San Diego County Grand Jury
2015-2016
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F01:
Changes to the appointment process for SDEC commissioners could promote civic confidence in the SDEC and its effectiveness. Fact: SDEC, though legally enshrined in the City Charter, can be dissolved by vote of the City Council.
F02:
Revising the City Charter to remove the City Council’s authority over the SDEC’s existence would preserve SDEC as an independent body. Fact: SDEC commissioners serve a four-year term with the opportunity for re- appointment to a second term. Fact: Becoming familiar with campaign laws requires a significant investment of time and energy.
F03:
Lengthening the term of commissioners could improve the commission’s effectiveness. Fact: The name San Diego Ethics Commission, which can imply a person is being investigated for unspecified unethical behavior, does not properly reflect the limited scope of the commission’s work.
F04:
Changing the name would more accurately reflect the commission’s duties and responsibilities and avoid ambiguity. Fact: SDEC subpoena power is limited to administrative hearings. Fact: The City Council has the capability to grant additional subpoena powers to SDEC. Fact: Witnesses have no protection from retaliation under Charter §26.0445.
F05:
Allowing subpoena power would enhance the investigative process and could shorten investigations. /2016 FINAL REPORT (June 23, 2016) County of San Diego Fact: There is no commission dedicated to the training and enforcement of county campaign laws.
F06:
Elected county officials, lobbyists and candidates would benefit from additional training and enforcement of campaign laws.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
16-60:
Establish a procedure to appoint SDEC members that is independent
16-61:
Establish SDEC as a permanent body through the City Charter.
16-62:
Change the current term limit for SDEC commissioners to one six-
16-63:
Rename the SDEC to accurately reflect its function.
16-64:
<b>Expand SDEC subpoena powers to include witnesses.</b>
16-65:
Provide campaign law training and education for elected officials,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F01:
HHSA has substantial funds available to expand services. USE OF FUNDS: APPROPRIATE PROGRAMS On one hand, MHSA has a very clear focus: “To define serious mental illness among children, adults and seniors as a condition deserving priority attention, including prevention and early intervention services and medical and supportive care” (Section 3(a)). On the other hand, MHSA includes vague and ambiguous language that allows very broad interpretations of how to spend MHSA funds. The result is that San Diego County uses MHSA for a wide variety of programs only tangentially related to those with, or at risk of, serious mental illness. For example, over $500,000 in MHSA funds goes to the domestic violence program “Families as Partners,”5 for “families at highest risk of child abuse and neglect”. This is clearly an essential public health concern, fully deserving of public support. It has no explicit connection with serious mental illness, but is nevertheless included in the Prevention and Early Intervention category. 5http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/HHSAa/programs/bhs/documents/Children_PEI_Program_Reports_FY20 12-13.pdf 3 Another example relevant in San Diego County is expenditure for “reduction in stigma associated with either being diagnosed with a mental illness or seeking mental health services” (WIC 5840(b)(3)). The 2015-2016 MHSA Program Summary lists twenty-five in-patient and out-patient drug and alcohol treatment programs receiving MHSA funds to “Reduce stigma associated with mental health concerns” at a cost of over $3,000,000. Though this is completely legitimate according to the letter of MHSA, it dilutes the county’s response to those people MHSA was designed to help most, those suffering serious mental illness.6 A 2013 report7 (described as a “hatchet job” by one interviewee not employed by the county) is highly critical of three programs in San Diego County for being inconsistent with MHSA: gang violence reduction8, Triple P Parenting9, and outreach to Alzheimer’s patients. The Grand Jury also questions the Mobile Hoarding Program in the Innovation category, whose goal is to “diminish long term hoarding behavior in older adults”. While seriously mentally ill people may be hoarders, hoarders are not by definition seriously mentally ill. It must be noted that the large majority of MHSA-funded programs in the county serve the seriously mentally ill and at-risk population. The Grand Jury encourages HHSA to sharpen its focus on the original intent of MHSA in order to meet the most pressing needs of seriously mentally ill children, youth, and adults. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: MHSA states that the purpose of the Act is to decrease the severity of serious mental illness in children, youth, adults and those at risk. Fact: MHSA does not include drug and alcohol abuse treatment. According to minutes of one state oversight board meeting, MHSA was written specifically to exclude substance abuse as a category: “Vice-Chair Van Horn commented that there are not a lot of evidence-based practices yet in the PEI arena. He also pointed out that the reason co-occurring disorders were not mentioned in the MHSA was because during the Proposition 63 focus groups they were informed that using that language would lead to the defeat of the proposition. It is clear that co-occurring disorders need to be dealt with at the same level.” Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2011 7California’s Mental Health Services Act: A Ten Year $10 Billion Bait and Switch. Mental Illness Policy Org., August 15, 2013. 8 “Community violence response team and services to siblings of identified gang members in an effort to increase community resiliency and combat the negative effects of violence”. 9 http://www.triplep.net/glo-en/find-out-about-triple-p/triple-p-in-a-nutshell/ The Triple P – Positive Parenting Program ® is a parenting and family support system designed to prevent – as well as treat – behavioral and emotional problems in children and teenagers. It aims to prevent problems in the family, school and community before they arise and to create family environments that encourage children to realize their potential. Fact: Significant funds (between $3 million and $4 million) are spent on “Co-occurring Disorders” with “reduce the stigma” language. Fact: Several MHSA-funded programs do not serve the seriously mentally ill.
F02:
While legally allowable within the ambiguous language of MHSA, some MHSA-funded programs are not consistent with the stated purpose of MHSA to serve the seriously mentally ill. USE OF FUNDS: PROCESS Five percent of MHSA funds are to be applied to Innovation in services for the seriously mentally ill. In San Diego County, a new funding cycle begins every three years. HHSA, in consultation with the public and stakeholders, identifies major concerns, then potential responses to those concerns, develops requests for proposals from providers, and awards grants. This process takes twelve to eighteen months. The programs operate for three years and are evaluated annually, with a final evaluation to determine the program’s effectiveness (which can take up to a year). The entire Innovation cycle, then, lasts over five years. In several interviews, service providers spoke of how cumbersome the Innovation process is, while lauding HHSA for its collaborative efforts. A sign of the challenges facing implementing innovative programs is that, in the past five years, the county has appropriated an average of 44% of MHSA Innovation funds, leaving 56% unspent. Mentally ill people could benefit from compressing the innovation cycle and funding more programs, even at the risk of funding programs later found to be ineffective. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Multiple interviews referenced HHSA and BHS slowness to act. Fact: For fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2016-2017, MHSA Innovation expenditures average 44%, leaving 56% unspent. Fact: Multiple interviews confirmed collaboration among stakeholders, including HHSA and BHS, service providers, and advocates.
