook to each bus driver and obtain signature verification.
F2:
The guidebook does not show controlling information that most of the other documents contained, (example: date released, approval by, reviewed date to verify continued accuracy, etc.). The guidebook given to the Grand Jury, could not be verified that it was current or had been reviewed or approved by anyone. 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The TVUSD Director of Transportation should complete the development of the guidebook for bus drivers. Obtain and document necessary approval for the guidebook from the appropriate District manager and CSEA.
F3:
Several of the employees interviewed stated they had made verbal and/or written complaints to the Director of Transportation in accordance with Administration Regulation and never received a response on the investigation of their complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The TVUSD Director of Transportation should investigate each complaint raised by the complainant and respond to the complainant regarding the resolution of the complaint, in accordance with their Administrative Regulation.
F4:
When asked, several of the personnel in the Transportation Department did not know to whom they reported. Many said they guessed it was the Director of Transportation. When asked who is assigned the responsibility and authority for the department when commitments require the Director to be absent, the Grand Jury learned many were not sure. The Grand Jury found there is no supervisor for the Transportation Department as there is for the Maintenance Department, which has two supervisors reporting to the director of the Maintenance Department. Working on personal property:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
TVUSD administrators should hire a front line transportation supervisor or designate a person with responsibility and authority to provide supervision for the Transportation Department employees during the absence of the Director of Transportation.
F5:
Several of the employees interviewed stated that it was permissible to work on personal property on their off duty time if they notified the Director of Transportation. This is in violation of the “Annual Employee Notification Packet 2010-2011”. The document on , addressing Board Policy BP 3512, first paragraph states: “School equipment may be used by staff members and/or students only for school-related task. District equipment may not be used for personal reasons”. It’s also stated within the document , Administrative Regulation AR 3512(a) first paragraph “Employees and/or students shall use District equipment only for school-related task. The superintendent or designee shall ensure that all employees understand that personal use of District property is prohibited and that violation may be cause for disciplinary action”. Fueling safety information missing from Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses:
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
TVUSD Transportation Department employees should comply with Board Policy BP 3512 and Administrative Regulation AR 3512(a) that prohibits employees from using District equipment and District property, respectively.
F6:
Bus drivers and a driver trainer testified there were plaques on the CNG buses to caution/remind drivers on fueling safety. The fueling process is different from other types of fuel and if done incorrectly could result in an explosion. These plaques have been removed and are now missing from the buses. Lack of Clarification for Recess Work Assignments:
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
TVUSD Director of Transportation must ensure fueling safety training for “CNG” bus drivers and reinstall “Fueling Plaques” on CNG buses to remind bus drivers of fueling safety.
F7:
The Collective Bargaining Agreement between Temecula Valley Unified School District and California School Employees Association (CSEA) Chapter 538, Article 7, subparagraph 7.9.7 states “the work shall be offered to unit members on an equitable basis” and “In making determinations regarding the assignment, management will consider the following non-order criteria: qualification for position, personnel needs of the District, seniority.” Following 2 the instructions listed within the Recess Work Assignments Article 7, subparagraph 7.9.7 are not based on an equitable basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
TVUSD management in collaboration with CSEA revise Article 7, subparagraph 7.9.7 regarding Recess Work Assignments for bus drivers considering that all bus drivers must be qualified for the type of bus they drive. As currently written, “non-ordered criteria” does not appear to be an equitable basis. Report Issued: 3/28/2011 Report Public: 3/30/2011 Response Due: 6/27/2011 3
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Riverside County Sheriff is responsible for providing basic medical services to inmates in custody at all jails and detention centers in the County (The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, California Penal Code §6030, and CCR Title 15, §3350 et seq). The Sheriff has the ultimate responsibility under CCR Title 15, Article 11, §1200 to provide medical services to inmates in accordance with the following guidelines: “…1. all health care will be provided outside the facility by transporting inmates to doctors’ offices and/or hospitals;
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Board of Supervisors transfer health care administration authority at all jails and detention centers in the county back to the Riverside County Sheriff.
F2:
only emergency health care will be provided by transporting inmates to doctors’ offices and hospitals and basic health care will be provided in the facility;
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Board of Supervisors transfer health care administration authority at all juvenile detention centers to the Riverside County Probation Department.
F3:
all health care will be provided in the facility; or,
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Board of Supervisors provide funding for medical services as mandated by CCR Title 15 to inmates at all adult detention facilities in Riverside County.
