Santa Clara County Grand Jury
2001-2002
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 (13)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Management audits are not a routine function of the entities contacted by the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Implement a program of continuing management audits. (Ref. Finding #1)
F2:
GASB No. 34 requires revised financial reporting standards. These revised standards identify the changes necessary for governmental agencies to comply with the new requirements. When implemented, annual reports will be more comprehensive and easier to understand. The activities necessary to meet those requirements and the current status of progress are not routinely addressed in public documents. This results in restricted information available to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Modify and expand accounting procedures to encompass the requirements of GASB No.34. (Ref. Finding #2) The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors:
F3:
Accounting procedures in the county probation department require improvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Direct the Santa Clara County Internal Auditor to review all probation department 3 ATTACHMENT A FY 2000-2001 AUDITS, FINANCIAL REPORTS AND LETTERS RECEIVED Agency or Fund Agency Dept. Report Letter Recommend Type Cities or Town Campbell, City CAFR X 1 Cupertino, City CAFR Gilroy, City CAFR 3 Los Altos, City CAFR Los Altos Hills, City CAFR Los Gatos, City CAFR Milpitas, City CAFR Monte Sereno, City AUDIT X Morgan Hill, City CAFR X 3 Mountain View, City CAFR Palo Alto, City CAFR X 6 San Jose, City CAFR Santa Clara, City CAFR Saratoga, City CAFR X 3 Sunnyvale, City CAFR County Santa Clara, County of County CAFR SC County Valley Hospital County SCVHHS CAFR 6 Joint Powers Agencies Santa Clara Valley Water District. Joint XCAFR Valley Transportation Authority Joint XCAFR Special Districts Burbank Sanitary District Special AUDIT X 3 Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation Special AUDIT X District Purissima Hills Water District Special AUDIT X 2 Silver Creek CC Geo. Hazard Special AUDIT Grants CDI Auto Fraud Grant District Attorney IA CDI Workers Comp Fraud Grant District Attorney IA County Social Services Grant Social Services IA Juvenile Crime Grant Probation IA 5 SCC Abandoned Vehicle Abatement County SCCAVA AUDIT Funds SC County Property Tax Admin. County IA SC County Employee Benefits County H. R. IA 10 DOC Inmate Welfare Fund County Probation IA 1 Management Audits San Jose Rental Dispute Program City MA 12 San Jose Arena Mgmt. Agreement City MA 8 Table Legend Dept. Department within the city, county, or other entity responsible for the fund or grant. CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). AUDIT Copy of independent auditor’s report IA Internal auditor’s report MA Management audit report Letter X indicates auditor’s management letter received. Recommend Number of auditor’s recommendations made in the report. ATTACHMENT B Preface and Summary of Statement No. Basic Financial Statements—and Management's
F4:
Recording procedures and the processing of county employee benefits changes by county human resources require improvement.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The VTA has done a good job of 33 12 listening to radio or using cell phone 20 7 not properly collecting fares collecting information on vehicle 7 3 intentionally delaying the schedule accidents, however other than compiling 7 3 rude to passengers or other motorists statistics for the annual report, there has 5 2 off route or skipping stops been little management analysis and utilization of the data. (Ref. Facts #1, 2
F2:
Passengers on light rail are at ahead of schedule and seven were significantly higher risk for assault than intentionally delaying the schedule. passengers on buses. This disparity reveals an unacceptable risk for light rail
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Develop and implement strategies to improve passenger security on light rail vehicles. This might include the use of Route Stabilization Teams, as appropriate. (Ref. Finding #2)
F3:
The VTA has not devoted sufficient process to expand the observation efforts attention to heightened security concerns to include an outside consulting group underscored by the events of September that will provide independent observers 11, 2001. (Ref. Fact #7) to travel on VTA vehicles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Request the sheriff’s Risk Analysis Division provide a system-wide security analysis. Using the results of this analysis, develop and implement additional strategies for assuring the security of VTA passengers and operators. (Ref. Finding #3)
F4:
The planned upgrade of VTA’s entire
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Ensure that each vehicle has a fully operating onboard communications unit before it is allowed to leave the dispatch center. (Ref. Finding #4)
F5:
The VTA does not sufficiently track and customer satisfaction, such as numbers evaluate on-time performance of its or types of customer complaints. buses and light rail vehicles. Confidence levels for customer destination arrival at
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Develop and implement an on-time schedule performance measurement for the overall bus and light rail systems or for key high-volume transfer points. Include this measurement in VTA’s annual performance report. (Ref. Finding #5)
