San Diego County Grand Jury
2025-2026
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 (5)
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Office of the Public Guardian is operating under sustained workload pressures driven by rising caseloads and staffing levels that have not been formally reassessed in recent years. As a result, increased case assignments per deputy or case manager limit the of- fice’s ability to consistently provide individualized attention to complex estates and conser- vatorships. The absence of a current, data-driven workload and staffing analysis constrains the department’s capacity to plan staffing levels, identify training needs, and make in- formed long-term resource allocation decisions. Facts 2: • The Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) relies on coordi- nation with multiple county entities, including the Superior Court, County 19 Counsel, and divisions within the Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA), to carry out its statutory duties.36 35F • Estate administration and conservatorship cases require the timely exchange of information, documentation, and approvals across these entities to meet court and statutory requirements.37 36F • Information reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury indicates that PA/PG administrative processes involve multiple sequential steps, including intake, investigation, court filings, asset management actions, and ongoing reporting.38 37F • Some administrative tasks require manual data entry, document preparation, or coordination across departments that use different procedures or systems.39 38F • Delays in receiving information or approvals from internal or external entities can affect the timing of court filings, case progression, and completion of estate or conservatorship actions.40 39F • The Civil Grand Jury found no consolidated, countywide process map or formal protocol that documents end-to-end workflows for PA/PG cases across all in- volved departments.41 40F
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Staffing and Workload Alignment The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA), in coordination with the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG), should conduct a comprehensive, data-driven workload and staffing analysis to determine whether cur- rent staffing levels align with existing and projected caseload demands. This analysis should evaluate case complexity, time requirements, and staffing ratios to support informed resource allocation, training needs, and long-term operational plan- ning.
F2:
The Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) relies on administrative processes that involve multiple departments and external entities, yet these processes are not consistently documented or standardized across all stages of estate administra- tion and conservatorship case management. As a result, administrative efficiency de- pends in part on informal knowledge and staff experience rather than uniform 20 procedures. This condition may limit the office’s ability to ensure consistent case han- dling, support effective training and onboarding, and maintain continuity in operations. Facts 3: • The Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) relies on profes- sional staff, including deputies, case managers, investigators, and administrative personnel, to carry out estate administration and conservatorship functions.42 41F • PA/PG positions require specialized knowledge of probate law, conservatorship procedures, court practices, and applicable county policies.43 42F • Effective performance of PA/PG duties depends on staff familiarity with complex, long-term cases and established procedural requirements.44 43F • Information reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury indicates that staff turnover, retire- ments, or extended vacancies have occurred within the PA/PG during the period under review.45 44F • When experienced staff leave their position or when positions remain vacant, case assignments and responsibilities are redistributed among remaining person- nel.46 45F • The Civil Grand Jury found no comprehensive, formalized succession plan or in- stitutional knowledge preservation strategy specific to PA/PG operations.47 46F 21 Facts 4: • PA/PG receives referrals from multiple external entities, including hospitals, law enforcement agencies, courts, and community organizations, when individuals appear to require estate administration or conservatorship services48. 47F • Eligibility for PA/PG involvement in conservatorship matters is determined by statutory criteria and requires court approval.49 48F • Information reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury indicates that referrals received by the PA/PG vary in completeness and appropriateness based on statutory author- ity and eligibility requirements.50 49F • When referrals do not meet statutory criteria or lack required information, PA/PG staff must expend additional time to clarify jurisdiction, request supplemental doc- umentation, or redirect the referring entity51. 50F • Public-facing information describing the PA/PG’s role, authority, and referral pro- cess is limited and dispersed across multiple county or external sources.52 51F
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Administrative Process Documentation and Coordination The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA), in coordination with the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) and relevant 25 departments, should develop and maintain a documented, end-to-end workflow map for estate administration and conservatorship cases. This effort should clarify interdepartmental roles, reduce duplicative or unclear proce- dural steps, standardize documentation practices, and incorporate these processes into staff training and onboarding materials.