F4:
only first aid will be provided in the facility, with all other health care requiring transport to community medical services. Personnel considerations will help determine if it works best to:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Board of Supervisors provide funding for medical services as mandated by CCR Title 15 to minor detainees at all juvenile probation facilities in Riverside County. Report Issued: 06/14/2011 Report Public: 06/16/2011 Response Due: 09/12/2011 6
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Inadequate Financial Bookkeeping System IFPD was using an Excel spreadsheet designed by one of the firefighters for recording financial information. The auditing firm, comprised of certified public accountants, advised IFPD in a letter dated October 25, 2010, that “the current accounting system is a series of Excel schedules and not a double-entry accounting system, as a result, the prior year audit adjustments have not been posted to the fiscal years ending 2010 or 2011; thus a number of balance sheet accounts have not been reconciled, including cash. These are key elements in maintaining a system that meets governmental accounting and financial reporting standards.” IFPD’s financial management system does not have internal controls that track expenditures nor identify where monies are spent. These deficiencies have resulted in: • Late payments to CalPers Pension Fund and vendors • Checks written but not sent to suppliers • Inability to reconcile cash balance The replacement auditing firm hired by IFPD in December 2010, to perform the audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, stated in a letter, they have experienced similar deficiencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
IFPD implement a double-entry bookkeeping system for recording financial transactions and internal controls to maintain adequate records in accordance with Government Accounting and Financial Standards. 4
F2:
Annual Audits The policy of the Board (BOD 4050) and the Administrative Regulations (AR) #107, which each director receives, states; “The Board shall annually have an independent audit of the district’s financial records. The Board shall contract with a licensed auditor or auditing firm for the performance of this service and to serve as a consultant on accounting procedures”. Grand Jury investigation revealed that audits were not performed annually as required by Board Policy 4050. Shown below are the dates the audits were performed for the five-year period FY 2004 – FY 2009. FISCAL YEAR COMPLETION DATES 06/30/04 – 05 11/25/08 06/30/05 – 06 06/01/09 06/30/06 – 07 08/27/09 06/30/07 – 08 11/04/09 06/30/08 – 09 11/05/10
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
IFPD Board President plan and schedule mandatory annual training on Board Policy Series 4000, specifically BOD Policy 4050 and AR IFPD #107.
F3:
Lack of Compliance with Requirements of AR IFPD #107 As part of each Board Member’s orientation the AR IFPD #107 document is provided to each Board Member. Included within this document is the structure and operation of the Board. The Board is not performing all the duties and responsibilities that are outlined in AR IFPD #107. The following deficiencies were revealed: • Failure to monitor expenditures • Lack of training on the Brown Act • Late financial annual audits
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
IFPD Board President require all IFPD Board Members attend mandatory annual training to review and discuss the requirements in AR IFPD #107.
F4:
Violation of the Brown Act At the March 8, 2010 meeting, the Board revealed it had discussed the Fire Chief’s contract and compensation in closed sessions two weeks before the open meeting. The Board was in violation of the following sections of the Brown Act: • Section 54954.2(a) Agenda requirements; regular meetings “…At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, an agenda shall be posted containing a brief description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed in the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session” • Section 54957.7(a) Announcement prior to closed sessions. “…Prior to holding any closed session, an announcement shall be made in open meeting, the item or items to be discussed in closed session” • Section 54957.1 Report at conclusion of closed session “…Upon returning from closed session; a report of any action taken in closed session and the vote of every member present must be presented in the open meeting.” 3 Similar violations of the Brown Act were also identified in the 2007-2008 Riverside County Grand Jury report. IFPD official response to this report “to the extent that any discussion of compensation for the chief took place, all such discussions were voided by the Board on November 27, 2007 and took place in an open session thereafter.” This response did not correct the event from being repeated in 2010.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The IFPD Board is a “legislative body” under the laws and statutes of the State of California. As such the Board must comply with the provisions of the Brown Act at all times and receive annual training on the Brown Act to minimize any violations.
F5:
Conflict of Interest by a Board Member A Board Member has an arrangement as a paid on call firefighter, EMT, or pump operator for the Fire District. This is a conflict as this Board Member is the Fire Chief’s superior as stated in AR IFPD #107 and when working for the District as a firefighter, he is also a subordinate to the Fire Chief. Presently, this Board member has taken a leave of absence as an employee. Taking a leave of absence does not resolve the conflict, because the employee status has not been severed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The elected official on the IFPD Board must resolve the current conflict of interest.
