San Diego County Grand Jury
2022-2023
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 (9)
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F01:
No specific guidelines are given in the IPWC By-Laws and Operating Procedures that specifically define what constitutes an allowable expense appropriate for the IPWF. Need for Time Studies Fact: The IPWC By Laws and Operating Procedures` state, “It is the policy of the Sheriff of San Diego County to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the procurement of property and services for the inmates.” Fact: Several positions in the San Diego Sheriff’s Reentry Services Division are funded 100% by the Incarcerated Persons’ Welfare Fund. However, these positions have responsibility for both IPWF and non-IPWF activities, (such as services related to meals, clothing, housing or medical services as defined under Title 15).
F02:
Mandating periodic time studies would identify the use of IPWF funding for non- IPWF activities, especially important for those personnel having dual responsibilities for Title 15 activities and IPWF supported programs. Expanding IPWC Membership Fact: The membership of the IPWF Committee of the San Diego County Sheriff Reentry Services Division includes one civilian volunteer position.
F03:
Limiting the membership on the committee to only one long standing civilian member does not allow San Diego County’s diverse citizenship to be adequately represented or differing viewpoints to be heard. Effective Use of Funding Fact: The San Diego County Board of Supervisors eliminated charges to incarcerated persons for phone calls, texts and video visits to families.
F04:
The substitute funding authorized to replace phone charge revenue provided an annual revenue guarantee in future fiscal years by the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors to maintain funding sources for these important and impactful correctional education programs for the benefit, education and welfare of incarcerated persons.
F05:
Initial funds authorized by the San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors and a large current fund balance may continue to support IPWF programs for some time, but existing reserves in the fund may fall unless this supplemental county funding continues. Fact: The IPWF funds a wide variety of correctional education, vocation and psychosocial programs intended to reduce recidivism and reincarceration rates and promote successful reentry of incarcerated individuals into society. 11
F06:
Performing economic analyses that compare the cost of correctional education programs to the social and financial benefits of reduced recidivism or reincarceration could demonstrate that discontinuing such programs could ultimately be more costly than continuing them.
F07:
The County Sheriff has no evidence or published evaluation of the effectiveness of the reentry programs funded by the IWPF. Audit Requirement Fact: The By-Laws of the Incarcerated Persons’ Welfare Committee require an audit of the Incarcerated Person’s Welfare fund and the Jail Stores Commissary Fund at least every three years. Fact: The most recent audit of the Incarcerated Persons Special Revenue Fund and Jail Stores Enterprise Fund was in 2016.
F08:
The County is not meeting the requirement to perform an audit of the Incarcerated Persons Welfare Fund and Jail Stores Enterprise Fund every three years. San Diego County Legislative Priorities Fact: Two bills have been passed by the California Legislature, SB555 and AB1782 (in 2020 and 2022, respectively), mandating that Incarcerated Persons Welfare Funds be used “solely for the benefit and welfare of incarcerated persons”, and seeking to curtail the broad discretion Sheriffs now possess in determining how to spend Incarcerated Persons’ Welfare Funds. Both pieces of legislation were vetoed by the Governor. Fact: While IPWF monies have been used as discretionary funds to supplement the cost of meals, clothing, housing and medical services for incarcerated individuals, such discretionary spending is permitted by provisions of this law.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
23-72:
Update the By-Laws and Operating Procedures of the Incarcerated Persons'
23-73:
Create and maintain ongoing detailed multi-year spending plans to better
23-74:
To prevent over-allocation of salary and benefit expense to the IPWF,
23-75:
Expand membership of the Incarcerated Persons' Welfare Committee
23-76:
For new civilian IPWC members, specify terms and term limits, and
23-77:
Develop alternative source of funding to augment and leverage IPWF
23-78:
If further analysis demonstrates correctional programs reduce recidivism,
23-79:
Establish advisory panels of experts qualified to review and advise the
23-80:
Authorize a comprehensive and independent study to evaluate the
23-81:
Direct the Office of Audit and Advisory Services (OAAS) to undertake an
23-82:
Direct the Office of Strategy and Intergovernmental Affairs to add a
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department does not have a strong enough policy for searching incarcerated persons for drugs and other contraband upon re-entering the jails from unsecured settings. Fact: The East Mesa Reentry Facility and the South Bay Detention Center do not have whole body scanners. Detecting and Managing Drug Contraband: An Overview of Technologies for Managing Entry of Drug Contraband and Detecting Their Use in Correctional Facilities, Mail Inspection and Digitized Mail Programs https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/302135.pdf 11 Fact: There are a variety of high-tech machines available to assist in the identification of drugs and contraband in and on a person. Fact: The SDSD is in the process of purchasing additional scanning machines to use for scanning people. Fact: The two models of scanners used in the SDSD jails make use of ionizing radiation. Fact: Many people are concerned, but not fully informed about the risks of exposure to ionizing radiation. Fact: When used as intended, and according to the regulations governing their use scanners in the SDSD jails are safe and pose no health or safety risks. Fact: The dose (exposure) of radiation to the person being scanned is extremely low and there is no evidence it poses a hazard or risk to long-or short-term health and safety. Fact: Currently only sworn staff operate scanning machines.