F4:
The statutory role and authority of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) are narrowly defined and may not be consistently understood by external refer- ring entities or the public. As a result, referrals to the office may vary in completeness and alignment with statutory eligibility requirements. Facts 5: • Oversight of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) oc- curs primarily through the Superior Court in probate and conservatorship matters, with court review focused on case-specific compliance with statutory and proce- dural requirements53. 52F • The Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) provides administrative over- sight of the PA/PG as part of the County’s organizational structure54. 53F • Information reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury indicates that existing oversight mechanisms emphasize legal and procedural compliance rather than compre- hensive evaluation of program performance55. 54F • Publicly available PA/PG reporting primarily consists of budget documents, or- ganizational information, and required court filings, rather than consolidated per- formance metrics.56 55F • The Civil Grand Jury found no standardized set of program-level performance measures used to evaluate PA/PG operations across estate administration and conservatorship functions.57 56F
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Public Information and Referral Guidance The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA), in coordination with the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG), should provide clear, accessible public guidance explaining the PA/PG’s legal authority, eligibility crite- ria, and referral process. HHSA should ensure that this information enables hospitals, law enforcement agencies, courts, and community organizations to make appropriate referrals and consider the use of standardized tools to improve referral completeness and efficiency.
F5:
Oversight of the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) is primarily structured around case-level judicial review and compliance with statutory and proce- dural requirements. While this framework ensures legal accountability in individual mat- ters, it does not provide a comprehensive, program-level view of operational perfor- mance. The absence of standardized performance measures and consolidated 23 reporting may limit county leadership’s ability to evaluate trends in caseloads, pro- cessing timelines, staffing capacity, and overall effectiveness, resulting in administrative oversight that is constrained by incomplete visibility into the PA/PG’s performance as an integrated County function rather than as a collection of individual cases. Facts 6: • The Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) uses administra- tive and case management systems to track estate administration and conserva- torship activities.58 57F • Information reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury indicates that some PA/PG systems are legacy platforms that are not fully integrated with broader County technology infrastructure.59 58F • Certain administrative and reporting tasks require manual data entry or parallel recordkeeping across multiple systems.60 59F • Limited system integration affects the ability to generate consolidated, program- level reports on caseloads, processing timelines, and operational metrics.61 60F • County departments maintain technology standards and infrastructure intended to support data security, accuracy, and reporting consistency across programs.62 61F • The Civil Grand Jury found no documented, department-specific technology inte- gration plan addressing PA/PG legacy systems within the broader County infor- mation technology environment.63 62F 24
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Program Performance Monitoring and Accountability The County of San Diego should develop and implement standardized, program-level performance measures and consolidated reporting for the Office of the Public Adminis- trator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) to supplement existing case-level judicial oversight. These measures should enable County leadership to monitor trends in caseloads, pro- cessing timelines, staffing capacity, and overall program effectiveness, and to evaluate PA/PG operations as an integrated County function rather than solely through individual cases.
F6:
The Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG) relies on legacy technol- ogy systems that are not fully integrated with broader County information technology in- frastructure. The absence of a documented, PA/PG-specific technology integration plan may limit data accuracy, reporting consistency, and the County’s ability to generate con- solidated, program-level performance information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Technology Integration and Data Reporting The County of San Diego, in coordination with the Office of the Public Administra- tor/Public Guardian (PA/PG) and County information technology leadership, should de- velop and implement a PA/PG-specific technology integration plan aligned with county- wide information technology standards. This plan should prioritize the replacement or integration of legacy systems, reduce reli- ance on manual and parallel recordkeeping, and enable consolidated reporting on case- loads, processing timelines, staffing capacity, and operational performance. 27 “The measure of public service is how well it protects those with no voice.” San Diego County Civil Grand Jury, 2025–2026 Term 28
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Staffing Stability and Institutional Knowledge Preservation The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA), in coordination with the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (PA/PG), should develop and implement a formal training, cross-training, and succession planning framework de- signed to preserve institutional knowledge and maintain continuity during staffing transi- tions. This framework should identify critical roles dependent on specialized expertise and es- tablish structured knowledge-transfer protocols to support operational stability.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Because SDFD is not completing all the state-mandated fire 16 inspections, there is an increased risk of loss of life and property in the event of a fire. Fact: SDFD reports its SB 1205 compliance in its adopted budget, published each July. Fact: The Mayor of San Diego releases the Proposed City Budget in April each year and the final budget is adopted by June 15.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
SDFD and City Council – Set a realistic timeline for reaching 100 percent SB 1205 inspection compliance.