F03:
Building on HHSA’s collaborative efforts, streamlining the innovation cycle would benefit the county’s seriously mentally ill and at-risk population. EDUCATION At multiple interviews, the Grand Jury heard that San Diego County has definite difficulties recruiting and retaining public-funded mental health professionals. MHSA designates funds for Workforce Education and Training (WET), which, in San Diego County, provide stipends, subsidies, loan repayments, and educational programs totaling $2.6 million dollars in 2015-2016 for students in fields ranging from early childhood 5 education to psychiatric residency, social work, and marriage and family therapy. HHSA and participating schools have made particular efforts to increase the diversity of the mental health workforce with “culturally competent” employees (WIC 5822(j)); given the county’s diverse population, this remains a challenge. Approximately two-thirds of WET funds go to mental health staff development and to students already enrolled in professional programs. Exposing more community college and even high school students to mental health careers through work-study and internships could increase the number and diversity of mental health professionals in the future. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: MHSA sets a standard of “culturally competent” mental health care. Fact: County WET funds are weighted to professional development and to students in professional programs, including psychiatric residency, social work, and marriage and family therapy.
F04:
Providing incentives and opportunities earlier in students’ education could increase and diversify the pool of potential mental health professionals in the county.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
16-66:
Appropriate a larger percentage of MHSA funds each year in order to
16-67:
Focus MHSA funds more narrowly on services to the seriously
16-68:
Shorten the innovation process in order to spend more MHSA
16-69:
Collaborate with high schools and community colleges to expose
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F01:
Exercise opportunities, facilities, and equipment at county detention facilities need significant improvement. CONTACT VISITS In San Diego County Jails, “social visits are normally non-contact, conducted through a visit window using telephone handsets”, and “inmates are allowed two 30 minute social visits per week.”7 Only Las Colinas Women’s Detention and Reentry Facility (LCDRF) offers qualifying inmates the opportunity for contact visits with children, family, and friends (although male inmates may receive court-mandated Child Protective Service contact visits with their children). Common sense would suggest that, in a majority of cases, family provides the foundation for inmates’ emotional and financial support, and this is borne out by research. More studies have focused on prisons than on jails, and there is not yet post-Realignment data for San Diego County. Nevertheless, there is clear consensus that greater family contact and support increases inmate compliance and reduces recidivism.8 For example, a major study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections concludes, “Consistent with the results from prior research…prison visitation can significantly improve the transition offenders make from the institution to the community…The results also suggest that the more sources of social support an offender has, the lower the risk of recidivism.”9 The summary of several studies reviewed in Prison Legal News states, “Studies have consistently shown that prisoners who maintain close contact with their family members while incarcerated have better post-release outcomes and lower recidivism rates.”10 There is very little research comparing non-contact and contact visits, so the added benefits of meeting face to face must be inferred from several factors. First, in the Minnesota prisons study, in which most visits were contact visits, “Any visit reduced the risk of recidivism by thirteen percent for felony reconvictions and twenty-five percent for technical violation revocations…”11 Second, in 1974 (forty years ago!) the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals stated that corrections facilities should provide “…appropriate rooms for visitation that allow ease and informality of communication in a natural environment as free from institutional or custodial attributes as possible.”12 Third, California Penal Code §6400 requires any visitation policy to “recognize and consider” these factors: 7 www.sdsheriff.net/jailinfo/visiting.html 8 http://www.vera.org/files/the-family-and-recidivism.pdf 9 http://www.doc.state.mn.us/PAGES/files/large-files/Publications/11-11MNPrisonVisitationStudy.pdf 10www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/apr/15/lowering-recidivism-through-family-communication/ 11 http://www.doc.state.mn.us/PAGES/files/large-files/Publications/11-11MNPrisonVisitationStudy.pdf 12 http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031448056;view=1up;seq=92 5 The value of visiting as a means to improve the safety of prisons for both staff and inmates (emphasis added) The important role of inmate visitation in establishing and maintaining a meaningful connection with family and community The important role of inmate visitation in preparing an inmate for successful release and rehabilitation Fourth, our state prisons have made contact visits an integral part of correctional practice for decades. Grand Jury members who toured the Donovan Correctional Facility were told that Saturday and Sunday contact visits take place in rooms large enough for several dozen prisoners and visitors each, with two staff on duty, one in the room and one at the room’s entrance. The staff member leading the tour confirmed both the challenges (e.g., intercepting contraband) and the value (e.g., giving prisoners compelling reasons for compliance in prison and hope after release) of the current visitation policy. There are, of course, obstacles to adopting the state prisons’ visitation policy in county jails. One, with the exception of the two-year-old LCDRF, no county jail is constructed to facilitate contact visits. This was mentioned repeatedly by various jail administrators and staff. Contact visitation rooms would require significant repurposing and remodeling of jail space; Sheriff’s Department unappropriated AB109 funds (approximately $25,000,000) and the Inmate Welfare Fund (approximately $15,000,000) are potential sources of project funds. Two, contact visits require a myriad of changes in Sheriff’s Department practice, such as staffing, procedure, vetting inmates for visits, and contraband searches. Three, contact visits represent a major shift in Sheriff’s Department culture. The ongoing transition, from focusing on incarceration to focusing on rehabilitation, asks the entire department, particularly the front-line jail staff, to change their thinking as well as their actions. Specifically, according to LCDRF staff, overseeing contact visits requires a somewhat different attitude and skill set than usual. Four, Grand Jury members heard more than once that “women are different from men,” implying that contact visits would be more difficult to implement and supervise for male inmates, and perhaps even less effective. These obstacles, while real (leaving number four aside), can be surmounted with effort and commitment. The Sheriff’s Department staff’s oft-stated standard of adopting evidence-based practices leads logically to the conclusion that contact visits are an essential part of jail administration. And contact visits form an essential part of the county’s responsibility for humane incarceration. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Only Las Colinas Women’s Detention and Reentry Facility offers qualifying inmates the opportunity for contact visits with children, family, and friends. Fact: Upon receipt of a court order by Child Protective Services, male inmates may receive face-to-face visits with their children. Fact: The Sheriff’s Department has stated that reducing recidivism is a fundamental goal. Fact: The Sheriff’s Department has committed itself to adopting evidence-based practices in order to reduce recidivism. Fact: Corrections-based research strongly suggests that close family connection decreases recidivism. Fact: With the exception of LCDRF, no county detention facility has space devoted to contact visits. Fact: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has a long-standing, successful program of contact visits for qualifying inmates. Fact: The Sheriff’s Department has responsibility for the Inmate Welfare Fund (approximately $15,000,000), which must by law be used for inmates’ benefit, and unappropriated AB109 funds (approximately $25,000,000).
F02:
In the area of contact visits, the Sheriff’s Department is not following evidence-based practices to reduce recidivism.