F02:
Anyone who has been trained can operate a scanning machine, but currently only sworn staff operate scanning machines in the San Diego County jails. Therefore, the department has inefficient staffing flexibility to operate the scanning machines. Fact: The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department does not currently have any high-tech high- volume scanning equipment for scanning incoming mail, small packages, or supplies. Fact: There are options available for purchasing high-volume mail screening machines. Fact: Drugs and contraband can enter jails through the mail, or supplies coming into the jails. High-volume scanning equipment has been shown to be effective in controlling contraband from coming into the jails.
F03:
The SDSD lacks the most effective scanning equipment for scanning mail, packages, or supplies.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R23-83:
Add one whole-body x-ray scanner at the East Mesa Reentry Center, and one whole-body scanner at the South Bay Detention Center. 12
R23-84:
Consider scanning all incarcerated persons returning to the jail who have been out of the secure areas.
R23-85:
Assemble an in-house team to determine the safest and most effective scanning devices, and how to staff the equipment in ways to ensure effectiveness so there are no delays for employees about to begin their shift.
R23-86:
If the above noted in-house team is assembled, consider the feasibility, legality, and cost/benefits to scanning all persons including employees entering a detention facility.
R23-87:
Hire and train non-sworn staff to exclusively operate the scanners.
R23-88:
Purchase high-volume mail scanning equipment and scan all mail and incoming packages before delivery to an incarcerated person or secure location.
R23-89:
Purchase x-ray cargo scanners capable of searching/scanning larger institutional deliveries and scan all incoming deliveries. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 13 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision- making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the:
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The installation of a fraud hotline could improve the San Diego Housing Commission’s efficiency in administering its rental assistance programs as well as helping to identify potential areas of fraud, waste, and abuse on the part of Housing Commission employees and contracted staff. Fact: The Coordinated Entry System (CES) of the Continuum of Care is responsible for referring potential tenants to fill a room vacancy in permanent supportive housing. Fact: According to its procedure, the CES refers only one potential tenant at a time to fill a vacancy in permanent supportive housing. Fact: The CES referral is initiated by the contracted property manager or service provider at the requesting facility. Fact: The staff at the requesting facility often waits to request a replacement until a unit is vacant, instead of the date of being notified of a planned move. Fact: Staff of the facility’s service provider are responsible for locating and notifying a potential tenant that a placement in supportive housing is available. Fact: If the prospective tenant cannot be found within five working days, or if he or she does not want or need the placement, the Coordinated Entry System provides another referral; this process continues until a prospective tenant who accepts the vacancy is found. Fact: The Housing Commission must certify that the prospective tenant is eligible for a project- based rental assistance voucher before he or she can take occupancy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Staff vacancies and recruitment continue to be a challenge and have a negative impact on the program’s productivity and staff burnout. Recruitment efforts and staff development/wellness have been a priority. San Diego Housing Commission Report HAR 22-001 for the 3/15/2022 agenda of the City of San Diego Housing Authority 9
F2:
The City and County of San Diego can often take up to two months to fill a vacancy in permanent supportive housing. Fact: Both the City and County of San Diego have representation on the San Diego Regional Continuum of Care, which oversees the coordinated entries system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Staffing vacancies continue to be a primary challenge, not only the hiring of new staff, but more importantly, the retention of current staff. This continued trend results in difficulty meeting performance requirements… It is hoped that the shift in pay ranges allows resource agencies to become more competitive with other companies.
F3:
Because the Coordinated Entry System provides only one referral at a time, there are frequent delays in filling supportive housing vacancies. Fact: A small percentage of residents of some supportive housing facilities are provided with Clinical Case Management services. Fact: The screening criteria for permanent housing prioritizes chronically homeless persons who have a mental and/or a physical disability. Fact: Housing First principles do not require residents of supportive housing to accept services but require service providers to perform assertive outreach to those tenants who refuse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Staffing has been a struggle… It takes a lot of time to train new staff and get them providing services on their own. In addition, the Behavioral Health Services Strategic Housing Plan noted that staff turnover and the lack of staff to provide services were identified by stakeholders as among the major challenges faced by provider agencies. Staff turnover can undermine the rapport established between worker and client. The result could be less effective services until replacements are in place. The Grand Jury is recommending local public housing agencies work with San Diego County Behavioral Health Services to commission a workload and salary study that would establish parity in compensation between contracted supportive services workers and government employees doing similar work. The Grand Jury also recommends that San Diego County Behavioral Health Services work with local public housing agencies to develop a standard training syllabus that would assist service providers in training new staff. Input from supportive services providers should be solicited in the implementation of both recommendations. Sustainability Concerns: In its September 2022 Regional Community Action Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness in San Diego, the Regional Task Force on Homelessness estimates the region needs an additional 4,347 units of permanent supportive housing, including 2,676 units in the City of San Diego. In order to achieve that goal, this plan recommends:
F4:
