San Diego County Grand Jury

2006-2007

16 reports

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: Recommendation 01-79 of the 2000/2001 San Diego County Grand Jury Final Report advised the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, “…seek funding to build a modern women’s detention facility.”
F2: Recommendation 02-43 of the 2001/2002 San Diego County Grand Jury Final Report stated the San Diego County Board of Supervisors should, “Proceed with construction of a replacement women’s detention facility, now.”
F3: Recommendation 03-72 of the 2002/2003 San Diego County Grand Jury Final Report advised the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and San Diego County Board of Supervisors, “Proceed with construction of a new women’s detention facility as soon as possible.”
F4: Recommendation 04-92-9 of the 2003/2004 San Diego County Grand Jury Final Report advised the Sheriff’s Department that, “if construction of a new facility cannot proceed, then a major renovation effort should take place at Las Colinas Women’s Detention Facility.”
F5: Recommendation 06-61 of the 2005/2006 San Diego County Grand Jury Final Report stated the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff should, “identify ways to finance the construction of a new women’s facility.”
F6: Recommendation 06-61 response, “We agree with this recommendation and initial steps toward implementation have begun. In 1999, San Diego County undertook a study to determine the future facility needs of the detention system to 2020. Carter Goble Associates, Inc. was hired to conduct this study. One aspect of its study was a master plan for Las Colinas Women’s Detention Facility. This master plan was based upon the decision of the County to replace the existing facility on the City of Santee site. Carter Goble completed its final report in October of 2000.” The current Grand Jury testimony from officials within the Sheriff’s Department determined that the cost of this study exceeded $100,000.
F7: Recommendation 06-61 response continued, “Carter Goble then provided a new Las Colinas Detention Facility Development Plan on March 17, 2003. This plan included; Historical Inmate Population, Projected Inmate Population, Bed Space Summary, Site Size Requirements, Projected Construction Acreage Requirements and a Conceptual Site Master Plan.” 9 Finding: Based upon the dearth of expansion construction of Las Colinas since the September 17, 1996 Settlement Agreement, certain high level elected county officials have discounted the recommendations of five of the six previous San Diego County Grand Juries; while other high level elected county officials have not aggressively pursued those recommendations on behalf of San Diego County taxpayers. Finding: During the approximately two and a half years it took for Carter Goble to compile the new Development Plan, nearly 38,000 women were processed and housed in Las Colinas in buildings 21 years beyond their projected life expectancy at construction. Finding: On March 07, 2007, the current Grand Jury witnessed the first completed renovation efforts to replace the rotten wood flooring of all modular buildings. Reportedly, the construction cost for the renovation project is $125,000 per building. Approximately two and one half years have elapsed since the 2003/2004 Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (7)
07-95: Come to an agreement on priorities that will pave the way for the
07-96: Make a prompt, joint, unannounced visit to Las Colinas.
07-97: Encourage the firm producing the Environmental Impact Report to
07-98: STOP trying to block efforts to replace and enlarge Las Colinas.
07-99: Direct the Las Colinas Women’s Detention Facility Maintenance
07-101: Should develop a shielding buffer zone and berm of trees and shrubs along
07-102: Decide on a final layout for a new detention facility, obtain final approval
F2020: Carter Goble Associates, Inc. was hired to conduct this study. One aspect of its study was a master plan for Las Colinas Women’s Detention Facility. This master plan was based upon the decision of the County to replace the existing facility on the City of Santee site. Carter Goble completed its final report in October of 2000.” The current Grand Jury testimony from officials within the Sheriff’s Department determined that the cost of this study exceeded $100,000. •
Page 1

