Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
2020-2021
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 (10)
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
In-person learning is more effective than remote learning both academically and emotionally.
F1a:
The cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Solvang and the County of Santa Barbara are at less potential pension plan solvency risk.
F1b:
The cities of Lompoc, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria are at higher potential pension plan solvency risk. 65
F1c:
Unfunded Accrued Liabilities have risen for all cities since 2016, and with the announced change in the Discount Rate, are expected to rise further, which could impact the cities’ ability to deliver expected services to residents.
F2:
For student achievement, especially for low performing students, in-person learning in small classes or small groups is preferable to larger classrooms.
F3:
Remote learning exposed the importance of outreach efforts to provide coaching to parents on creating a positive home learning environment.
F4:
Santa Barbara County school districts did not use one common test throughout Santa Barbara County, making it impossible to compare countywide testing results.
F5:
Students with the greatest learning loss will require a concentrated effort to bring them up to Federal and State grade level standards.
F6:
As the 2020-21 school year wore on, remote learning and teaching techniques and students’ computer skills improved.
F7:
Federal and State COVID relief funds cannot be counted on indefinitely.
F8:
Community organizations provided critical assistance to the Santa Barbara County school districts by expanding their efforts to bridge the learning gap between the home environment and school.
F9:
Internet services were critical to remote learning and, in most cases, Santa Barbara County school districts filled the gap for homes that did not have them.
Additional Recommendations
15
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County establish programs similar to Roomkey in both North and South County to continue to provide rooms, with appropriate services, for vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office initiate joint training with all deputies and Wellpath health professionals to foster more efficient sharing of medical information at all major points of contact with the arrestee, including arrest, transport, intake, booking, classification, housing, and follow-up processes.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office develop a real-time, commonly accessible database that includes all information at all major points of contact with the arrestee, including arrest, transport, intake, booking, classification, housing, and follow-up processes.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department to form an alliance with all city councils within the County to develop a roster of hotels and motels willing to participate in a Roomkey-type program.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County identify possible Homekey sites including government owned properties in each jurisdiction.
R3a:
That the Santa Barbara City Council direct the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department to issue a report to the Santa Barbara City Council reviewing the status of mitigation measures taken with regard to the food processing operations of the Company at the Location.
R3b:
That the Santa Barbara City Council direct the City Community Development Department to review the documentation and archiving of its zoning and permitting decisions and its manner of communicating with the public, appointed officials, and elected officials with the purpose of making those decisions more complete, clearer, and more accessible to the general public and to City officials at all levels.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County school districts and the Santa Barbara County Education Office work together to develop a common summative testing program to be adopted for all Santa Barbara County school districts for the 2022-23 school year.
R5:
That Santa Barbara County Schools outline their plans to attain Federal and State grade level standards for math and English language arts.
R6:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Public Health, Behavioral Wellness, and Social Services Departments, along with the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department, to explore options for funding for wraparound services.
R6a:
That the Board of Trustees of Allan Hancock College direct the administration to make more effective use of peer-review evaluation practices.
R6b:
That the Board of Trustees of Allan Hancock College commission a new survey of faculty and staff engagement, to be done by an independent external firm, focusing on questions of staff incentives, training, and internal communications with the results of the survey to be discussed in a public forum.
R7:
That the Santa Barbara County Education Office schedule a series of meetings prior to the 2022-23 school year with Santa Barbara County school districts to establish spending guidelines and review budgets’ post-COVID relief funds to ensure that mitigation efforts continue.
R8:
That each Santa Barbara County school district develop plans by the start of the 2022-23 school year to encourage community organizations to continue to provide critical academic and emotional support. 25
R9:
That each Santa Barbara County school district maintain adequate internet services for all students if distance learning or an emergency should again require remote learning.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department issued a Building Permit in 2014 for interior renovations of the Company’s facilities at the Location without review by the City of Santa Barbara Planning Commission since such a review was not required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the City Council of Santa Barbara direct the City of Santa Barbara Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on any zoning, permitting, or Certificate of Occupancy decision, whether involving interior or exterior renovations for any project, that may lead to “obnoxious or offensive” operations in any zone.
F2:
Residents contended in 2014 that the Company’s food processing operations in zone C-M should not have been permitted in zone C-M and have maintained that opinion to the present day.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara City Council direct the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department to issue a report to the Santa Barbara City Council clarifying the uses that are allowed by the City Code’s land use regulations for the C-M zone.
F3:
Following renovations at the Location, which made the Company operational, neighboring residents have complained about machinery noise, odor, and traffic noise from those operations from mid-2014 to the present day.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a:
That the Santa Barbara City Council direct the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department to issue a report to the Santa Barbara City Council reviewing the status of mitigation measures taken with regard to the food processing operations of the Company at the Location.
R3b:
That the Santa Barbara City Council direct the City Community Development Department to review the documentation and archiving of its zoning and permitting decisions and its manner of communicating with the public, appointed officials, and elected officials with the purpose of making those decisions more complete, clearer, and more accessible to the general public and to City officials at all levels.