F03:
Funds exist that could be devoted to remodeling and staffing jail facilities to make contact visits possible. CORRECTIONS BASED ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION A recent U.S. Department of Justice-funded RAND Corporation report, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education, analyzed more than 50 research studies.13 It reached the following conclusions: Correctional education improves inmates' chances of not returning to prison. Inmates who participate in correctional education programs had 43 percent lower risk of recidivating than those who did not Providing correctional education can be cost-effective in reducing recidivism Those who participated in vocational training were 28% more likely to be employed post-release than those who did not Inmates exposed to computer-assisted instruction learned slightly more in reading and substantially more in math in the same amount of instructional time 13 www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR266/RAND_RR266.appendixF.pdf 7 Online prison education programs were found to be cost-effective, with direct costs of $1400 to $1744 per inmate, $8700 to $$9700 less than re-incarceration costs per inmate Prison inmates have a lower level of education than the general population14 Academic Education in San Diego County jails Correctional education in county jails concentrates on helping inmates finish high school (either a diploma or HiSET [formerly GED] test preparation), taught by instructors from the Grossmont Union High School District Adult School, and computer literacy15. An inmate may receive permission to take correspondence school classes, but as of now there is almost no post-high school instruction in the jails, either with teachers on-site or with computer-aided self-instruction. According to staff, the Sheriff’s Department is in discussion with Southwestern College to offer courses at South Bay detention centers. Online education, which reduces costs and, according to RAND, may facilitate faster and better comprehension, has become commonplace in K-12 schools, and in county juvenile detention facilities (overseen by the San Diego County Department of Probation, not the Sheriff’s Department). Online education could be implemented within the adult detention facilities, yet, when asked, facility staff stated that it would be too difficult to control access to inappropriate websites, even though the necessary screening software is widely available. Computer-based offline educational programs which allow inmates to work at their own pace are also widely available. Vocational Education The overall goal of vocational training is to reduce inmates’ risk of recidivism by teaching them marketable skills they can use to find and retain employment following release from jail. Vocational and technical training programs can also reduce institutional problem behavior by replacing inmates’ idle time with constructive work. In addition, some vocational training programs can assist in the operation of prisons by having inmates assist in institutional maintenance tasks.16 In the California state prison system, the Office of Correctional Education Programs offers Career Technical Education Programs in these fields: building trade and construction, finance and business, public service, manufacturing and product development, and transportation.17 (The most commonly reported trade certifications nationally were construction, occupational safety, plumbing or electrical apprenticeships, automotive service and welding.18) These programs comply with industry recognized certification. The training lasts three to six months for basic employment skills and six to 14 http://rand.org/news/press/08/22.html 15 Funded by the Inmate Welfare Fund for $3,711,242 in 2014-2015, with $1,367,463 in contract costs and $2,343,779 for county program staff. 16 http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/37/4/347.short 17 www.cdcr.ca.gov/rehabilitation.docs/ 18 http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR266.html 8 twenty-four months for the development of more advanced skills.19 Each of the programs is targeted to provide a “living wage.”20 At East Mesa Reentry Facility, the following vocational skills are now taught: certificate programs in food handling, industrial laundry operations, and printing press operations; non-certificate programs in bicycle repair, park landscape maintenance, and building janitorial services (these last two involve county operations outside the jails). All these programs prepare inmates only for entry-level positions which fall short of a living wage. The following table shows a sample of Spring 2016 San Diego Community College Continuing Education Division certificate programs, with the number of course hours required and projected income on completion. Programs Total Hours Hours Per Week Income Per Hour Auto Technician 920 25 for 37 weeks $20 Web Server Technology 875 25 for 36 $31 HVAC (Heating/AC) 72 7 for 11 $17 Plumbing 120 7 for 18 $14 Welding 600 25 for 24 $19 Certification in any of these fields could allow inmates the opportunity to earn a living wage on release. The courses could be offered to inmates in jail for a minimum of a year. The part-time course format would allow inmates to participate in other programs. The courses offered should be dependent on inmate interests, available teaching staff, funding and job opportunities within the community. Clearly, there are neither funds nor space for every vocational program at every jail (the Otay Mesa campus, which already houses the East Mesa Reentry Facility, appears to have the most potential for expanding education). Online education, however, requires only a small area, and could be implemented more easily. Education forms an essential part of the county’s responsibility for humane incarceration. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Incarcerated men and women generally have a lower level of education than the general population. Fact: Inmates who participate in vocational training are 28% more likely to find employment after release. 19 www.cdcr.ca.gov/rehabilitation.docs/ 20 The 2016 San Diego County living wage calculation for a single adult working full-time (2080 hours per year) is $12.72/hr, and for one adult with one child, $25.43/hr (http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06073). San Diego Continuing Education Class Schedule, Spring 2016 9 Fact: Inmates who participate in correctional education programs have a 43% lower chance of returning to prison. Fact: Computer-based self-paced learning costs less than traditional instruction and may be more effective. Fact: Online education is cost-effective compared with incarceration; software that prevents access to inappropriate web sites is available and in use in county juvenile detention facilities. Fact: Grossmont Union High School District Adult School currently has the contract to teach classes in the High School Equivalency Exam and Computer Literacy. Fact: The Sheriff’s Department is in discussion with Southwestern College to offer post- high school courses at South Bay detention centers. Fact: The county jails offer the following vocational training programs, which vary by facility: food preparation, laundry, printing, sewing, janitorial, landscaping, bicycle repair.
F04:
Academic education in county jails is geared to completion of high school, with almost no opportunity for post-high school coursework.
F05:
Vocational education in county jails is not geared to preparing inmates for living wage employment. STRATEGIC PLANNING Within months of the passage of AB109, the San Diego Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) Executive Committee22 issued the Public Safety Realignment & Post- Release Community Supervision Preliminary 2011 Implementation Plan. It lists these Realignment Goals: Efficiently use jail capacity Incorporate reentry principles into in-custody programming Incorporate evidence-based practices into supervision and case management of post release offenders; encourage the use of evidence-based practices in sentencing for felony offenders23 22 Members included the County Probation Officer, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the District Attorney, the Public Defender, the Sheriff, the Director of the Health and Human Services Agency, and the Chief of the Oceanside Police Department. 23p. 8. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/probation/docs/CCP- SanDiegoPublicSafetyImplementationPlan.pdf.9.16.11.pdf 10 Sheriff’s staff has often referred to the 2011 Implementation Plan as their blueprint for dealing with Realignment. The CCP document, however, focuses on overarching principles rather than specific operational issues for individual departments. The County Probation Department, for example, produced its own strategic planning document quickly enough for it to be included in the Preliminary 2011 Implementation Plan.24 To date, the Sheriff’s Department has not constructed its own plan to give direction to its responsibilities. Such a plan could unify the Sheriff’s Department’s response to AB109. Further, it would help the Sheriff’s Department, in collaboration with the CCP, prioritize the county’s time, effort, and funds; incorporate evidence-based practices; and provide a solid foundation for the next several years of Realignment. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: In the past five years, to meet Realignment goals, the Sheriff’s Department has made significant efforts, including repurposing the East Mesa Reentry Facility, strengthening its Reentry Services Division, and collaborating within the CCP. Fact: The Sheriff’s Department has not created a Strategic Plan to implement AB109.