F6:
The VTA has identified a number of scheduled. Management objectives are customer service problems that need centered on meeting service objectives and correction by way of its Back-to-Basics the system-wide factors that inhibit Program. (Ref. Facts # 14 & 16) completing the schedule. However, factors that are just as important to the rider, but
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Initiate and maintain a process by which customer complaint statistics and data are consistently utilized to improve VTA performance. (Ref. Findings #6 & 7)
F7:
The VTA has done a good job of under the immediate control of the operators collecting information and statistics on themselves, such as timing of stops, are not customer complaints in the CARE tracked to the same level. database; however, the system does not provide comprehensive reports that The Grand Jury agrees that VTA vehicles could be useful in determining ways to were generally clean and well kept. improve service and performance. (Ref. Problems with the bus stops were noted, but Facts # 17 & 18) the facilities in general were considered good. Driver discourtesy was not seen as a
F8:
Station identification signage and sign significant problem, and the Back-to Basics visibility on the light rail system is Program is spotlighting any concerns in this inadequate to effectively serve area. passengers. (Ref. Fact # 20) Information on VTA schedules and standard CONCLUSIONS services was readily available, as was information on programs, such as airport or The Grand Jury believes the overall efforts arena shuttles. Line-specific schedules of the employees at the VTA are providing were available on vehicles ridden by the the residents of Santa Clara County with a Grand Jury. However, information on quality transit system. However, the Grand where to make a complaint, complaint forms Jury is concerned that transportation or information on obtaining special services operations management is more often was more difficult to obtain. focused on improving image than on analyzing data and implementing proactive The VTA staff responsible for processing strategies for improving service. customer complaints was observed by the Grand Jury to be committed to the The Grand Jury also believes that the responsibility. Service complaints are sheriff’s recent implementation of a near- resolved and responses are returned to the zero tolerance policy and the issuance of complainants in a cordial and expedient more citations for minor infractions is manner. It appears to the Grand Jury that engendering an improvement in security. the CARE database is an excellent tool for This approach seems to have resulted in a tracking complaint assignment and decrease in the need for arrests for more resolution, and has the potential of being an serious infractions. The current numbers are outstanding management source of reports in contrast to prior years, when arrests for improving quality of service. increased in proportion to rider volume. 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Improve light rail station signs and other indicators so that passengers can easily identify stations from within the vehicle, both in advance of and while stopped at the stations. (Ref. Finding #8) 7 ATTACHMENT CHART 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY Except as noted, publications were prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority as public documents or reports.
F11:
routinely compile and publish reports of indicators for quality of service or 5. The VTA does not sufficiently track and customer satisfaction, such as numbers evaluate on-time performance of its or types of customer complaints. buses and light rail vehicles. Confidence levels for customer destination arrival at 19. Station announcements on both the bus the scheduled time, especially for trips and light rail vehicles are frequently that involved multiple transfers, is not skipped, garbled or unintelligible. known. There is a serious need for VTA to improve on-time performance. This 5 one issue holds great significance for the The Grand Jury observed that the VTA quality of service being provided to places a high level of importance on transit customers. (Ref. Facts # 12, 14 & providing the quantity of service promised
F15:
The August 2001 Back-to-Basics Survey & 3) (noted in table above) concluded that of 282 bus operators observed, 76 operated
F16:
Supervisors and administrative staff are passengers. (Ref. Fact #5) serving as rider-observers for the Back- to-Basics Program. Negotiations are in
F17:
The VTA has procedures in place for communications systems should alleviate complaint tracking and resolution. The current communications deficiencies. CARE database system provides the Implementation is expected to be complete ability to maintain extensive complaint in 2004. In the meantime, the practice of records, but it has limited report relying on cellular telephones to fill in for generation capabilities. inoperable onboard communications units is inadequate to assure passenger and
F18:
Based upon evidence provided to the operator security. (Ref. Facts #8, 9, 10 & Grand Jury, VTA management does not 11) routinely compile and publish reports of indicators for quality of service or
F19:
Station announcements on both the bus the scheduled time, especially for trips and light rail vehicles are frequently that involved multiple transfers, is not skipped, garbled or unintelligible. known. There is a serious need for VTA to improve on-time performance. This 5 one issue holds great significance for the The Grand Jury observed that the VTA quality of service being provided to places a high level of importance on transit customers. (Ref. Facts # 12, 14 & providing the quantity of service promised 15) in their published schedule, as measured by the ratio of trips completed to trips
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2002:
3 Bruce E. Capron Foreperson Norman N. Abrahams, DDS Foreperson Pro Tem Joyce S. Byrne Secretary
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
City Manager, City of Mountain View
F2:
City Clerk, City of Mountain View
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
City Manager, City of Mountain View
F2:
City Clerk, City of Mountain View
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F2:
After reviewing release Due to the shortage of inpatient procedures and interviewing facilities, EPS had recently implemented staff members, the Grand Jury an aggressive strategy to begin found evidence that reasonable placement efforts for the most severely care is taken to alleviate patient ill patients as soon as they have been safety concerns around late-night evaluated by the EPS physician releases. (psychiatrist). One EPS staff member has been assigned full-time to this task. 3. The shortage of adequate acute psychiatric care facilities is a The bed shortage is not unique to Santa serious impediment to the ability Clara County. According to the county of any public organization to mental health director in a report dated provide proper care to this needy December 5, 2001, “The problems of segment of the population. The insufficient public mental health funding Grand Jury acknowledges the and services in general, and the lack of efforts of EPS staff and deep end and residential resources in management to fulfill its mission particular, are statewide concerns that under these difficult conditions. have been documented in a 2000 publication of the Little Hoover 4. The incidence of overstays is Commission, and in a report published lessening month by month, from by the California Institute for Mental 67 in May 2001 to 10 in October Health in August 2001.” 2001. This is partly due to more (See Attachment 2) aggressive efforts to secure placement. The operation of 24-hour public use mental health care facilities in Santa 5. Santa Clara County does not Clara County requires a large subsidy provide an adequate number of from the county coffers. During fiscal acute psychiatric care beds to year 2001, the board of supervisors properly serve its populace. The augmented the department’s operating Santa Clara County Board of 3 Supervisors Health and Hospital and visible. The very existence Committee is clearly aware of of a fire extinguisher cabinet on this shortage, since two reports the patient floor for which no one reviewed by the Grand Jury were has a key creates the potential for written for the specific purpose dangerous confusion and wasted of informing the board. time in the event of an emergency.
F6:
The need to place acutely ill patients in out-of-county 10. The posted evacuation plan in facilities is onerous to families of EPS is confusing to anyone who the patients. Since the county is not intimately familiar with the system serves mostly public building. None of the Grand patients, families are even less Jurors who viewed the plan could likely to have the financial and/or easily decipher the location of physical resources to travel the emergency exit. This poses significant distance to be near or an unacceptable safety problem visit loved ones. for patients and anyone who might be visiting the facility.
F5150:
Section 5150 is applicable to of a specially designed security entrance persons who are perceived to be a and holding room. A uniformed security danger to themselves or others. guard is present at all times. Involuntary holds under Section 5150 are limited to 72 hours. Detailed emergency procedures are available on the staff floor. A red phone EPS is a locked facility designed to in the office area provides a direct link to allow evaluation and processing of the sheriff’s dispatch center and other acutely troubled or ill patients. Because emergency personnel. Staff receives EPS is licensed as an ambulatory clinic regular training on procedures covering of Valley Medical Center, stays at the emergencies, such as fire or earthquake. Two problems of note were the lack of Each of these overstays carries the available keys for one locked fire potential for a substantial legal penalty extinguisher cabinet in the patient area, from the state, including a fine of and the lack of understandable detail on $50,000 per incident. EPS has been the posted evacuation plan. Alternative cited twice for this problem, but to date fire extinguishers were available in the the state has not opted to levy any fines. locked kitchen and office areas on the EPS staff stated that all of these staff side of the facility. On both its overstays were attributable to patients visits, Grand Jurors notified the staff of who needed transfer to acute care these insufficiencies. inpatient facilities (psychiatric hospitals). Staff also reported that it is Emergency Psychiatric Services Patients very difficult to place these patients The EPS patient load averages 750-800 within the 24-hour limit because there is per