The reporting form used by County of San Diego Behavioral Health Services, Health and Human Services Administration to monitor the effectiveness of its contracted service providers does not adequately document the provision of Clinical Case Management services. Fact: Service providers at supportive housing facilities, in common with other homelessness services programs, are experiencing staff shortages. Fact: It takes time for a newly assigned staff member to be sufficiently trained to provide effective services to supportive housing residents. Fact: Staff turnover complicates maintaining well-trained personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Evaluating all parcels of land regionwide available for housing development – public (federal, state, and local) and private (privately owned, non-profit owned, and faith-based);
F5:
The City and County do not monitor the staffing and recruitment of contracted service agencies, and low staffing impacts the ability to deliver meaningful services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Building capacity within smaller cities to develop housing, specifically permanent supportive housing;
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Taking full advantage of new federal and state funding for housing development, including increasing applications for State of California Project Homekey funds; and
R7:
Supporting innovative development strategies to bring housing online faster and cheaper, such as modular/prefabricated homes, relocatable homes, tiny homes, and accessory dwelling units. Homekey is the State of California’s program confronting homelessness by rapidly creating housing by purchasing hotels, motels, and other buildings. Homekey funding was essential in the San Diego Housing Commission’s acquisition of the Valley Vista and Kearny Vista supportive housing facilities. Like many State programs, several counties are competing for limited funds. This Grand Jury report has demonstrated that Section 8 project-based vouchers often make the difference in determining whether a project is financially viable. Section 8 is a stable program, but it is dependent on annual allocations by Congress, as are other HUD programs, such as Community Development Block Grants and Emergency Solutions Grants. Funding for new supportive housing facilities is often pieced together from a combination of these funds. Also, the issuance of project-based vouchers will decrease the number of tenant-based vouchers, for which there is a long waiting list- over 12 years and 13,000 applicants in the City of San Diego, according to witness testimony. Local housing authorities must make policy decisions to balance the two types of vouchers. Until September 2021, the County Department of Housing and Community Development Services had issued only 231 out of a total of 11,003 vouchers as project- based. The Board of Supervisors, seeking to stimulate the development of more supportive housing, directed the Health and Human Services Agency to develop a plan to utilize more project-based vouchers.4 Since then the County has increased its supply of supportive housing units with project-based vouchers. The Grand Jury found the vacancy rate in the six permanent supportive housing facilities visited is about 10%. This is confirmed by the San Diego Housing Commission, which was requested by its supportive housing facilities to provide new tenants for 182 vacancies out of 1,940 permanent supportive housing units. Many tenants opted to stay in supportive housing when offered a tenant-based voucher after two years. The Regional Task Force on Homelessness reported that for every ten persons who exit the homeless system, thirteen people become newly homeless, thus increasing the demand for supportive housing. Another report of the 2022/2023 Grand Jury, entitled Housing in San Diego County, documented that Lemon Grove was the only City to achieve its very low-income housing goal in the most recent Regional Housing Needs Assessment cycle mandated by State Housing Law; Lemon Grove and Poway were the only two Cities to meet the low-income goal. Lemon Grove’s facilitation of the development of two permanent supportive housing projects, Citronica One and Citronica Two, was a key factor in meeting its development goals. The Grand Jury report cited in the previous paragraph made several actionable recommendations pursuant to the development of housing in San Diego at all income levels. While not specific to permanent supportive housing per se, they complement the recommendations listed above. Instead of re-stating them in this report, the reader is referred to the Housing in San Diego County report. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: The San Diego Housing Commission does not have a telephone hotline to receive and register allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse against employees, contractors, and clients. Fact: Fraud hotlines have been an effective tool in combatting fraud, waste, and abuse in government agencies, especially those that administer publicly assisted benefit programs. Board of Supervisors Letter Item 1 for County of San Diego Housing Authority meeting agenda of 9/1/2021 11 Fact: The County of San Diego’s Housing and Community Development utilizes a fraud hotline in its rental assistance programs.
23-62:
Establish a fraud, waste, and abuse hotline to receive and
23-63:
Work with contracted facility managers and service providers to
23-64:
As a member agency of the Continuum of Care Advisory Board,
23-65:
In collaboration with the County of San Diego Health and Human
23-66:
Collaborate with the Health and Human Services Agency and
23-67:
Direct Behavioral Health Services, Health and Human Services
23-68:
Direct the Health and Human Service Agency's representatives to the
23-69:
Direct the Health and Human Services Agency to collaborate with the
23-70:
Direct the Health and Human Services Agency to collaborate with the
23-71:
Advocate for the Coordinated Entry System to provide a minimum of
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F01:
Current restroom facilities in the downtown San Diego area are inadequate to provide 24/7 public access.
F02:
There is no comprehensive plan for restroom siting or assuring best practices are instituted for current and future restroom facilities in the downtown San Diego area. Fact: Academic institutions, such as SDSU and UCSD, have capacity to engage with government and to assist in development of data-driven plans for restrooms. Fact: Downtown groups representing businesses, residents and economic development have interest in working with government to develop workable plans for downtown public restrooms. Fact: Advocacy groups for unsheltered populations have lived experience that add value to planning for access to public restrooms. San Diego leaders looking to lift state ban on pay toilets, CBS 8 San Diego, Jan 23, 2023, https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/san-diego-looking-to-lift-state-ban-on-pay-toilets/509-e29e4ecd-60f4- 4bc4-b019-e51036eebf1f 18 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (filed May 24, 2023) Fact: The last effort to bring together a wide array of stakeholders on the issue of downtown public restrooms was in 2013.