F06:
The Sheriff’s Department needs a document addressing Realignment in an integrated way that would coordinate custody, reentry, longer-term sentences and other issues.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
16-53:
Allow qualifying sentenced inmates contact visits.
16-54:
Repurpose areas in county detention facilities for contact visits.
16-55:
Implement computer-based courses at all jail facilities, including
16-56:
Increase vocational training programs in multiple detention facilities
16-57:
Create an AB109 Implementation Strategic Plan, with specific goals
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F01:
It cannot be determined which inmate programs should be expanded and which should be discontinued.
F02:
The Sheriff’s Department has difficulty producing unified, comprehensive statistics on recidivism. Fact: Inmates at most facilities have no access to shoes appropriate for exercise. Fact: Exercising in plastic, backless sandals is extremely difficult and increases the potential for physical injury.
F03:
Inmates need access to appropriate shoes in order to maintain health and well-being. Fact: Inmates perform several jobs in the jails; their pay is fixed at $.50 per day.
F04:
Inmates have no financial incentive to learn or perform more challenging and complex jobs. Fact: Visits at male facilities are non-contact, excluding court ordered visits with children. Fact: Visits with adult family and friends are limited to thirty minutes twice weekly at all facilities.
F05:
Policies and procedures for family visits are too restrictive and counterproductive to rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Fact: Other than HiSet, the Sheriff’s Department offers no educational opportunities to inmates.
F06:
Computer-based educational programs exist that could be offered to inmates.
F07:
The Probation Department cannot make evidence-based conclusions on which programs should be expanded or discontinued. Fact: The laundry facility at KMDF is old and has maintenance issues. Fact: There is an industrial-grade laundry facility at EMRF with unused capacity.
F08:
The probation department should consider outsourcing laundry for the juvenile facilities. Fact: The number of incarcerated juveniles has decreased. Fact: KMDF, GRF and EMJDF have unused wings and beds.
F09:
Closing a juvenile facility may be warranted. Fact: Many of the juveniles have no visits from family.
F10:
Issues including distance to facilities make visiting juveniles difficult for some family members.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
16-42:
Establish metrics to evaluate programs offered to inmates and begin
16-43:
Make shoes appropriate for recreation and exercise available to all
16-44:
Establish an hourly pay system that recognizes inmate effort and
16-45:
Establish a consensus definition of recidivism in order to begin
16-46:
Revise policies and procedures for visitation with inmates. Initiate
16-47:
Allow all inmates access to computer-based educational and training
16-48:
Establish metrics to evaluate programs and then initiate evaluations.
16-49:
Pursue an agreement with EMRF for most juvenile facility laundry
16-50:
Develop a long-range plan to determine the feasibility and advisability
16-51:
<b>Evaluate the options for establishing video visitation equipment</b>
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F01:
The treated water will replace imported drinking water currently used for irrigation and industrial purposes, and will increase regional drinking water supply and reliability. COMMENDATION The 2015/2016 San Diego County Grand Jury commends the North San Diego Water Reuse Coalition and their Regional Recycled Water Project for their voluntary, collaborative and innovative approach to enhancing the reliability and diversity of water supply. Regionalization of facilities will allow recycled water to play an even more significant role in meeting the future water needs in northern San Diego County. Fact: There are water and wastewater agencies in North County that are not Coalition members.
F02:
Expanding Coalition membership in North County would increase the capacity and connectivity of the recycled water project. Fact: The project does not consider large-scale rainwater capture.
F03:
Rainwater capture would be a valuable addition to the project’s suite of measures to diversify local water supply. Fact: The California Department of Transportation uses tap water for irrigation along the SR 78 corridor between Oceanside and Escondido. Fact: The Coalition does not list Caltrans among their potential future recycled water customers.
F04:
Coalition sales of recycled water to Caltrans could reduce the use of tap water for irrigation. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. Investment in Reducing Combined Sewer Overflows Pays Dividends. Detroit, MI. September 2008. "Going Against the Flow: Green Tech, Sensors and Industrial Internet Make Sewer Systems Smart". Txchnologist. undated monograph. 5
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
16-39:
Reach out to neighboring non-member agencies to further diversify supply
16-40:
Evaluate large-scale rainwater capture as a means of increasing and further
16-41:
Work to increase use of recycled irrigation water on the State Route
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F01:
Due to the large geographic area under CLERB’s jurisdiction, modest compensation and reimbursement of expenses to board members could encourage greater community involvement and increase board diversity. City of San Diego Citizens’ Review Board (CRB) The purpose of the Citizens’ Review Board on Police Practices “is to review and evaluate complaints brought by members of the public against officers of the Police Department of the City of San Diego (SDPD) and to review and evaluate the administration of discipline arising from sustained complaints. The Board also reviews and evaluates officer- involved shootings, all in-custody deaths, and all police actions that result in the death of a person.”7 CRB was established in the mid-1980s after a controversial police shooting. Planned as a temporary commission, it proved successful and its existence extended. In 1988, San Diego voters approved Proposition G, which gave the City Manager authority to “create and establish a Citizens’ Review Board on Police Practices to review and evaluate citizen’s complaints against police officers and the discipline arising from such complaints.”8 CRB is not incorporated into the City Charter. CRB has twenty-three appointed members and twenty-three prospective members. All members serve as non-compensated volunteers. Members are selected by an interview committee, appointed by the Mayor, and approved by the City Council to renewable one- year terms, to a maximum of eight years. As of this writing, there are no prospective members. Three-member teams review each case; the Chair and the 1st Vice Chair do not participate in review teams. Officials interviewed by the Grand Jury expressed concern over the lack of adequate diversity among current members. This concern is not limited to race, ethnicity or gender, but includes the perception that CRB members have a pro-police bias which may influence their decision making. The 2011/2012 Grand Jury report was also critical of the lack of CRB diversity. Providing CRB members with modest compensation for the 7 http://www.sandiego.gov/citizenreviewboard/about/index.xshtml 8 http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-11/local/me-662_1_police-review 5 significant time and work commitment required of members, such as a stipend, mileage reimbursement, and paid parking, could increase and diversify the pool of nominees. CRB relies exclusively on the investigations prepared by the SDPD Internal Affairs Unit (IA). CRB does not have professional independent investigators, does not have the power to subpoena witnesses, and does not independently interview witnesses or complainants. This complete reliance on the Internal Affairs Unit has generated criticism both from the public and the 2011/2012 San Diego County Grand Jury. Staff and commission members interviewed by the Grand Jury asserted that SDPD has been responsive and forthcoming to CRB requests. They did not see the need or benefit of paid independent investigators, or the need for subpoena power. Interviewed officials expressed dissatisfaction with the legal services provided by the office of the City Attorney, which serves as legal counsel for the CRB. The City Attorney also defends the Police Department, creating a potential conflict of interest. CRB staff has fallen significantly behind in preparing annual reports as required by ordinance. These reports need to be current to improve accountability with the public. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Legal counsel is provided to the CRB by the City Attorney’s Office, which also defends SDPD.