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Pulmonary/Critical Care
F2: Reproductive Medicine 4
F3: Hospitalist Fact: All 51 physician’s licenses verified with the Medical Board of California. All licenses were renewed and current. Finding: Initial verification by the Grand Jury at the public disclosure website of the Medical Board of California revealed one record of disciplinary action taken. A letter was sent to the Medical Board of California requesting a copy of the original accusation and final administrative disciplinary action. After review, the information was submitted to the Medical Director of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. The physician in question had met all the requirements of the Medical Board of California and had completed probation. Fact: In September 2006, a list of names and license numbers of medical personnel assigned to the Sheriff’s Department was provided to the Grand Jury by the Assistant Administrator of the Medical Services Division. Fact: 152 Registered Nurses’ (RN) (Sheriff’s Detention Nurses) licenses were verified with the Registered Nursing Board of California. Finding: All 152 Registered Nurses’ licenses were renewed and current. No Licensing Board disciplinary actions were indicated on any license. Fact: Thirty-six Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) licenses were verified with the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians. Finding: All 36 LVN licenses were renewed and current. No Licensing Board disciplinary actions were indicated on any license. Fact: All three Registered Pharmacist (RP) licenses were verified with the California State Board of Pharmacy. Fact: All four Pharmacy Technician’s licenses were verified with the Board of Pharmacy. Finding: At the time of the initial verification, at the public disclosure website, one record revealed disciplinary action taken on a Registered Pharmacist’s license. Fact: A letter was sent to the California State Board of Pharmacy requesting a copy of the original accusation and final administrative disciplinary action. Finding: The Registered Pharmacist in question is currently on probation with the California State Board of Pharmacy. Fact: The Sheriff’s Medical Division has a full time Medical Director, Director for Nursing Services, Chief Medical Records Director, and Assistant Medical Services Administrator, who oversee the day to day operations of the Medical Division. Finding: The Sheriff’s Medical Division is well organized with respect to medical personnel who oversee the various County jails/detention facilities. Fact: The Sheriff’s Medical Division is also the primary site where all pharmacy supplies are initially received from various pharmaceutical companies under contract with the County and where prescriptions are filled. Fact: There are two full-time registered pharmacists who are County employees and work on the premises. One contract registered pharmacist works at the Medical Division and at home, verifying medication orders for individual inmates in the seven detention facilities, using an off-site computer system remotely connected to the Jail Information Management System (JIMS). Currently only three pharmacy technicians assist the registered pharmacists and are responsible for delivery of medical supplies to jails/detention facilities within the county. Relating to services provided at the facilities operated by the Probation Department Fact: The County of San Diego, Department of Probation has a contract for physical health and dental services provided through an HHSA contract with California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG). This is a privately owned, West Coast provider of quality health care to correctional facilities. CFMG’s programs are accredited through the California Medical Association (CMA). Their president and medical director are board certified in psychiatry. Fact: Mental Health services are provided by County employees through Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) Children’s Mental Health, and Juvenile Forensic Services. Fact: The responsible dietician is an employee of the Sheriff’s Department and is located at the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility. Fact: All agencies and individuals identified above have submitted the requested licensure information through the County of San Diego Department of Probation. Finding: All 32 CFMG Registered Nurse (RN) licenses were verified with the Registered Nursing Board of California. All 32 licenses were renewed and current. No Licensing Board disciplinary actions were indicated on any license. Fact: All 24 Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) licenses were verified with the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians and all 24 licenses were renewed and current. Fact: One license had previous action taken by the Licensing Board. A copy of the accusation and final administrative disciplinary action was requested. After review, the information was discussed with the medical quality assurance coordinator. The coordinator was aware of the disciplinary action. The LVN in question had met all the requirements of the Board and completed probation three years ago. Fact: Five medical provider licenses were verified with the Medical Board of California. All their licenses were renewed and current with no disciplinary actions. Most of these physicians are credentialed and privileged through Rady Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, which is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization (JCAHO). Fact: One dental provider was identified. This provider’s license was verified with the Dental Board of California and is renewed and current with no disciplinary action. Fact: There are five Physician Assistants (PA) and one Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP). All licenses were verified with their respective boards and were renewed and current with no disciplinary action. Fact: There is one dental assistant. This provider’s license was verified and was renewed and current with no disciplinary action. Fact: In October 2006, a listing of health care providers’ information, name and license numbers was submitted to the Grand Jury. At that time, a list of nine providers was submitted, identified as “Juvenile Forensic Services – Crisis Team at the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility.” Finding: The Grand Jury verified three physician’s licenses with the Medical Board of California. At the time of initial verification at the public disclosure website, one record revealed disciplinary action taken. A letter was sent to the Medical Board of California requesting a copy of the original accusation and final administrative disciplinary action. The physician in question had met the requirements of the Medical Board of California and had completed probation. Finding: One registered nurse’s license was verified with the Registered Nursing Board of California. At the time of the initial verification to the board this record revealed disciplinary action taken. A letter was sent to the Registered Nursing Board of California requesting a copy of the original accusation and final administrative disciplinary action. The RN in question had met all the requirements of the Board and completed probation. Fact: The licenses of two psychologists were verified with the California Board of Psychologists. The licenses were renewed and current with no disciplinary action. Fact: One Licensed Clinical Social Worker’s (LCSW) license was verified with the Board of Behavioral Sciences and the license was renewed and current with no disciplinary action.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Additional Recommendations 11