F03:
The City has not recently brought together partners including academia, private business groups, community associations, or homeless individuals/advocates to explore solutions for better access to public restrooms. Fact: The 2009-2010 GJ report, Homeless in San Diego, warned of disease outbreaks due to lack of adequate public restrooms, Fact: Poor sanitation is linked to spread of several infectious pathogens and has been cited as contributing to the hepatitis A and shigella outbreaks since the last Grand Jury report. Fact: The hepatitis A outbreak in 2017 was a factor in the deaths of twenty people. Fact: The hepatitis A outbreak cost over $12 million dollars and required ad hoc sanitation equipment rental, enhanced environmental cleaning and other costs.
F04:
Adequate public restrooms may help mitigate outbreaks such as hepatitis A, shigella, and COVID-19. Fact: Access to convenient, safe, and well-maintained restrooms in the downtown area is important to tourists, local visitors, persons experiencing homelessness, and families. Fact: It is difficult to locate clean, open public restrooms in downtown San Diego due to the lack of adequate signage. Fact: The City’s web-based information regarding public restrooms is not updated often enough and does not contain enough information to reflect conditions in the field.
F05:
Open, clean, and secure public restrooms are hard to locate throughout the San Diego downtown area. Fact: The 2014-2015 GJ recommend, develop, fund and implement a plan for additional 24-hour downtown public restrooms, establish and implement an adequate budget for safety and maintenance, and to establish a way-finding system.
F06:
The City has encountered barriers in following its 1987 policy to site and encourage public restrooms in specific types of facilities in the downtown area. Fact: Private developers are not proactively siting, maintaining, and providing safe access to 24/7 public restrooms. 19 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (filed May 24, 2023)
F07:
City policies and agreements need to be followed and enforced to assure accessible and adequate public restrooms. Fact: There is no average cost per restroom available, since different public restroom facilities have varying structures and services (i.e., security or not, city vs contract staff, maintenance needs, private agreements). Fact: City of San Diego restroom costs are hard to evaluate since expenditures are spread over different line items and different departments.
F08:
The City has not performed a comprehensive economic analysis on the costs of constructing, securing, and maintaining public restrooms, which would include current costs attributable to not having adequate restrooms (e.g., sidewalk cleaning, municipal code enforcement)
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Standardizing signage elements throughout the downtown area via collaboration with the County, Port, MTS and other relevant partners.
R2:
Adding resources for sign development and maintenance in contracts with partnering groups and working with them to facilitate approval for new signs. 23-37: Enhance the City restroom/hand-washing wayfinding system to direct the public to available restrooms, which includes the following:
R3:
Regularly updating the City’s restroom website information, including days/hours of operation and points of contact for problems with usage.
R4:
Assure access in at least English and Spanish.
R5:
Leverage existing wayfinding systems, e.g., MTS PRONTO application. 23-38: Explore and create financial incentives or other innovative mechanisms for business owners to make their restroom facilities available to all persons upon request. 23-39: Explore mechanisms to fund public restroom infrastructure including development impact fees. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 21 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (filed May 24, 2023) (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations______________ Date___ City of San Diego, Mayor 23-32 through 23-39 7/24/2023 City of San Diego, City Council 23-32 through 23-39 7/24/2023 22 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (filed May 24, 2023)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F01:
County of San Diego school districts and administrators have no legal responsibility to protect, or liability for, students involved in off-campus activities being victimized by human traffickers. Fact: Children engaged in non-school sponsored extracurricular activities at high-risk of being targeted by human traffickers. Fact: Children of all ages are spending increasingly more time on social media, on-line chat rooms, and gaming platforms. Fact: The preferred venue for solicitation of minors by human traffickers is on-line chat rooms, social media and gaming platforms that are not regulated by school administrators, nor under their specific responsibility. Fact: Education Code § 35160 provides “school districts” with permissive authority to: “initiate and carry on any program, activity, or may otherwise act in any manner which is not in conflict with or inconsistent with, or preempted by, any law and which is not in conflict with the purposes for which school districts are established.”
F02:
Education Code § 35160 provides the SDCOE with a vehicle to guide all 42 school districts in incorporating AB 1227 training into their curricula.
F03:
The SDCOE has in place the framework with the Human Trafficking School Safety Protocols (HTSSP) to solicit more parent involvement. Fact: The percentage of children that are special needs in California is approx. 12.5 %, with San Diego County at 14.8 %. Fact: The Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPA) network is a coalition of school districts with the goal of ensuring special needs children receive the necessary education they deserve. It is administered by the San Diego County Office of Education. Fact: There are seven SELPA districts in San Diego County.