F02:
Using the City Attorney as legal counsel to CRB while also defending SDPD represents a potential conflict of interest. Fact: Board members serve without compensation or reimbursement of expenses.
F03:
Modest compensation and reimbursement of expenses to board members could encourage greater community involvement and increase board diversity. Fact: Required annual reports of CRB activities have not been kept current.
F04:
Annual reports provide the public with timely information on CRB activities and increase transparency. National City Community and Police Relations Commission In October, 2003, the City Council of National City established the Community and Police Relations Commission (CPRC).9 The CPRC gives citizens a forum to voice their 9 http://www.ci.national-city.ca.us/index.aspx?recordid=3073&page=111 6 concerns about police conduct, practices, and policies, and improves communication between residents and the National City Police Department (NCPD). Complaints of alleged NCPD misconduct are reviewed by CPRC, which also recommends changes to department policies and procedures. This long-standing volunteer commission does not employ independent investigators but reviews and comments on the investigations by the NCPD Internal Affairs Unit. The commission has complete access to information gathered by the NCPD. CPRC consists of eight individuals appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. Seven are voting members, of which five must be residents of National City. The non-voting member is a member of the National City Police Officers’ Association. The make-up of the current CPRC is diverse. Cities without a Community Review Board or Commission Seven San Diego county cities (listed above) have Police Departments but do not have a community review board or commission. Complaints are investigated internally. The Grand Jury distributed a written survey to the police departments in these seven cities. All stated that they have policies and procedures in place for the receipt and investigation of citizen complaints against police officers. None of them have plans to establish an oversight board or commission. One reason given for maintaining the status quo is the low number of complaints received; a second reason given is existing citizen input into complaint resolution. Chula Vista does have a Police Chief’s Advisory Commission (CAC) that includes Chula Vista citizens. The group meets quarterly to discuss subjects of concern with the Police Chief and senior staff. The department provides the CAC with complaint statistics and discusses complaint procedures. In its survey response, Chula Vista stated that the CAC, which has extensive insight into department operations and is in the best position to represent the concerns of the citizens of Chula Vista, has not advocated for or pressed for a citizens’ review board and one is not being considered at this time. This jury has received complaints from citizens in several of these cities who felt there was inadequate resolution of their grievances, suggesting the current process needs improvement. The presence of a review board gives citizens a means to seek justice in dealing with law enforcement; the absence of a citizens’ review board can seriously erode public trust in its police department. If a city decides to establish a review board, there is more than one model available, as this report shows. Extensive public participation in adopting a model appropriate for the specific needs of the community and police will help ensure the board’s effectiveness. It will also comply with California Department of Justice policy that holds local government responsible for dealing with citizen complaints. The size of these cities makes it worthwhile to consider establishing regional citizen review boards through Joint Powers Agreements. This might include one board that oversees complaints in northern San Diego County (Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad), one serving eastern San Diego County (El Cajon and La Mesa), and one serving southern cities (Coronado and Chula Vista, and possibly incorporating National City). FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Seven cities with separate police departments (El Cajon, La Mesa, Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Chula Vista and Coronado) do not have citizen oversight committees. Fact: Trust between law enforcement agencies and the people they protect and serve is essential.
F05:
Cities without a citizens’ oversight board do not have public review of complaints of police behavior and risk losing the trust of their citizens. Fact: There are different models of law enforcement citizens’ review boards available to local jurisdictions. Fact: California Department of Justice policy states that local government has primary responsibility for citizen complaints against law enforcement agencies.
F06:
A review board shaped with citizen input will promote confidence in actions taken by the board.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
16-26:
Prepare and publish annual reports on Citizens' Review Board
16-27:
Provide the Citizens' Review Board with independent legal counsel.
16-28:
Provide modest compensation for board member time and expenses.
16-29:
Provide modest compensation for board member time and expenses.
16-30:
Establish independent citizen commissions for oversight of police
16-31:
Determine the specific commission model with community input to
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F01:
Strategic plans assure accountability and transparency. Fact: In 1997, San Ysidro School District voters approved a $250 million school bond to build new schools and modernize outdated ones. Fact: When the bond was approved, state law did not mandate a Citizens’ Board Oversight Committee; as of 2000 it is obligatory for school bond issuance. Fact: San Ysidro School District did not implement a 1998 request to establish a citizen committee to oversee the spending of bond funds. Fact: There has never been, nor is there currently, any independent entity giving citizen oversight to the San Ysidro School District bonds and COPs.
F02:
A citizen oversight committee for bonds and COPs would increase transparency and accountability. Fact: San Diego County Office of Education has financial oversight responsibility for school districts in the county. 8
F03:
San Diego County Office of Education guidance on establishing a citizens’ oversight committee would strengthen the process. Fact: San Diego County Office of Audits & Advisory Services found improper expenses and unreimbursed transfers of bond funds.
F04:
Absence of internal controls and citizen oversight of bond fund transactions allowed errors to go unnoticed and uncorrected. Fact: Bond and COPs are still being dispersed, but the information is not publicly available.
F05:
To facilitate transparency and accountability, the continuing status of the bond and COPs should be easily available to the public. Fact: The county audit identified significant deficiencies in San Ysidro School District’s internal controls. Fact: San Ysidro School District purchased environmentally protected land for the purpose of constructing a new school. Fact: San Ysidro School District must make mitigation payments in perpetuity for environmentally protected land it purchased.
F06:
San Ysidro School District failed to conduct due diligence on land purchases. Fact: San Ysidro School District lacks adequate oversight of bond proceeds and expenditures. Fact: Prior administrations failed to implement a strong system of internal financial controls and records retention and destruction.
F07:
The lack of standard formal accounting policies and procedures contributed to San Ysidro School District financial problems. Fact: Staff were unaware of approved California school accounting practices. Fact: District personnel destroyed records without regard or knowledge of state- mandated records retention and destruction requirements. Fact: San Ysidro School District lacks a staff financial policies and procedures manual. 9
F08:
Written standard operating procedures provide would provide essential information to employees.
F09:
Staff without proper training contributed to errors in accounting practices. Fact: School District Trustees have been uninformed concerning their membership and duties as directors of the San Ysidro School Public Financing Corporation.
F10:
A corporation with directors who do not know their responsibilities cannot function properly. Fact: San Ysidro School District Trustees failed to perform their fiduciary duties to the citizens of San Ysidro School District. Fact: San Ysidro School District Trustees lack training and/or understanding of their role and responsibilities. Findings 11: Poor decisions by the Board of Trustees significantly contributed to San Ysidro School District financial problems. Fact: Improper and unauthorized activities occurred at San Ysidro School District, including intentional destruction of records, purchases of unusable land, and contracts made by prior superintendents without proper authority. Fact: The OAAS audit, primarily focused on bond and COP issues, does not examine the entire financial status and operations of San Ysidro School District.