month. Of these, approximately five a shortage of available beds, particularly percent require discharge to an acute for Medi-Cal or uninsured (public) care inpatient facility (psychiatric patients. These types of patients hospital). EPS admits patients of varying comprise the large majority of ages, from children to seniors. Special individuals who pass through EPS. attention is given to juvenile patients, who are kept apart from the general Hospital Bed Shortage patient population under one-on-one A July 2001 survey of psychiatric surveillance. hospitals in the Bay Area showed that Santa Clara County maintains one bed New patients, in particular those brought for each 14,505 county residents, as to the facility by police or ambulance, compared to the Bay Area/Sacramento may arrive at all hours of the day and average of one bed per 6,716 night. Consequently, patients are also individuals. Of the capacity available in released at all hours of the day and night, Santa Clara County, 100 percent of in order to meet the mandated 24-hour public inpatients were in Valley Medical time limit. In the case of late-night Center’s Barbara Arons Pavilion, the releases, staff arranges a taxi or other county’s acute care facility. The other transportation when necessary. In some three Santa Clara County hospitals cases patients are allowed to remain in offering psychiatric beds housed no the secure lobby until daylight. public patients. (See Attachment 2) Although the law states that patients will There are no beds identified for the not remain at EPS longer than 24 hours, treatment of children or adolescent “overstays” are a common occurrence. patients (public or private) within the In the months of May through October county. All juvenile patients are treated 2001, for example, EPS had a total and housed at out-of-county facilities, patient population of 3864. Of this often in Vallejo or Sacramento. Many number, 150 persons (about four adult patients are placed in out-of-county percent) remained beyond the mandated facilities as well, mostly at a contracting 24-hour cutoff. hospital in Fremont or at a state hospital facility. For instance, a survey taken July and September 2001 on behalf of 2 the Greater Bay Area Mental Health budget in the amount of $3.6 million. Directors shows that the county was first During budgeting for fiscal year 2002, among 12 counties in use of out-of- the board approved another $7.6 million county hospital beds. At that time, the infusion. (See Attachment 2) county had placed 18 patients (26 percent) in out-of-county hospitals. FINDINGS EPS staff reported to the Grand Jury that the bed shortage problem is exacerbated 1. The EPS facility is equipped to by an apparent lack of access to three of handle the approximately 800 the four hospitals in the county that patients that pass through its provide psychiatric inpatient service. doors each month. The difficulty They report that the problem relates to comes in finding the appropriate the rates paid by Medi-Cal and the longer-term care for the most degree of acuity of many of these acutely ill patients. severely ill patients.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
The Grand Jury finds that care bed space. Questions to be providing adequate mental health answered include: care to the citizens of Santa Clara County should remain a priority a. Could an advantage be derived from in the budgeting process. The partnering with private enterprises, such cost of providing mental health as large health maintenance organizations? care to county residents is a source of concern, particularly in b. How much of a cost/benefit could be current economic climate where gained from reducing or eliminating the government budgets are being need to contract for treatment at out-of- squeezed. county facilities?
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Request that California State 4. Encourage companies to provide Legislative and U.S. community-service programs so Congressional members develop employees can serve at the polls legislation that will require new and be paid for time away from voter applicants to provide proof work. (Refer to Finding 3) 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bipartisan Election Reform Taking Shape with $2.6 Billion for State, Local Changes, San Jose Mercury News, 11/9/01. California Elections Code, Chapter 2 ,Voters Registration, current edition. Election Officer Handbook, by Registrar of Voters Office for November 6, 2001 Consolidated Elections. Elections Chief: 9 Counties Must Phase Out Punch Cards, San Jose Mercury News, 9/18/01. Legislature Weighs Plans to Modernize Ballot Box, San Jose Mercury News, 9/11/01. Management Audit of the General Services Agency, Registrar of Voters, August 1999, Harvey M Rose Accountancy Corp. for the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Registrar of Voters Procedures Manual, current revisions. Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Website, http://www.sccvote.org/ Study of Florida 2000 Election, San Jose Mercury News, 11/10/01. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa 11 Clara County Civil Grand Jury this 24th day of January, 2002. _________________________________ Bruce E. Capron Foreperson _________________________________ Norman N. Abrahams, DDS Foreperson Pro Tem _________________________________ Joyce S. Byrne Secretary 11
F2:
Election Officer Training 6 of encouraging younger individuals to participate.