F04:
The San Diego County SELPA network is uniquely positioned to ensure that all special needs children in the County receive the valuable education that AB 1227 promises. Fact: The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) Advisory Council developed Recommended Protocols for Schools and ensure all administrators, staff and teachers are trained in human trafficking. Fact: The San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force (HTTF) is a cooperative of Law Enforcement Agencies and the District Attorney Office to proactively disrupt and dismantle human trafficking activities through a comprehensive and collaborative effort. Fact: The HTTF has minimal visibility within school districts across the San Diego County. Fact: The San Diego Trafficking Prevention Collective (SDTPC) provides teachers an end-to-end prevention education program that aims to protect every student from exploitation. Fact: The SDCOE staff provides, through the Train the Trainers (TOT) program, training, technical assistance, and direct services to assist school districts in developing and supporting their Comprehensive School Safety Plans which include Active Shooter, Safety Planning, Threat Assessment, and Crisis Intervention and Recovery.
F05:
The SDCOE Train the Trainers (TOT) program currently does not specifically address human trafficking in the training curriculum. Fact: The SDCOE Expanded Learning and Community Engagement Program works with all 42 school districts to develop and implement before and after school programs that entice students and parents to engage in extracurricular activities.
F06:
The SDCOE Expanded Learning and Community Engagement Program currently does not include human trafficking training as part of extracurricular programs.
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
23-18:
Use Education Code § 35160 authority to take an active role in encouraging and
23-19:
Use the framework of the Human Trafficking School Safety Protocols (HTSSP) to
23-20:
Develop a methodology to perform routine monitoring of all 42 school districts'
23-21:
Develop a methodology to perform routine monitoring of all 42 school districts'
23-22:
Consider adopting the framework of the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of
23-23:
Coordinate with the six SELPAs in San Diego County to address the curriculum
23-24:
Seek additional grant funding, or earmark general operating funds, to continue
23-25:
Through the SDCOE Expanded Learning and Community Engagement Program,
23-26:
Encourage all 42 school districts to develop and make available to parents, through
23-27:
Consider posting Human Trafficking Hotline Posters in each school.
23-28:
Work with the SDCOE and District Attorney's Office to make available, to all
23-29:
Work with the SDCOE and the 42 school districts to introduce the SDTPC "end-to-
23-30:
Work with the SDCOE to develop the Train the Trainers (TOT) program for roll
23-31:
Take action to enforce the SB 1193 requirement for businesses, and public agencies,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F01:
Most IST IPs in the San Diego County jails spend a lengthy jail time awaiting DSH treatment and thus have an increased risk of harm to self or others.
F02:
IST IPs in the San Diego County jails have an increased risk of being written up for rules violations or charged with assault the longer they stay in jail. Jail rules violations and additional charges can result in a lengthier incarceration. Fact: As of November 1, 2022, there were 130 IST IPs in the San Diego County jails. 20 https://cops.usdoj.gov/ric/Publications/cops-w0869-pub.pdf 21 https://www.chhs.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/IST_Solutions_Report_Final_v2.pdf 22 https://www.nri-inc.org/media/1500/jbcr_website-format_oct2018.pdf 7 Fact: The Sheriff’s Department receives funding from DSH to operate a 30 bed JBCT program which began operations in March 2017.
F03:
The JBCT program decreases the San Diego County jail DSH transfer waitlist by providing competency restoration treatment for 23% of San Diego County jail IST IPs. Fact: Psychiatric medication is available to all IST IPs. Fact: The First District Court of Appeal found that baseline medical services provided by county jails do not constitute substantive services for IST defendants. Fact: No group counseling or multifaceted mental health programming is available for those IST IPs not in the JBCT program or on the PSU unit. Fact: No competency restoration treatment is provided for IST IPs not selected for the JBCT program.
F04:
There is no competency restoration treatment and limited general mental health programming provided to IST IPs housed in the San Diego County jails who are not selected for the JBCT program.
F05:
Implementation of competency tutoring/support as a stop-gap measure may increase likelihood of IST IPs, at time of 60-day re-evaluation, being found ready to proceed with court proceedings.
F06:
Untreated or inadequately treated individuals with a serious mental illness, especially in a jail setting, have increased risk of self-harm, being written up for rules violations, or being charged with assault while in jail. Fact: The JBCT program only accommodates male IST IPs to participate in the program. Females are not offered a JBCT program. Fact: As of November 2, 2022, there were 19 female IST IPs in the San Diego County jail.
F07:
There is a gender inequity as female IPs are not provided equal access to treatment. Fact: Unless selected for the JBCT program, there is no dedicated housing for IST IPs. Fact: IST IPs are housed at any of the following jail facilities: Central jail, Vista Detention, Las Colinas, George Bailey. Fact: IST IPs are housed in all types of housing units including administrative separation units which are solitary confinement housing. Fact: No group counseling or other multifaceted mental health programming is available for those IST IPs not in the JBCT program or on the PSU unit.
F08:
IST IPs would have better access to mental health services in housing units which are staffed with assigned mental health professionals.