F2:
Releasing inspection compliance at the conclusion of the budget cycle creates a delay in addressing CRR’s staffing and funding needs. Fact: Several fire departments in San Diego County publish an annual report detailing the services they provided during the previous year, e.g. inspections completed, public outreach events, and responses to emergency calls. Fact: SDFD does not publish this type of annual report, which means most citizens are not aware of the quantity and quality of service SDFD provides, nor their inspection completion rate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
SDFD – Publish an annual report detailing services provided in the prior year, to include SB 1205 compliance broken down by occupancy category. Submit the annual report to City Council with enough lead time to adjust CRR staffing and budget prior to final budget adoption.
F3:
The lack of published, accurate, and timely data reduces public awareness and support for SDFD. Fact: CRR does not hire non-firefighter inspectors due to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) contract language dating back to 2009. Fact: Non-firefighter, civilian inspectors are less costly and can be onboarded more quickly, since they would not need to graduate from the SDFD fire academy. Fact: Sworn firefighters within Operations are short-staffed, thus there is a limited pool to select from to become CRR inspectors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
SDFD – Identify and evaluate strategies, including considering a review of the current Memorandum of Understanding with I.A.F.F. Local 145, to create a pathway for civilian inspectors to join CRR.
F4:
Civilian inspectors could be a viable, lower-cost solution to the limited inspector staffing in CRR. Fact: SDFD typically conducts three academy classes annually. However, due to budget restrictions, only two academy classes are planned for this fiscal year. Fact: Since SDFD manages its own fire academy, any outside firefighter who wants to join SDFD must attend its academy and complete a one-year probationary period. Fact: It costs approximately $60,000 to recruit and graduate a firefighter from the SDFD academy. The firefighter must complete one year of probation and obtain specific certifications before being eligible for selection to Deputy Fire Marshal in CRR. Fact: In comparison, other fire agencies in San Diego County hire experienced “lateral transfers” if they meet certification and recent work experience criteria.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
SDFD – Increase the number of academy students each year to maintain staffing levels.
F5:
Due to bureaucratic obstacles and budgets limitations, annually there are not enough hired recruits to fully staff SDFD stations, let alone to transition firefighters into CRR inspector roles. Fact: SDFD does not collaborate with other City or County departments on their inspection inventory database. Fact: The inventory of inspectable properties increases as the City grows. Fact: Los Angeles’s Fire Prevention Bureau collaborates with the Los Angeles County Assessor and Los Angeles City Housing & Building departments to collect data on its inspection inventory database.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
SDFD – Review the practice of not hiring outside applicants for a “lateral transfer”.
F6:
The inspection inventory database would be more accurate with increased coordination with other City and County departments. Fact: CRR does not regularly utilize overtime to complete state-mandated inspections. Fact: Los Angeles City Fire Department (LAFD) solicits volunteers for an overtime-only residential inspection taskforce. The LAFD Fire Prevention Bureau (FPB) inspected over 56,000 multifamily residential buildings in 2023, which is a 100 percent completion rate. Fact: SDFD prefers to schedule appointments for inspections. CRR inspectors spend up to 70 percent of their work hours tracking down responsible parties and scheduling inspections or re-inspections. Fact: LAFD typically inspects properties with no advance warning, but some property owners request a scheduled appointment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
CRR – Integrate the County Assessor’s and City Treasurer’s data into the inspection inventory database.