F3:
Include evening visits to check Jury recommends that the Santa Clara lighting at polling locations. County Board of Supervisors: (Refer to Finding 3)
F4:
Ballot Processing The ballot processing and counting observed by the Grand Jury appeared to be well supervised. Permanent and extra-help staff went about their duties in a coordinated and professional manner. In several precincts, clerks were serving in their first election. In a few isolated cases new clerks had not attended a training session prior to serving. The experienced workers were very helpful in assisting the new clerks in performing their assigned duties. One precinct had a high school student working as a clerk alongside one of her parents.
F5:
Registrar’s Extra Effort The registrar’s staff exceeds the state law’s minimum requirements. The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office: • A high percentage of the poll workers are older or retired citizens who can devote the time to this task. The current use of part-day, high school and college students to work the polls is one method
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The county to the KEYBOARD system requirements before issuing a request for proposals to software aggressively pursuing
F2:
The KEYBOARD project, involving the concurrent processes of re-engineering and CONCLUSION software development, created the difficult requirement to manage evolving user The KEYBOARD project was viewed by the county as a visionary improvement needed for requirements while working within the the 21st century by both the government and restrictions of a software contractor on a the public realities of the information age. fixed price contract. This situation created project complexity and high risk and While the measurable savings from the project were few, the Grand Jury agrees with the contributed to schedule and cost problems. county that the agenda process improvements in quality, information availability and The board did not request a management
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Write the project system requirements document based on the re-engineering effort
F6:
Based on documents reviewed, the Grand Jury finds that the board was presented the failed define project status at regular intervals.
F7:
The county is integration contractors. reimbursement of KEYBOARD development expenses from the state.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Issue a contract that reflects the system requirements document With this approach, the county can develop detailed system requirements documents and establish a realistic, firm, fixed-price contract. Due to the risks of schedule delay and cost escalation, the Grand Jury also concludes that the county would be better served to utilize software engineering contractors as opposed to hiring software engineers. KEYBOARD FUNDING AUTHORIZATION SUMMARY (TOTAL DEVELOPMENT EFFORT WITH PRINTERS AND SCANNERS) CALENDAR AUTHORIZATION DATE AMOUNT CUMULATIV TYPE COMMENTS 1998 $1,233,000 $1,233,000 Fiscal Year Budget FY 1999 Technology June 1999 $1,568,893 $2,801,893 Fiscal Year Budget FY 2000 Technology * Feb 2000 $1,197,245 $3,999,138 Special Request Printers and Scanners June 2000 $1,094,000 $5,093,138 Fiscal Year Budget FY 2001 Technology Feb 2001 $187,423 $5,280,561 Special Request Delays: staffing/tech problems June 2001 $129,487 $5,410,048 Fiscal Year Budget Phase 3 Records Management Sept 2001 $195,000 $5,605,048 Special Request Delays: staffing/tech problems * NOTE: The KEYBOARD total three-year development cost estimate prepared as part of the FY 2000 Budget was $3,547,493. BIBLIOGRAPHY Budget Modification Request for the KEYBOARD Project Report, provides the rationale for the KEYBOARD Project’s FY 2002 $195,000 budget modification, dated September 25, 2001, 4 pages. FY 2001 Mid-Year Budget Review, Attachment P section provides the rationale for the KEYBOARD Project’s $187,423 FY 2001 budget modification, dated February 1, 2001, 5 pages. General Requirements for KEYBOARD Phase 1 (Version 1.0), includes project’s external design specifications, dated November 7, 2000, 92 pages. General Requirements for KEYBOARD Release 2 (Version 2.04), includes project’s external design specifications, dated January 7, 2002, 130 pages. http://www.santaclaracounty.org, Website for Santa Clara County where the Board of supervisors’ agenda can be found. KEYBOARD PROJECT: Funding Summary, presentation handout on November 27, 2001, dated October 30, 2001, 1 page. KEYBOARD PROJECT: Funding Summary, same as October 30, 2001 summary except the inclusion of actual expenditures, dated December 3, 2001, 1 page. Non-Stores Requisition – Documentum Product Software Procurement, includes project’s software product requirements document, project’s software product RFP document, and vendor responses that resulted in the software product selection, dated April 29, 1999, 36 pages. Request for Proposals (RFP) Systems Integration Services for Product Customization, issued April 5, 1999, 86 pages. Request for Technology Funding – KEYBOARD, identifies the KEYBOARD Project’s original goals including a development cost estimate, cost savings, and project payback analysis, dated April, 1999, 16 pages. Santa Clara County Code of Ordinance Section A34-80, outlines county requirements for software technology purchases, dated December 14, 2001, 1 page. Transmittal Memorandum, background section and Attachment 1 provide a discussion of the KEYBOARD project’s original technical approach, dated January 20, 1999, 8 pages. Transmittal Memorandum, provides the rationale for the KEYBOARD Project’s FY2000 $1,197,245 budget modification for the purchase of printers and scanners, dated February 1, 2000, 17 pages. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury this 14th day of March, 2002. ______________________________ Bruce E. Capron Foreperson ______________________________ Norman N. Abrahams, DDS Foreperson Pro Tem ______________________________ Joyce S. Byrne Secretary 10