F09:
Dedicated housing for all IST IPs will create more opportunities for therapy. Fact: The Sheriff’s Department employs approximately 27 mental health clinicians who provide non-medication mental health services to a jail population of approximately 4,000 IPs. Fact: NaphCare employs an additional ten mental health clinicians who provide non-medication mental health services to the jail population. Fact: BSCC collected data which shows that in 2019, approximately 50% of San Diego County jail IPs had an active mental health case. Fact: BSCC collected data which shows that in 2019, approximately 22% of IPs in San Diego County jails were prescribed psychiatric medication.
F10:
There is an insufficient number of mental health clinicians to provide appropriate basic on-site mental health services, as defined by NCCHC accreditation standards, to San Diego County jail IPs, including IST IPs.
F11:
An increase in general mental health services will increase likelihood of IST IPs, at time of the 60-day re-evaluation, being found ready to proceed with court proceedings. Fact: The cost of housing an IST IP is 2 to 3 times the amount for housing an IP without a mental illness. Fact: The State of California does not contribute to the cost of treatment and housing of IST IPs who are not selected for the JBCT program.
F12:
Costs of increased County funding for competency restoration treatment and/or general mental health services to IST IPs may be offset by cost savings from shorter IST IPs jail stay.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
23-10:
Continue the partnership with DSH in funding the JBCT program. Request
23-11:
Provide a female JBCT program through requesting additional funding from
23-12:
Provide competency tutoring/support as a stop-gap measure for IST male
23-13:
Provide dedicated housing for IST IPs who are not selected for the JBCT
23-14:
Provide increased general mental health services to all IST IPs including
23-15:
Increase jail mental health staffing.
23-16:
Increase collaboration with local universities to bolster recruiting efforts to
23-17:
Increase collaboration and sharing of staffing resources with other county
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The PAPG Policy & Procedure Handbook does not provide sufficient detail to enable staff to verify veteran status or to arrange for a suitable interment of remains at a National Cemetery. Fact: The California State Probate Code mandates hospitals and long-term care facilities notify the Public Administrator when a patient dies with no known next of kin. Fact: Edgemoor Distinct Part Skilled Nursing Facility and other facilities had been referring cases of all deaths, whether or not a next of kin was known, to the Public Administrator for a possible disposition of assets. 10
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Alameda County Social Services Agency, APS
F2:
The PAPG Policy & Procedure Handbook does not reflect the provision in the Probate Code that hospitals and nursing homes need to refer in-patient deaths to the Public Administrator only when there is no known next of kin. Fact: Previous estate auction vendors have charged as much as 75% of a sale’s proceeds as a fee for their services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Amador County Dept of Social Services
F3:
The PAPG Policy & Procedure Handbook does not address the subject of auction vendor fees. Fact: Field staff in the Office of the Public Administrator are exposed to a wide variety of potentially hazardous conditions which may require the use of personal protective equipment. Fact: Although N-95 respirators are not mandated by management, some field workers in the Public Administrator’s Office wear them voluntarily. Fact: Medical Examiner Investigators are fit-tested for N-95 respirators even though their use is voluntary. Fact: The Occupational Health Program would provide fit testing of N-95 respirators, and training in their use, for all employees who choose to wear them. Fact: The Occupational Health Program, at the request of County departments, can conduct specialized risk assessments, recommend equipment to mitigate risks and assist in training in the use of that equipment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Butte County Employment and Social Services,
F4:
The Office of the Public Administrator has not requested a comprehensive evaluation of the occupational risks faced by its field staff and the protective equipment required to mitigate those risks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Calaveras County Health & Human Services Agency
F5:
The Office of the Public Administrator does not provide fit testing of N-95 respirators for its field staff who choose to wear them. Fact: Most departments in the Health and Human Services Agency which utilize caseloads for their service delivery model have developed an optimum caseload standard for their case- carrying employees. Fact: The 2022 Business Process Reengineering study recommended standardized work performance goals and objectives and standardized equitable case assignments. Fact: There is no optimum caseload standard for Deputy Public Administrators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Contra Costa County Health Services
F6:
A workload analysis study would aid in determining an optimum caseload for Deputy Public Administrators. Fact: The Public Administrator had a liaison stationed in the Medical Examiner’s Office from 1989 to 2022. Fact: The liaison function was discontinued in April 2022 due to staffing shortages. Fact: Physical proximity facilitates cooperation and efficiency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Glenn County Health & Human Services
F7:
The absence of the Public Administrator liaison to the Medical Examiner’s Office has resulted in increased work for Medical Examiner Investigators and duplication of work and other inefficiencies in the referral process for the Public Administrator’s staff. Fact: Some of the duties of a Deputy Public Administrator overlap with those of a Medical Examiner Investigator. Fact: The computer systems in the Offices of the Public Administrator and the Medical Examiner are not linked.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Imperial County Area Agency on Aging
F8:
The absence of access to each other’s computer system often results in duplication of effort in such functions as identifying and locating a decedent’s next of kin and other potential heirs. Fact: Administrative placement of the Public Administrator function in California varies from county to county. Fact: Referrals from the Medical Examiner constitute a significant portion of a Deputy Public Administrator’s workload. Fact: The Deputy Public Administrator acts as a fiduciary for deceased individuals, regardless of age, as mandated by the California State Probate Code. Fact: Aging and Independence Services workers provide needed services, governed primarily by the State Welfare and Institutions Code, to living elderly and disabled individuals. Fact: Duties of Aging Program Specialists do not currently align with duties of Deputy Public Administrators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Lake County Social Services, Adult and Aging
F9:
The duties of a Deputy Public Administrator are more closely aligned with those of Medical Examiner Investigators than those of Aging Program Specialists. Fact: Consistent with a 2022 Business Process Reengineering recommendation, the Deputy Public Administrator title series has been placed in terminal status. Fact: Existing staff in the Deputy Public Administrator title series have been encouraged to apply for approximately equally paid positions in the Aging Program Specialist title series; new hires performing the work of a Deputy Public Administrator will be hired as Aging Program Specialists. Fact: Aging Program Specialist is a professional social work class series found only in the Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA), Aging and Independence Services. Fact: The Business Process Reengineering report also recommends continuing to evaluate moving the Public Administrator to another County department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Mendocino County Social Services, Adult and Aging
F10:
The Business Process Reengineering recommendation to re-classify Deputy Public Administrators to Aging Program Specialists, which are employed only in Aging and Independence Services, is not consistent with the recommendation to consider transferring the Office of Public Administrator to another County department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Merced County Behavioral Health & Recovery
Additional Recommendations
26
Not linked to specific findings.