F12:
To assure transparency and accountability, and to restore public trust in San Ysidro School District’s operations, an independent forensic audit of San Ysidro School District is warranted. Fact: San Diego County Office of Education is the link between San Ysidro School District and the California Department of Education. Fact: In FY 2012-2013 San Ysidro School District issued a COP after San Ysidro School District was rated negative and under San Diego County Office of Education financial supervision. Fact: The San Diego County Auditors and Controllers’ Office Report found that the San Diego County Office of Education inadequately monitored San Ysidro School District fiscal condition. 10
F13:
San Diego County Office of Education needs to be directly involved in providing proper accounting policies and procedures to ensure San Ysidro School District’s financial stability.
F14:
San Diego County Office of Education’s strong support of an independent forensic audit would demonstrate to San Ysidro School District citizens that significant actions beyond the district are being taken to fulfill SDCOE’s duties to the state and to rectify San Ysidro School District’s financial problems.
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
16-12:
Create a long-term strategic plan for facility needs.
16-13:
Immediately assemble a Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee that
16-14:
Reconcile bond fund transfers and expenses and present the
16-15:
Post on the San Ysidro School District website the status of bond and
16-16:
Conduct due diligence on all future property transactions.
16-17:
Establish strong formal accounting policies and procedures governing
16-18:
Produce and distribute to all business service employees a manual of
16-19:
Provide ongoing staff training on state school accounting practices
16-20:
Educate the Board of Trustee members on their duties and
16-21:
Require all Board members receive California Association of School
16-22:
Hire an independent, experienced certified accounting firm to conduct
16-23:
Participate in the establishment of the Citizens' Bond Oversight
16-24:
Provide more intensive monitoring of San Ysidro School District for
16-25:
Provide funding support for a forensic audit of San Ysidro School
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F01:
The absence of a strategic plan reduces economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. INTERNAL CONTROL WEAKNESSES This is the phrase the auditor uses to characterize some budgetary problems in the administration of the IWF. Interviews with Sheriff’s staff and Committee members made it clear that they are committed to appropriate use of the IWF, but written policies (other than the very general language of Section 4025) do not exist. Instead, the Committee relies on its collective wisdom and experience to decide which expenses legitimately 1 The Assistant Sheriff, three Detention Service Bureau Commanders, the six Facility Managers and the Reentry Manager. 2 belong to the IWF and which should be charged to the Sheriff’s Department general funds. The pitfalls of this informal system are obvious: lack of transparency, accountability, and objective standards. A concrete example of those risks appears in the audit. Of thirty expenditures sampled (out of thousands) the auditor found one unallowable expense--$89,999 of a $449,997 total--for ISO Rec Yard Day Room Toilets at George Bailey Detention Facility. Department Staff informed the auditor that “the project would have been delayed if a request was made to pay for the expenditure out of the General Fund.” The IWF has functioned as a discretionary fund for the Sheriff’s Department, contrary to its purpose. The monies should be replaced if the Committee has not already done so. The Grand Jury identified two other budgetary issues. One, there is no firm, written policy on the minimum expenditure requiring a Committee vote. Interviewees gave conflicting answers, and the IWF Operations manual is silent. Two, despite a Grand Jury request, the Committee was unable to produce a pre-approved annual operating budget detailing proposed expenditures. There appears to be no such document. In one case described by the auditor, the Committee failed to follow its own policies and procedures to purchase a $15,173 electric vehicle. The audit states, “Proper approval of non-budgeted items will ensure that the expenditures are made for the benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail. Insufficient approval could result in potential waste and abuse of the IWF.” The Committee’s “internal control weaknesses” need to be corrected. One useful step would be to institute periodic audits, beginning with a thorough audit of all expenditures for the past three fiscal years. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: There are no defined policies and procedures for deciding what expenditures can be charged appropriately to the IWF. Fact: There is no documented minimum expenditure requiring a IWF Committee vote. Fact: The IWF Committee acts without a pre-approved annual operating budget. Fact: There is no periodic audit of the IWF. Fact: The Office of Audits & Administrative Services audit sampled just thirty expenditures, finding two of them questionable.
F02:
The IWF Committee has weak internal controls. Fact: The IWF Committee has approved inappropriate expenditures for construction and a vehicle.
F03:
The Sheriff’s Department spent IWF funds that should have come from the Department’s General Fund, subverting the IWF’s purpose. IWF RESERVE Penal Code §4025 does not specify the amount or percentage of an IWF reserve. The unwritten policy of the IWF Committee is to retain a 50% reserve (according to the auditor, over $10 million on June 30, 2015). According to Sheriff’s staff, there are two reasons for this policy: one, past experience with unanticipated losses (undocumented in any materials provided by the Sheriff’s Department to the jury) two, an estimated loss of $3,100,000 in telephone services revenue if a pending Federal Communications Commission decision (lowering intrastate jail collect call rates) is approved by the courts. The Grand Jury finds neither of these a compelling justification for a 50% reserve policy, which appears excessive. Regarding this situation, the auditor states: “…while the reserve fund has increased over the year, a formal contingency plan to account for the use of reserve funds has not been developed.” If telephone revenue drops severely, the IWF Committee needs to be prepared. If it does not, some of the reserve could be put to use for inmates’ benefit. In either case, the Committee should make a careful study of the 50% reserve policy and document its findings. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: The Sheriff’s Department undocumented policy is to maintain a 50% IWF reserve. Fact: The IWF faces a potential loss of telephone services income. Fact: The IWF Committee has no plan for the use of reserve funds.
F04:
The IWF Committee is putting future programs at risk by not setting priorities for the IWF reserve in the face of potential revenue loss. If revenue remains near current levels, the lack of priorities stifles creative application of more of the reserve to inmate welfare. IWF COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP The Committee has one non-Sheriff’s Department staff member, appointed by the Sheriff, who serves an unspecified term. The result, as the audit states, is “the Sheriff’s Department has complete discretion in regards to programs and expenses funded by IWF monies.” In addition, it is simply unrealistic to ask one person to represent all of San Diego County’s diverse citizens, much less the inmates the IWF serves. The Committee provides only informal training for its civilian member. Given the importance and complexity of the IWF’s purpose, this puts the civilian member at a serious disadvantage. In the auditor’s words, “Due to the structure of the Committee, potential biases for certain programs or expenditures could influence judgment, diminish objectivity, and cause decisions to be made in the best interest of the Sheriff’s Department instead of the inmates.” Other Southern California counties’ IWF committees have more civilian members; in two cases (San Bernardino and Los Angeles), all IWF Committee members are non-staff citizens. The Committee’s responsibility for inmate welfare would benefit from larger public representation, with staggered terms to give continuity and term limits to ensure fresh perspectives. Fact: The IWF Committee has one non-staff, citizen member. Fact: There is no organized, formal training for citizen members. Fact: The IWF Committee citizen member has no set term and no term limit.