F4:
The City Attorney of the City of Santa Barbara issued a “cease-and-desist” order to the Company, in July 2015, following citizens’ complaints about the Company and having concluded that the Company’s specific type of food processing is not allowed in the C-M or C-2 zones.
F5:
Following negotiations between the City Attorney of the City of Santa Barbara and representatives of the Company, those parties drafted a “Settlement Agreement” to mitigate the claimed nuisances – machine noise, traffic noise, and food odor – which recognized that the parties have differing interpretations of the Santa Barbara City Code with respect to zones C-M and C-2 and allowed the Company to continue operations at Location.
F6:
The Santa Barbara City Council never held a public hearing on the complaints and inquiries from residents affected by food processing operations of the Company at the Location.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Santa Barbara City Council direct the City Administrator to promulgate revised procedures for managing zoning and code enforcement cases, including procedures for putting complaints about such cases on the Council’s agenda and reporting to residents on the decisions taken by City authorities.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury did not substantiate the specific allegations of financial mismanagement, as stated in the complaint.
F2:
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury’s reading of the financial audits of Allan Hancock College is that the College’s financial management practices meet the standards for public education institutions and do not pose significant risks to the College’s funds, but improvements could be made.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Board of Trustees of Allan Hancock College direct the administration of Allan Hancock College to upgrade its financial management software (Banner) to flag exceptions to procedures in real time to the attention of supervisors and managers, permitting greater oversight of such exceptions.
F3:
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury did not substantiate the allegations of grade manipulation in the K-12 partnership program of Allan Hancock College, as stated in the complaint.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Board of Trustees of Allan Hancock College commission an external performance review of the K-12 partnership program over the past five years and the results of the review be made public.
F4:
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that adequate human and electronic safeguards exist against systemic manipulation of grades at the College.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Board of Trustees of Allan Hancock College direct the Director of Admissions and Records to submit an annual report on grades – levels, rates and frequencies of grade changes, documented exceptions to procedures, patterns by academic department and discipline – to the Board of Trustees and post that report on the College website, in the interests of transparency and of maintaining public confidence.
F5:
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury did not find systemic evidence of corrupt hiring, evaluation, and personnel management practices at the College, as alleged in the complaint.
F6:
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury finds that staff opinions on the work environment are sometimes below the norms of comparable educational institutions in the areas of incentives for good performance, training, and open communications.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6a:
That the Board of Trustees of Allan Hancock College direct the administration to make more effective use of peer-review evaluation practices.
R6b:
That the Board of Trustees of Allan Hancock College commission a new survey of faculty and staff engagement, to be done by an independent external firm, focusing on questions of staff incentives, training, and internal communications with the results of the survey to be discussed in a public forum.
F7:
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury did not find systemic evidence of a difficult work environment at Allan Hancock College, as alleged in the complaint.
F8:
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury finds that the College’s internal dispute resolution procedures meet the standards for public education institutions in California. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Petroleum regulatory agencies within the County of Santa Barbara do not adequately identify and monitor idle oil wells in Santa Barbara County, leaving residents exposed to health and environmental risks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department to identify the health and environmental risks of idle oil wells in the County through an annual report to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
F2:
The potential fiscal liabilities associated with idle oil wells in Santa Barbara County are not adequately quantified.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department to determine all actual and potential fiscal liabilities related to idle oil wells through an annual report to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
F3:
Active Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department, Energy, Minerals and Compliance Division, Petroleum Unit staff are currently too few in number to monitor idle oil wells in the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department to maintain an adequate number of trained personnel to staff the Petroleum Unit of its Energy, Minerals and Compliance Division.
F4:
Santa Barbara County Code provisions regarding removal of drilling equipment and derricks from idle wells within a specified time are not always followed, causing visual blight to some local residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department to enforce compliance with the Santa Barbara County Code Chapter 25 (the “Petroleum Code”) provisions governing removal of oil equipment from idle wells.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Lompoc Police Department needs a Co-Response team dedicated to its geographical area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Lompoc City Council negotiate with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on behalf of the Department of Behavioral Wellness to add a Co-Response team dedicated to the Lompoc Valley.
F2:
The Lompoc Police Department is short-staffed and has been for a number of years, causing gaps in service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Lompoc City Council explore the option of contracting with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office for targeted support while the Lompoc Police Department returns to full strength.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
During this early 2021 incident there was a failure in communication between the observations of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office transporting patrol deputy and the Wellpath intake Registered Nurse regarding Inmate A’s behavior, substance abuse, and mental health issues, as required by the Intake Screening Implementation Plan, which prevented Inmate A from receiving appropriate and timely mental health care.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office initiate joint training with all deputies and Wellpath health professionals to foster more efficient sharing of medical information at all major points of contact with the arrestee, including arrest, transport, intake, booking, classification, housing, and follow-up processes.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office develop a real-time, commonly accessible database that includes all information at all major points of contact with the arrestee, including arrest, transport, intake, booking, classification, housing, and follow-up processes.