R11:
Monterey County Health Dept
R12:
Napa County HHS- Services for Older Adults
R13:
Placer County HHS, Older and Dependent Adults
R14:
Sacramento County Dept. of Child, Family and Adult Svs.
R15:
San Diego County HHSA, Aging and Independence
R16:
County of San Francisco HAS/Disability and Aging Services
R17:
Santa Clara County Social Services Agency
R18:
Santa Cruz County Social Services Agency
R19:
Siskiyou County Health and Human Services
R20:
Solano County Health and Social Services
R21:
Sonoma County Human Services/ Adult and Aging
R22:
San Mateo County Public Health
R23:
Tuolumne County Human Services Agency
R24:
Ventura County Human Services Agency Sheriff’s Department and County Coroner (12)
23-40:
Encourage revisions to the PAPG Policy & Procedure Handbook to include
23-41:
<b>Encourage revisions to the PAPG Policy & Procedure Handbook to include</b>
23-42:
Encourage revisions to the PAPG Policy & Procedure Handbook to set a
23-43:
Request the Occupational Health Program of the Department of
23-44:
Request that the Occupational Health Program provide training consistent
23-45:
Request that the Occupational Health Program provide fit testing of N-95
23-46:
Retain the position within the Public Administrators Office of a Deputy
23-47:
Identify common areas of investigation with the Medical Examiner and
23-48:
Establish workload standards for the number of cases to be handled by a
23-49:
Transfer the functions and appropriate staff of the Public Administrator's
23-50:
If recommendation 23-49 is implemented, reinstate the Deputy Public
23-51:
Identify common areas of investigation with the Public Administrator and
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F01:
The City of Lemon Grove met its housing allocation for all the income categories identified by SANDAG in the Fifth RHNA Cycle.
F02:
The County of San Diego failed to meet their housing allocation for all income levels. 50 https://yigby.org/about-yigby/#top 51 San Diego Union-Tribune, Michael Smolens Column: “Effort to ease housing construction on church land gets a new life,” December 21, 2022 52 https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/legislation 53 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB4 54 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/faith-based-housing-development. 55https://www.cityofsolanabeach.org/sites/default/files/Solana%20Beach/Community%20Development/Housing% 20Element%20Update/Solana%20Beach%20Housing%20Element%20Update_February2023_Clean.pdf 11
F03:
The following cities did not meet their housing allocations for all income categories: Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach and Vista.
F04:
The San Diego region failed to meet its housing allocations for each of the income categories identified by SANDAG in the Fifth RHNA Cycle. Fact: In 2018, the City of El Cajon implemented its Transit District Specific Plan to transform the area around the El Cajon Transit Center and increase the housing stock in that area. Fact: In 2013, the City of Chula Vista initiated its Palomar Gateway Specific Plan with the goal of providing housing and mixed-use development near the Palomar Street trolley station.