F7:
Use of overtime and revised scheduling procedures would improve CRR’s inspection completion and compliance rates. Fact: CRR inspectors must schedule their own inspections and re-inspections. Fact: CRR inspectors often must track down property owners using public search engines or utility billing records. Fact: There are very few administrative support staff to assist CRR inspectors. 18
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
CRR – Utilize voluntary overtime—and a combination of appointments and unannounced visits—to boost inspection completion rates, particularly for residential occupancies.
F8:
It is neither efficient nor cost effective to have sworn firefighters performing logistical scheduling and billing legwork. Fact: CRR inspected only 75 percent of schools in FY2025. Fact: In prior fiscal years, CRR inspected as few as 40 percent of schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
CRR – Hire more civilian administrative positions to assist fire inspectors with the administrative workload. 19
F9:
Uncompleted school inspections endanger students and staff in the event of an emergency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
San Diego Unified School District, and other districts serving the City – Review fire safety inspection reports for their schools annually, at a minimum, by January 30, 2027.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The San Diego City Council take prompt and constructive actions to finalize “Meet and Confer” negotiations regarding the proposed CPP Operating Procedures between the City and the three labor Unions involved.
R2:
The San Diego Mayor budget for additional CPP investigators and legal staff.
R3:
The San Diego City Council expedite the hiring process for an Executive Director for the CPP.
R4:
The San Diego Police Department share access to the SDPD database used in Complaint investigations with the CPP.
R5:
The San Diego Police Department transmit the complete results, including all documentation of SDPD Internal Affairs (IA) investigations, to the CPP within 2 weeks of completion. 12
R6:
DRAFT CPP OPERATING PROCEDURES; HTTPS://SANDIEGO.HYLANDCLOUD.COM/211AGENDAONLINECOMM/DOCU MENTS/VIEWDOCUMENT/CPP%20STANDARD%20OPERATING%20PROCEDUR ES%20-%204-17- 25.PDF.PDF?MEETINGID=6495&DOCUMENTTYPE=AGENDA&ITEMID=245270 &PUBLISHID=970594&ISSECTION=FALSE
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The Board denied renewal of the San Diego Youth Services school- based mental health contract solely due to a misrepresentation about referrals for services to transgender students.
F2:
The Board’s decision to deny renewal of the San Diego Youth Services contract for school-based mental health services and the Memorandum of Understanding for the suicide prevention program was not supported by any proven facts. 26
F3:
The decision to deny renewal to San Diego Youth Services was based on the objective of restricting or materially amending services to LGBTQ+ youth. Fact: The denial of renewal to San Diego Youth Services left the District without six school-based mental health clinicians and one clinical supervisor at the start of the 2023 – 2024 school year. Fact: The replacement provider, Wellness Together, was not fully onboarded until the beginning of December 2023.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Comply with Board Policy 0410, which guarantees policies and programs are free from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity, among others.
R2:
Follow Board Policy 0100 which ensures equal opportunities and benefits for all students.
F4:
The Board’s decision to deny renewal to San Diego Youth Services without identifying a replacement provider was potentially harmful to students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Ensure the continuity of educational services for students in all Board decisions.
F5:
The lack of adequate mental health support during a time traditionally characterized by high demand for services was detrimental to students. Fact: Despite the non-renewal of the mental health school-based services and suicide prevention programming, San Diego Youth Services continued to have existing Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), which were programs provided at no cost to the District. Fact: San Diego Youth Services made multiple attempts at the start of the 2023–2024 school year to provide services for the juvenile justice diversion program and the Family Resource Center as was consistent with their contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Ensure the continuity of educational services for students in all Board decisions.