F2:
The initial intake screening process failed to identify and record observations of Inmate A’s substance use, which prevented Inmate A from receiving appropriate and timely “urgent substance abuse/mental health care” as required by the Intake Screening Implementation Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff work with the on-site Wellpath Health Services Administrator to develop, implement and train its health professional staff in the application of “urgent care” for inmates with substance abuse and/or mental health issues.
F3:
The contract between the County of Santa Barbara and Wellpath allows a significant time lag between the identification of potential medical or mental issues and the initiation of treatment protocols, delaying the initiation of necessary care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors propose shorter required response times to initiate medical and mental health protocols during the upcoming contract negotiation process.
F4:
There is no on-site coverage by a Wellpath mental health professional from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM daily, which can allow for urgent medical needs to go untreated in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors propose that on-site mental health professionals be employed at County jails from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM daily during the upcoming contract negotiation process. Disclaimer: This report was prepared by the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury except for a Grand Juror who wanted to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest. That Grand Juror was excluded from all parts of this investigation, including interviews, deliberations, writing, and approval of this report.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
In-person learning is more effective than remote learning both academically and emotionally.
F2:
For student achievement, especially for low performing students, in-person learning in small classes or small groups is preferable to larger classrooms.
F3:
Remote learning exposed the importance of outreach efforts to provide coaching to parents on creating a positive home learning environment.
F4:
Santa Barbara County school districts did not use one common test throughout Santa Barbara County, making it impossible to compare countywide testing results.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County school districts and the Santa Barbara County Education Office work together to develop a common summative testing program to be adopted for all Santa Barbara County school districts for the 2022-23 school year.
F5:
Students with the greatest learning loss will require a concentrated effort to bring them up to Federal and State grade level standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That Santa Barbara County Schools outline their plans to attain Federal and State grade level standards for math and English language arts.
F6:
As the 2020-21 school year wore on, remote learning and teaching techniques and students’ computer skills improved.
F7:
Federal and State COVID relief funds cannot be counted on indefinitely.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Santa Barbara County Education Office schedule a series of meetings prior to the 2022-23 school year with Santa Barbara County school districts to establish spending guidelines and review budgets’ post-COVID relief funds to ensure that mitigation efforts continue.
F8:
Community organizations provided critical assistance to the Santa Barbara County school districts by expanding their efforts to bridge the learning gap between the home environment and school.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That each Santa Barbara County school district develop plans by the start of the 2022-23 school year to encourage community organizations to continue to provide critical academic and emotional support.
F9:
Internet services were critical to remote learning and, in most cases, Santa Barbara County school districts filled the gap for homes that did not have them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That each Santa Barbara County school district maintain adequate internet services for all students if distance learning or an emergency should again require remote learning.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
During the COVID-19 pandemic Project Roomkey demonstrated the value of providing rooms, with appropriate services, for the vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County establish programs similar to Roomkey in both North and South County to continue to provide rooms, with appropriate services, for vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.
F2:
Few hotels and motels throughout Santa Barbara County were willing to participate in Project Roomkey.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department to form an alliance with all city councils within the County to develop a roster of hotels and motels willing to participate in a Roomkey-type program.
F3:
Buildings for Homekey conversion have been difficult to locate and acquire.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County identify possible Homekey sites including government owned properties in each jurisdiction.
F4:
Project Homekey called upon various Santa Barbara County departments to work together creatively, quickly, and economically to transform a County owned office building into housing for the homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department to solidify a team to replicate the successful efforts in converting buildings efficiently into housing for the homeless.
F5:
Both Project Roomkey and Project Homekey are reliant on short-term or one-time funding from the State and Federal governments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County develop and implement a plan for funding Roomkey and Homekey-type programs.
F6:
The Roomkey and Homekey programs require funding to provide wraparound services for the homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Public Health, Behavioral Wellness, and Social Services Departments, along with the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department, to explore options for funding for wraparound services.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has oversight over all dependent special districts and community service areas and their respective cybersecurity operations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors review and adopt, as appropriate, the “Best Practices” listed in the report for its dependent special districts and community service areas.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1a:
The cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Solvang and the County of Santa Barbara are at less potential pension plan solvency risk.
F1b:
The cities of Lompoc, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria are at higher potential pension plan solvency risk.
F1c:
Unfunded Accrued Liabilities have risen for all cities since 2016, and with the announced change in the Discount Rate, are expected to rise further, which could impact the cities’ ability to deliver expected services to residents.
F2:
Section 115 Trusts, Pension Obligation Bonds, and Pension Reserve Funds can be effective mechanisms to protect cities from dramatic impacts to the financial markets or declines in General Fund revenues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That each city council and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors study and determine by June 30, 2022, whether a Section 115 Trust, Pension Obligation Bond, or Pension Reserve Fund would be an effective hedge against risks to their pension plans for their city.