F6:
Use of Volunteers and/or Cal-Fire In the early years of IFPD existence, the staff primarily consisted of volunteers. Over the years there has been a shift to career paid firefighters with only three persons listed as volunteers (paid per call). Cost comparison data has not been performed to show the differences in operating with volunteers and career firefighters. The 2007-2008 Riverside County Grand Jury Report recommended that IFPD explore the feasibility of contracting with Cal-Fire to provide fire protection services to the mountain communities. The District’s major objection for maintaining the status quo is that Cal-Fire would be more costly; however no analysis or study has been performed to establish the cost for Cal-Fire to provide services nor is the true cost known for IFPD as it is currently organized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The IFPD Board should hire a consulting firm to conduct a cost analysis for: • IFPD and Cal-Fire • Ambulance Service • Career Firefighters and Volunteers Report Issued: 06/14/2011 Report Public: 06/16/2011 Response Due: 09/12/2011 5
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Inadequate Financial Bookkeeping System IFPD was using an Excel spreadsheet designed by one of the firefighters for recording financial information. The auditing firm, comprised of certified public accountants, advised IFPD in a letter dated October 25, 2010, that “the current accounting system is a series of Excel schedules and not a double-entry accounting system, as a result, the prior year audit adjustments have not been posted to the fiscal years ending 2010 or 2011; thus a number of balance sheet accounts have not been reconciled, including cash. These are key elements in maintaining a system that meets governmental accounting and financial reporting standards.” IFPD’s financial management system does not have internal controls that track expenditures nor identify where monies are spent. These deficiencies have resulted in: • Late payments to CalPers Pension Fund and vendors • Checks written but not sent to suppliers • Inability to reconcile cash balance The replacement auditing firm hired by IFPD in December 2010, to perform the audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, stated in a letter, they have experienced similar deficiencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
IFPD implement a double-entry bookkeeping system for recording financial transactions and internal controls to maintain adequate records in accordance with Government Accounting and Financial Standards. 4
F2:
Annual Audits The policy of the Board (BOD 4050) and the Administrative Regulations (AR) #107, which each director receives, states; “The Board shall annually have an independent audit of the district’s financial records. The Board shall contract with a licensed auditor or auditing firm for the performance of this service and to serve as a consultant on accounting procedures”. Grand Jury investigation revealed that audits were not performed annually as required by Board Policy 4050. Shown below are the dates the audits were performed for the five-year period FY 2004 – FY 2009. FISCAL YEAR COMPLETION DATES 06/30/04 – 05 11/25/08 06/30/05 – 06 06/01/09 06/30/06 – 07 08/27/09 06/30/07 – 08 11/04/09 06/30/08 – 09 11/05/10
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
IFPD Board President plan and schedule mandatory annual training on Board Policy Series 4000, specifically BOD Policy 4050 and AR IFPD #107.
F3:
Lack of Compliance with Requirements of AR IFPD #107 As part of each Board Member’s orientation the AR IFPD #107 document is provided to each Board Member. Included within this document is the structure and operation of the Board. The Board is not performing all the duties and responsibilities that are outlined in AR IFPD #107. The following deficiencies were revealed: • Failure to monitor expenditures • Lack of training on the Brown Act • Late financial annual audits
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
IFPD Board President require all IFPD Board Members attend mandatory annual training to review and discuss the requirements in AR IFPD #107.
F4:
Violation of the Brown Act At the March 8, 2010 meeting, the Board revealed it had discussed the Fire Chief’s contract and compensation in closed sessions two weeks before the open meeting. The Board was in violation of the following sections of the Brown Act: • Section 54954.2(a) Agenda requirements; regular meetings “…At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, an agenda shall be posted containing a brief description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed in the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session” • Section 54957.7(a) Announcement prior to closed sessions. “…Prior to holding any closed session, an announcement shall be made in open meeting, the item or items to be discussed in closed session” • Section 54957.1 Report at conclusion of closed session “…Upon returning from closed session; a report of any action taken in closed session and the vote of every member present must be presented in the open meeting.” 3 Similar violations of the Brown Act were also identified in the 2007-2008 Riverside County Grand Jury report. IFPD official response to this report “to the extent that any discussion of compensation for the chief took place, all such discussions were voided by the Board on November 27, 2007 and took place in an open session thereafter.” This response did not correct the event from being repeated in 2010.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The IFPD Board is a “legislative body” under the laws and statutes of the State of California. As such the Board must comply with the provisions of the Brown Act at all times and receive annual training on the Brown Act to minimize any violations.
F5:
Conflict of Interest by a Board Member A Board Member has an arrangement as a paid on call firefighter, EMT, or pump operator for the Fire District. This is a conflict as this Board Member is the Fire Chief’s superior as stated in AR IFPD #107 and when working for the District as a firefighter, he is also a subordinate to the Fire Chief. Presently, this Board member has taken a leave of absence as an employee. Taking a leave of absence does not resolve the conflict, because the employee status has not been severed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The elected official on the IFPD Board must resolve the current conflict of interest.
F6:
Use of Volunteers and/or Cal-Fire In the early years of IFPD existence, the staff primarily consisted of volunteers. Over the years there has been a shift to career paid firefighters with only three persons listed as volunteers (paid per call). Cost comparison data has not been performed to show the differences in operating with volunteers and career firefighters. The 2007-2008 Riverside County Grand Jury Report recommended that IFPD explore the feasibility of contracting with Cal-Fire to provide fire protection services to the mountain communities. The District’s major objection for maintaining the status quo is that Cal-Fire would be more costly; however no analysis or study has been performed to establish the cost for Cal-Fire to provide services nor is the true cost known for IFPD as it is currently organized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The IFPD Board should hire a consulting firm to conduct a cost analysis for: • IFPD and Cal-Fire • Ambulance Service • Career Firefighters and Volunteers Report Issued: 06/14/2011 Report Public: 06/16/2011 Response Due: 09/12/2011 5