F6:
The Board’s decision caused San Diego Youth Services, to be functionally barred from providing services as outlined in approved MOUs. Fact: One Board Trustee said that he wanted to deny renewal of the San Diego Youth Services contracts to pursue a contract with a company more aligned with “East County Values.” 27 Fact: Between July 2023 and January 2025, the Trustee defines “East County Values” just one time at the January 2025 public Board meeting, although they are referred to as the “community’s values.” Fact: In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the San Diego Union Tribune, a text message by one Trustee to another from early 2025 stated that “East County Values” was defined as “Respect, Responsibility, Resilience, and Rigor. Let’s end DEI.” Fact: San Diego Youth Services and Wellness Together programs serve diverse student populations, provide equitable access to services, and include students of all abilities. Fact: San Diego Youth Services and Wellness Together both comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state non-discrimination policies. Fact: The Board Trustee’s expressed desire to “end DEI” is inconsistent with both San Diego Youth Services and Wellness Together programming, as well as incompatible with existing Grossmont Union High School District policies and the California Department of Education. Fact: Grossmont Union High School District’s inclusion, equity, and diversity policies potentially impact as many 13,500 students or 62.5% of the student body.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Collaborate with San Diego Youth Services for their provision of services to the East County Behavioral Health Clinic, which is the one remaining Memorandum of Understanding in-force between Grossmont Union High School District and San Diego Youth Services.
F7:
“East County Values”, as defined by a Board Trustee as “respect, responsibility, resilience, and rigor” are evident in the services of both San Diego Youth Services and Wellness Together, with both organizations delivering quality services to students with neither being materially more aligned with these characteristics.
F8:
A Board Trustee using the absence of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as a qualifier for a replacement mental health service provider is contradictory to the California Department of Education Code.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Comply with Board Policy 0410, which guarantees policies and programs are free from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity, among others.
R2:
Follow Board Policy 0100 which ensures equal opportunities and benefits for all students.
F9:
The Board Trustee’s definition of “East County Values” went publicly undefined until January 2025 and was inconsequential in the selection of a replacement service provider. Fact: The Board approved Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) is a specific commitment to the school community, County and State Departments of Education, and vendor partners. Fact: The 2023–2024 LCAP stated that there was an increased need for mental health support for students and that survey data showed that there was a need to emphasize student mental health and social emotional support. Fact: The District’s approved LCAP for 2023-2024 included a goal connected to student mental health and social-emotional support. Fact: The 2023–2024 LCAP specifically used San Diego Youth Services’ programming as a metric for achievement in item 2.2A. Fact: The Board approved the LCAP on June 15, 2023, but then denied renewal to SDYS on July 20, 2023. Fact: The approved LCAP goals by the Board relied on continuity of services to students and an ongoing relationship with San Diego Youth Services. Fact: The Superintendent is responsible for executing decisions made by the Board.
F10:
The Board’s decision to deny renewal of San Diego Youth Services was not aligned with the District’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP).
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Align Board decisions with the State Education Code, as well as the Board approved Local Control Accountability Plan.
F11:
The Board’s decision compromised the Superintendent, administrators, educators, and clinicians’ abilities to achieve the goals outlined in the LCAP. Fact: The Board’s decision to deny renewal of the San Diego Youth Services’ contract and Memorandum of Understanding was unexpected by service providers, school- based staff, administrators, students, the Superintendent’s office, and the community. Fact: The Board decided to terminate State mandated services without the knowledge or involvement of the Superintendent or their staff, yet they were tasked with repairing and rebuilding services. Fact: The Superintendent is the District's Chief Executive Officer and is ultimately responsible for providing mental health services to students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Align Board decisions with the State Education Code, as well as the Board approved Local Control Accountability Plan.
F12:
The Board violated its Duty of Care as it did not use care and diligence in its decisions regarding the provision of student services.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
Commit to governing as fiduciaries, following governance standards per Board Policy, and adhering to social media best practices.