F05:
The IWF Committee suffers from a lack of public input, expertise, advocacy and transparency. THE IWF OPERATIONS MANUAL The ten-page IWF Operations manual is outdated, for it does not reflect the current organization of the Sheriff’s Department. It is incomplete, as documented throughout this report, for it lacks policies and procedures essential for the Committee to function effectively and appropriately. In its current form, the manual allows the Committee to conduct its business without sufficient planning, guidance, or internal controls. The manual’s deficiencies make it more difficult for new civilian members to learn their duties. And it undermines the purpose of the IWF and the public trust. The manual requires a thorough revision. To increase the Committee’s transparency, it should be easily available to the public, as should the Committee’s roster and minutes (presumably on the Sheriff’s Department website). FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: The IWF Operations manual is outdated and incomplete.
F06:
The IWF Operations manual is not adequate to its purpose. Fact: The IWF Committee’s roster and minutes are not easily available to the public.
F07:
The IWF Committee’s work lacks transparency.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
16-05:
Create a three year Strategic Plan.
16-06:
Strengthen internal controls:
16-07:
Reimburse the IWF for audit-identified inappropriate expenditures.
16-08:
Create a plan for use of the IWF reserve.
16-09:
Expand the number of public members of the IWF Committee,
16-10:
Rewrite the Operations manual to document policies and procedures
16-11:
Post the IWF Committee's roster and minutes on the Sheriff's
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
The success of the bikesharing program is important to achieving the city’s planning and climate goals. Fact: Much of DecoBike’s rental income comes from casual, short-term rentals.
F02:
To be financially successful, DecoBike needs kiosks in tourist areas including beach communities. Fact: To meet planning goals, DecoBike kiosks need to be located at or near transit stops.
F03:
The Metropolitan Transit System has resisted placing bikeshare kiosks at transit stations.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
16-01:
Assign one prominent official to be the single point of contact on
16-02:
Instruct that prominent official to work with the San Diego City
16-03:
Work cooperatively with DecoBike LLC to remove obstacles to
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To ensure that IWF monies are spent for the benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail, the Sheriff's Department should ensure that expenditures funded by the IWF are thoroughly reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Expense Funded by the IWF was not Properly Approved Finding II: OAAS identified a non-budgeted purchase of an electric vehicle for Las Colinas Detention and Reentry Facility for $15,173 that was not properly approved through the established process. According to the IWF policies and procedures, to purchase a non- budgeted item or service, it must be brought to the Committee for consideration and approval. The purchasing request shall be accompanied by a "Letter of Justification" to the County Board of Supervisors (BOS). Upon approval by the Committee, the requesting unit will forward the purchasing request with the "Letter of Justification" to the Inmate Service Division for preparation of a Board letter. Once approved by the BOS, the procurement request, "Letter of Justification" and the BOS approval document, is forwarded to the Accounting Unit for further processing. According to the Sheriff's Department, the purchase was not brought to the Committee for approval since this purchase was a replacement of an existing vehicle. The procurement request was sent to the Department of General Services' Fleet Division, directly instead of going through the required process for the purchase of a non-budgeted item. Proper approval of non-budgeted items will ensure that the expenditures are made for the benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail. Insufficient approval could result in potential waste and abuse of the IWF.
R2:
The Sheriff's Department should properly follow and document approval of IWF expenditures according to established procedures. Lack of Written Policies and Procedures for Jail Commissary Profit Finding III: Reconciliation The Sheriff's Department does not have written policies and procedures regarding the need and timing of profit transfer reconciliations to allocate Jail Commissary profit from the Jail Commissary to the IWF. Penal Code, Section 4025 (e) Inmate welfare funds shall not be used to pay required county expenses of confining inmates in a local detention system, such as meals, clothing, housing, or medical services or expenses, except that inmate welfare funds may be used to augment those required county expenses as determined by the sheriff to be in the best interests of inmates. Office of Audits & Advisory Services Report No. A16-006 A strong system of internal controls includes the performance of periodic reconciliations of accounts. The process of reconciliation ensures the accuracy and validity of financial information. Lack of written policies and procedures that outline required reconciliations can result in inconsistent administration of the Jail Commissary Fund concerning profit transfers as noted in prior audits.
R3:
The Sheriff's Department should establish written policies procedures that clearly describe the jail commissary profit transfer process. The procedures should define responsibility and guidelines over profit transfers; identify how profit transfer amounts are determined and the process when the jail commissary fund sustains a loss instead of a profit. Finding IV: Agreement Regarding Phone Revenue Allocation to the Probation Department is not Documented During audit testing of phone contract revenues, OAAS found that 5% of the Annual Revenue Guaranteed (ARG) amount was being allocated to the Probation Department. While the agreement states that phone revenue will be provided to the Sheriff's Department and Probation Department, the specific allocation of revenue is not documented. Adequate documentation of agreements between parties provides evidence pertaining to transactions that have occurred including the parties who are authorized to perform such transactions. Proper documentation provides evidence of what has transpired as well as information for researching any discrepancies that may arise. A lack of written agreement of the revenue distribution may result in inconsistent administration of phone company revenues that are received.
R4:
The Sheriff's Department should re-evaluate the distribution of phone contract revenues based on current phone usage at each facility. Also, document the verbal agreement with the Probation Department regarding the administration of the phone revenues received. Finding V: Insufficient Internal Controls over IWF Minor Equipment and Fixed Assets Based on historical cost, there is approximately $146,248 of minor equipment and $ 17,693 of fixed assets pertaining to the IWF that were not sighted during the inventory count conducted in January 2016. Office of Audits & Advisory Services Report No. A16-006 The breakdown of unsighted assets is as follows: Table 1: Fixed Assets Book Value of Asset Type Amount Not Sighted $ 6,459.40 Weight Machine Scanner $11,233.75 Total $17,693.15 Table 2: Minor Equipment Book Value of Asset Type Amount Not Sighted Books $10,082.94 $23,833.13 Furniture Information Technology $14,653.29 Other Minor Equipment $97,678.83 $146,248.19 Total According to the Sheriff's Department, many of these items are older assets and due to the size of the facilities as well as high turnover of corrections staff, the location of these assets might not have been available when the inventory count was counted. Additionally, difficulty locating the items may have come from not properly affixing a numbered tag upon initial receipt of the items. The County Administrative Manual 0050-02-01 - Control of Capital Assets and Minor Equipment, requires the County Officers and Department heads are responsible for all County property (assets) in their charge, including (fixed) capital assets and minor equipment. These responsibilities include the identification and control of these assets, the filing of inventories and submission of reports as specified by the Board of Supervisors. Insufficient controls over the IWF assets increases the risk of assets being misplaced, lost or misappropriated.