F05:
Specific plans are useful tools in spurring development, including housing development, and have been used by El Cajon and Chula Vista among others. Fact: In November 2016, Santa Clara County voters approved Measure A – the $950 million affordable housing bond measure. Fact: As of June 2022, Santa Clara County’s Measure A funding has been used to create new apartments and housing developments, pay to renovate housing, and allocate money to a first- time homebuyer program. Fact: In 2019 the Bay Area Financing Housing Authority was authorized for the San Francisco Bay Area with the express intention of raising money to finance development of additional housing throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Fact: In 2022 the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions agency was formed with ability to raise money to finance development of additional housing throughout Los Angeles. Fact: The City of Seattle recently implemented a payroll tax on select companies. This year companies with sales of more than $7,386,494 per year are taxed on the number of employees making more than $158,282 per year. Over 500 companies paid the tax. Fact: Currently, the City of San Diego levies a Housing Impact Fee on commercial development and the funds levied are deposited into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. Monies in that fund are used by the San Diego Housing Commission to develop its programs for affordable housing development, housing vouchers, etc. Fact: In California, Santa Clara County and the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas are using or are planning to use the financing authority given to them to fund the current and future development of affordable housing. Fact: Housing impact fees are used to generate funds for affordable housing by the City of San Diego. Fact: In Seattle, the City is using its authority to levy taxes to fund the current and future development of affordable housing. Fact: cityLAB identified school districts as government entities that have land available for construction of affordable housing, particularly for employees of the district. Fact: SFUSD identified underutilized land it owned and is developing it, in conjunction with the City of San Francisco, into a residential community with housing set aside for district employees. Fact: The Santa Clara School District constructed workforce housing for its personnel more than a decade ago. Fact: The University of California at Irvine developed housing on the campus for full-time university employees and their families. Fact: North County Transit District is making surplus land available for development at several locations under its ownership or control. Fact: North County Transit District recently agreed to develop land it controls, in conjunction with a developer, for a mixed-use development at the Oceanside Transit Center. The development is to include affordable housing. Fact: The Metropolitan Transit System has identified surplus land available for development at several locations under its ownership or control. Fact: The Metropolitan Transit System is working with a housing developer to construct affordable housing at its Beyer Boulevard Trolley Station. Fact: YIGBY San Diego, a local group, is working with religious institutions in the San Diego region to develop affordable housing on land owned or controlled by those institutions. Fact: YIGBY San Diego is working with Bethel AME church, to build an affordable housing development for veterans in the City of San Diego. Fact: The Terner Center of Housing Innovation identified religious institutions as potentially having land available for construction of affordable housing.
F06:
Both transit agencies in San Diego County (NCTD and MTS) have made land available for development and are actively developing projects that include housing, among other uses. 13
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
23-01:
Consider, if they have not done so, using specific plans (as defined by
23-02:
Consider working with school districts and community college
23-03:
Consider working with local religious institutions within their
23-04:
Consider drafting revenue-generating legislation at the jurisdiction
23-05:
Consider providing legislative support to re-introducing in the State
23-06:
Consider providing legislative support to SB4, which is currently
23-07:
Consider requesting proposals for development at the NCTD Coaster
23-08:
Continue working with the North County Transit to identify land
23-09:
Continue working with the Metropolitan Transit District to identify
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The City of San Diego’s Five-Year Capital Infrastructure Planning Outlook does not address the liquidation of DIF/FBA account balances and identify the specific capital projects that will be undertaken during the outlook timeframe. Fact: According to the Independent Budget Analysis (IBA) report on the FY 2024 – FY 2028 Five-Year Capital Infrastructure Planning Outlook, the City anticipates an additional $323M in Facility Benefit Assessment (FBA) and Development Impact Fee (DIF) revenue over the outlook period. Fact: For a DIF/FBA funded project to be included in the annual CIP plan, the project must be included in a community’s Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) or Impact fee Study (IFS). Fact: A community’s Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) or Impact fee Study (IFS) is derived from each Community Plan. Fact: Each Community Plan consists of specific proposals for future land uses and public improvements in each community. A community plan is part of the City of San Diego’s General Plan. Fact: The General Plan is the composite master plan for development throughout the City of San Diego and is inclusive of the needs of all community plans. Fact: There are community plans (and associated PFFP/IFS) that have not been updated within the last five years to accurately reflect the current infrastructure needs for which past DIF/FBA funds were collected. Fact: DIF/FBA funds are meant to implement the needs of each community to ensure the impact of new development is mitigated through appropriate DIF/FBA fees. Fact: The City of San Diego’s Planning Department receives recommendations for projects eligible to be funded by DIF/FBA funds from the applicable City departments. Fact: City of San Diego Council Districts also provide input into which projects are to be funded within their districts. Fact: The final list of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) is reviewed by the Capital Improvements Program Review and Advisory Committee (CIPRAC). Fact: CIPRAC, as outlined in the City Council Policy 800-14,69 is a formal committee that reviews proposed CIP plans from a Citywide perspective, providing City Council and the Mayor with proposed CIP budget recommendations and CIP project prioritization
F2:
Build Better SD will facilitate the City of San Diego earmarking and spending the newly collected funds anywhere in the City, not just within the boundaries in which they are collected. 24
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
23-52:
Evaluate whether the City is in strict compliance with the requirements of
23-53:
Request an independent financial and performance audit of the City of
23-54:
Develop a standardized nexus accounting and reporting format with
23-55:
Post the rolling five-year DIF plan on the City of San Diego's website with
23-56:
<b>Encourage all Community Planning Groups to review their associated</b>
23-57:
Adopt a method to identify infrastructure projects that are no longer
23-58:
Refund all DIF/FBA funds the City of San Diego has held longer than five
23-59:
Develop a detailed rolling five-year DIF/FBA funds liquidation plan for
23-60:
Post the rolling five-year legacy DIF/FBA liquidation plan on the City of
23-61:
Identify new ways to educate and engage the public regarding