R10:
Participate in annual ethics and governance training, as required by AB 2158. Implement mandatory onboarding training for new Board Trustees that covers best practices in ethics, governance, and fiduciary duties. 33
F13:
The Board performed actions which are the responsibility of the Superintendent and staff and did so without their involvement. Fact: The Board meetings in Fall 2023 were well attended by students, staff, stakeholders, and other community members. Fact: The Board’s action to deny renewal of San Diego Youth Services’ contract was overwhelmingly opposed by those who attended and spoke at Board meetings in Fall 2023. Fact: The public response to the Board’s decisions was overwhelmingly contentious, oppositional, robust, and sustained.
Related Recommendations (3)
R7:
Adhere to Board Policy 2120 and Board Bylaw 9005, which clearly define the responsibilities of the Superintendent versus Board Trustees regarding operational decisions. 32
R8:
Create and consult with Citizen Advisory Committees, as outlined in Board policy 1220, to gather stakeholder input for important decisions and to rebuild community trust and constructive engagement.
R10:
Participate in annual ethics and governance training, as required by AB 2158. Implement mandatory onboarding training for new Board Trustees that covers best practices in ethics, governance, and fiduciary duties. 33
F14:
The Board’s decision does not represent the community’s best interests.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Conform to Board Policy 9200, which states that the best interests of students must not be secondary to the personal interests of Board members.
F15:
The Board violated the public trust doctrine as it acted in conflict with the best interests of students. Fact: Collegiality and collaboration between the Governing Board and students, staff, and other stakeholders are strained. Fact: Board meetings between July 2023 and January 2026 continue to be contentious, with recesses called to restore order. Fact: During October, November, and December 2025, three Board Trustees have referenced constituents and members of the school community with denigrating language, such as “disrespectful”, “mob-like”, and “mediocre”. 30
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
Conform to Board Policy 9200, which states that the best interests of students must not be secondary to the personal interests of Board members.
R8:
Create and consult with Citizen Advisory Committees, as outlined in Board policy 1220, to gather stakeholder input for important decisions and to rebuild community trust and constructive engagement.
R9:
Commit to governing as fiduciaries, following governance standards per Board Policy, and adhering to social media best practices.
F16:
Trustees have disparaged the school community during public comments and social media posts which have generated and fueled ongoing distrust and dissension. 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. (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 31 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:
Related Recommendations (2)
R8:
Create and consult with Citizen Advisory Committees, as outlined in Board policy 1220, to gather stakeholder input for important decisions and to rebuild community trust and constructive engagement.
R9:
Commit to governing as fiduciaries, following governance standards per Board Policy, and adhering to social media best practices.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The current MOU requires that in-custody deaths in San Diego County detention facilities, except those resulting from use of force, be investigated separately by the Sheriff’s Office, which determines legal responsibility. The Medical Examiner identifies medicolegal cause and manner of death.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Equip the medical wards of the San Diego County Sheriff's Office detention facilities with more capable life-saving equipment and medications like those used by 9-1-1 first responders to improve response to critical emergencies.
F2:
The best chance of an overall successful recovery of an unresponsive Incarcerated Persons depends on both medical responders and facility medical personnel being equipped with the most appropriate medical equipment for all critical situations. San Diego County Probation Department Fact: The California Attorney General's Office has received many complaints about systemic failures, which have led to oversight issues at the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility and the Youth Transition Campus. Fact: The San Diego County Probation Officers, who work in juvenile detention facilities, do not wear body-worn cameras.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Identify and evaluate strategies, including a review of the existing March 7, 2022, San Diego County Law Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding, to implement required independent investigations by outside agencies into in-custody deaths that occur within detention facilities. RECOMMENDATIONS for the San Diego County Probation Department:
F3:
The lack of body-worn cameras in San Diego County juvenile detention facilities is detrimental to an effective juvenile detention operation. 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. (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: 18
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Equip all San Diego County Probation Officers, especially those in juvenile detention facilities, with body-worn cameras and create policies and procedures for their use.