R5:
The Sheriff's Department should: 1. Monitor year-to-date write-offs of missing assets at least quarterly and determine if additional control measures are warranted, 2. Implement procedures to ensure that an asset tag is physically placed on the asset at the time it is received, and 3. Develop and provide training to staff conducting physical inventory counts (e.g., Learning Management System web based training) to ensure obsolete assets are properly disposed and written off. Office of Audits & Advisory Services Report No. A16-006 Finding VI: Increasing the Participation of Private Citizens in the Committee Would Ensure Impartial Decision Making The Committee is composed almost entirely of Sheriff's Department staff and only includes one private citizen appointed by the Sheriff's Department. As such, the Sheriff's Department has complete discretion in regards to programs and expenses funded by IWF monies. According to the Inmate Welfare Special Revenue Fund and Operating Procedures, the Committee shall be comprised of the Detention Services Bureau Assistant Sheriff, Bureau Commanders, Facility Commanders, Inmate Services Division Manager, Reentry Services Manager, and one civilian volunteer public member appointed by the Sheriff. Due to the structure of the Committee, potential biases for certain programs or expenditures could influence judgment, diminish objectivity, and cause decisions to be made in the best interest of the Sheriff's Department instead of the inmates. Segregation of duties is critical to an effective internal control system; it reduces the risk of both erroneous and inappropriate actions. Based on OAAS research, it was noted that the San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties' IWF Committees are comprised solely of private citizens with diverse backgrounds whose views on how the funds are used are more representative of inmate needs.
R6:
The Sheriff's Department should consider including a diverse group of private citizens as part of the Committee to ensure that operations of the IWF are conducted in the best interest of the inmates and to ensure impartial decisions regarding the use of the IWF. Observation: Adequacy of IWF Reserve Funding Levels OAAS found that, as of June 30, 2015, the balance of the IWF reserve fund totaled $10,505,247. According to the Sheriff's Department, the IWF is managed with great fiscal responsibility which has allowed them to accumulate such balance in the reserve fund. In preparation of unforeseen events, the Sheriff's Department strived to maintain such balance to ensure that the services provided to the inmates would not be impacted. Penal Code Section 4025 does not require a specific amount to be maintained in the IWF reserve funds. This is a decision at the discretion of the Sheriff's Department. As such, the Sheriff Department established a policy that requires a minimum fund balance equal to 50% of its operating budget to be maintained in the IWF reserve fund. Due to the potential downfall in revenue related to the phone usage, the Sheriff Department may have to utilize the reserve fund to sustain program expenses in the near future. Further, the Sheriff Department is currently looking for other revenue sources to possibly fund the salary expense related to the IWF of $3.1 million which correlates to the amount of revenue that would be lost due to the pending FCC ruling. Office of Audits & Advisory Services Report No. A16-006 However, OAAS noted that while the reserve fund has increased over the year, a formal contingency plan to account for the use of reserve funds has not been developed. The Sheriff's Department should consider developing a formal contingency plan that documents the planned use of reserve funds to offset potential downfall in revenues. Office of Audits & Advisory Services Reliability Effectiveness Efficiency Accountability Transparency Compliance VALUE
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F01:
Chula Vista is losing money operating as a jail for the U.S. Marshals Service. Fact: CVPD estimates that four to six PSOs would be needed to staff a 96 hour Type I facility if CVJ ceases operating as a contract jail.
F02:
The CVPD has not adequately demonstrated the need to operate a 24/7 Type I facility that duplicates services already provided by the Sheriff’s Department. Inmate Services If Chula Vista decides to continue operating as a contracted jail for the U.S. Marshals Service, there are several issues regarding inmate services. While CVJ was constructed as and is rated as a Type I facility, it is currently functioning as a Type II3 facility for the U.S. Marshals Service. CVJ contracts for most of its inmate services including meals, medical care, phone service and the commissary. There is no onsite health care provider. CVPD Officers indicated that psychiatric care/counseling is currently not provided for inmates, although some of the women experience depression. These federal detainees can remain in CVJ for up to one year while awaiting adjudication of their federal charges. Title 15, §1208 requires Type I and Type II facilities to provide inmates access to mental health services. However, the U.S. Marshals Service policy restricts payments for specific medical services during pre-trial detainment. Their policy is to provide only reasonable and medically necessary care until the individual is either sentenced and placed into a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility or released.4 Psychology/psychiatry is considered a non-authorized medical intervention/procedure. A holding facility pending arraignment 4 http://www.usmarshals.gov/prisoner/healthcare.htm 4 Staff at CVJ discussed establishing an exchange with the Chula Vista Public Library to enhance reading/educational options for the inmates, who currently have no educational resources. Computer-based educational opportunities exist that can be started at any time and could be funded by the IWF. CVJ maintains an inmate welfare fund with revenue obtained from commissary purchases and inmate phone calls. The fund is established under California Penal Code §4025. The IWF is managed by a recently-formed committee of three staff members. As of 1/20/2016, the balance in the fund was $76,870.83, an amount that has increased over $21,000 since June 30, 2015. It is important to note that the Grand Jury did not find any issues with actual expenditures made with IWF funds for the last three years. All purchases appear to comply with the intent of Penal Code §4025, which states that funds are to be expended primarily for the benefit, education and welfare of the inmates confined in the jail. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Inmates are not provided psychiatric care/counseling.
F03:
The CVJ does not meet Title 15 requirements for psychiatric care. Fact: A branch of Chula Vista Public Library is located within a block of CVJ.
F04:
Chula Vista’s city council should establish a policy that provides inmates access to public library resources. Fact: On 1/20/2016 the IWF account balance was $76,870.83 and has been steadily increasing. Fact: There is no strategic plan for using the IWF funding.
F05:
Strategic plans ensure fiscal responsibility and transparency, and facilitate long-range planning. Fact: The IWF committee consists of solely of CVPD staff.
F06:
Staff-only oversight of IWF does not ensure transparency of the fund and public trust of its administration. Fact: There are no educational programs for inmates.
F07:
IWF funds can be used for educational programs for inmates. 5
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
16-32:
Pursue the renegotiation of the current U.S. Marshals Service
16-33:
Perform a cost/benefit analysis on the need for a Type I jail if Chula
16-34:
Provide psychiatric care/counseling to inmates.
16-35:
Allow inmates access to Chula Vista Public Library resources.
16-36:
Develop a strategic plan for the IWF funds.
16-37:
Add at least one civilian to the IWF oversight committee. Civilian
16-38:
Provide educational opportunities to inmates, possibly supported with
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
The County of San Diego needs more long-term psychiatric treatment beds. Fact: CMH has a wing of thirty-two beds currently being used for training purposes.
F02:
The County has under-utilized resources for psychiatric beds. Fact: MHSA provides funding to BHS for innovative programs to improve services for the seriously mental ill.
F03:
San Diego County has resources for establishing much needed Step-Down facilities.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
16-70:
Revise the contract with Alpine Special Treatment Center to increase
16-71:
Explore options for the closed wing at CMH to provide more long-
16-72:
Explore options using MHSA resources to support the establishment
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.