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Do any of the schools in your district provide lockers for students? Responses: 22 of the responding schools do not have lockers, two have lockers, four have lockers for gym classes only, four have lockers for high schools and one has lockers for middle school students.
R2: If yes, where are these lockers located relative to home class rooms? Responses: Lockers are located near the gym, two have lockers “spread around the campus,” and one has lockers located outside of classrooms, but near the gym.
R3: If yes, how much time is provided between classes to access lockers? Responses: Four are accessible in five to 8 minutes; one does not allow locker access between classes.
R4: If yes, are lockers inspected, and if so, how often and by whom? Responses: In one case, the principal has keys to all lockers, but inspects them only if there is reason to suspect something inappropriate is being stored, one inspects lockers weekly, one checks the lockers at the beginning and end of the school year and one looks at lockers only at the end of the term.
R5: If yes, are locker usage rules explained to students and their parents/guardians? Responses: In six cases, locker rules are explained to students, in five cases, usage rules are explained to parents, one district noted that no parent has asked for rules to be explained.
R6: Is there an educational program in place to explain the proper use of backpacks to students and their parents/guardians? Responses: Two districts answered yes, one school mentioned explanations are given during school assemblies and one said rules are explained on a case-by-case basis and one answered rules are contained in student handbooks.
R7: If yes, how is this information disseminated? Responses: One district has a “parents information night” during which school rules including those concerning backpacks are explained, one covers the subject in a handbook and during assemblies and in two cases, teachers discuss the subject. 10
R8: How do teachers or other staff monitor how children carry their backpacks? Responses: At six districts, teachers monitor how the children are wearing backpacks, in two districts, proper wearing of backpacks is covered in safety guidelines, and in one each, teachers and staff coach the children, a nurse observes and when improper use is noted, it is handled on an individual basis with the student. One district did not see improper use of backpacks as a problem.
R9: Do your schools permit the use of rolling backpacks? Responses: Twenty-six of the responding districts permit rolling backpacks, only one does not.
R10: Can you provide records of backpack accidents? Responses: None of the responding districts had any accidents to report, although four would keep such records if necessary.
R11: Can you provide records of injuries caused by backpacks? Responses: None of the responding districts had any injuries to report, although five added they would keep such records if necessary. Please return this survey to: W. Broadway, Suite 477 San Diego CA 92101-3830 or Via fax to: (619) 515-8696 As of late January 2007, 28 of the 36 schools had responded. The results are immediately above. In some cases, the responses add to more than 36. That is because some of the responding districts do provide lockers for physical education classes; some provide lockers for the middle and high schools in their districts, but not for the lower grades. Please note these are responses from districts, not from individual schools. 11
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F2006: Other facility inspections were completed in November, 2005. Finding: All areas were in compliance. Cleaning fluids and chemicals were safely stored. Weapons lockers were located outside the perimeter of the modules (cells) and were well secured. The kitchen area was clean and responsibly run. Finding: Understaffing continues to be a concern. Recruitment is difficult which seems to be a universal problem within the Sheriff’s Department. Fact: The exterior and interior conditions of the facility were in very good condition. The jail facility was clean and well maintained. Fact: Orientation of Inmates: Appeared to be effective with regard to facility rules and procedures. Grievance procedures for inmates are in effect and well documented. Fact: Quality of Life: Educational courses provided by Grossmont Adult Education for high school is available for those inmates who request it. Although the length of stay for most inmates is minimal, their educational records travel with them when transferring to a different facility. Additional training for anger management and woodworking is also provided. Recreation areas were Spartan, although well maintained. Contact sports are not permitted. Limited physical fitness equipment is available. Fact: The facility is lacking in effective video surveillance/recording units. The reduced staff cannot adequately investigate physical altercations that may occur in areas not covered by cameras. Finding: Additional cameras would provide information to the staff so intelligent correctional measures could be made.
Page 1
Additional Recommendations 14

Not linked to specific findings.

07-80: Continue the ongoing recruitment efforts and establish a task force or
Page 1
07-81: Continue the ongoing recruitment efforts and establish a task force or
Page 1
07-82: Determine, purchase and install additional camera surveillance equipment.
Page 1
07-83: Establish a room where indoor visiting can take place.
Page 1
07-84: Approach school districts, libraries and publishers to obtain books at low
Page 1
07-85: Improve communication between the Fire Department and Descanso staff
Page 1
07-86: Continue to add more classes with the goal of preparing inmates to
Page 1
07-88: Allocate funding to recondition the athletic field.
Page 1
07-89: Replace the approximately 25-year-old bus currently in use at Camp
Page 1
07-90: Establish a plan and priority for building a new main juvenile detention
Page 1
07-91: Establish a priority and seek funding to build a new main juvenile
Page 1
07-92: Continue the operation on its present course and share with other jurisdictions
Page 1
07-93: Employ an additional full-time dietician to supplement the staff.
Page 1
07-94: Upgrade the ventilation in the laundry operation to improve working
Page 1

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.