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Martin Avenue entrance to longterm parking is difficult to find. Directional signs to this entrance are inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the San Jose City Manager:
Improve the effectiveness of signage on the perimeter of the airport, in the parking and roadway areas, and within the garage. Suggestions include: a. Increase the quantity of directional signs b. Increase the size of signs to make them more readable c. Improve placement of signs so that they can be read from all expected approaches d. Trim foliage and remove other obstructions that may obscure signs 7 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury this 28th day of May
F2:
It is difficult to determine from directional signs that handicapped parking exists in the Terminal A parking garage. 3. 4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the San Jose City Manager:
Improve the effectiveness of signage on the perimeter of the airport, in the parking and roadway areas, and within the garage. Suggestions include: a. Increase the quantity of directional signs b. Increase the size of signs to make them more readable c. Improve placement of signs so that they can be read from all expected approaches d. Trim foliage and remove other obstructions that may obscure signs 7 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury this 28th day of May
F5:
In Terminal A, long lines can lead to customer frustration and dissatisfaction. This situation is exacerbated by the juxtaposition of two high volume airlines.
F6:
The Ambassador Program as currently implemented is mostly ineffective. The program could be improved by increasing the number of Ambassadors on duty during busy travel times.
F7:
Courtesy phones, while widely dispersed throughout both terminals, are sometimes difficult to locate. People walking or standing in front of the devices can easily block the phones from view.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the San Jose City Manager:
Improve the effectiveness of signage on the perimeter of the airport, in the parking and roadway areas, and within the garage. Suggestions include: a. Increase the quantity of directional signs b. Increase the size of signs to make them more readable c. Improve placement of signs so that they can be read from all expected approaches d. Trim foliage and remove other obstructions that may obscure signs 7 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury this 28th day of May
F8:
Disabled travelers are inconvenienced when wheelchairs are not available or are not working properly.
F9:
Reports from the complaint logging and tracking system are being used to identify and improve customer service issues.
F10:
The computer-based spreadsheet system of storing complaint data does not allow for sophisticated reports to be easily generated. The time consuming process of manually extracting data for monthly reports could be improved upon by implementing a different tracking system. CONCLUSIONS Many elements of customer service at San Jose’s airport have been affected by September 11. City officials and airport management are working hard to effectively deal with those issues and still maintain progress toward the goals detailed in the city’s master plan, including the renovation of the airport with the construction of Terminal B. Due to a lack of signs, it is difficult to find the elevators and entrance to Terminal A from the parking garage. The lack of road signs along the busy airport roadways between terminals causes a confusing and unsafe situation. 6 e. Add or improve lighting where appropriate Near the end of its review, the Grand Jury became aware of a presentation by airport management to the 2002 Silicon Valley Blue Ribbon Task Force On Aviation Security And Technology entitled Impacts Of The Transportation Security Act (ATSA), dated April 17, 2002. This report dealt with the proposed terminal building and the construction changes and increased costs that will result from the new federal safety regulations. The director of aviation for the city has also voiced his concerns to the Grand Jury regarding the number of passenger gates proposed for the renovated airport. (Ref. Findings #1, 2, 3 & 4)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2001:
Two visitor conspirators and a construction design flaw at Elmwood enabled the July escape. The construction defect has been corrected and visitor procedures have been modified to prevent a similar incident. At the main jail, a problem with the guards’ doorway access from the cell common area to the prisoners’ sundeck recreational area contributed to a delay in the guards gaining access to control the situation. This delay escalated the seriousness of the riot incident. Defeated or inoperable cell door locking mechanisms may have contributed to the mixing of the prisoners and the fight in the common area in front of the cells. This event probably would not have gotten out of control had the guards been able to gain quick access to the sun deck recreational area. Bruce E. Capron Foreperson Norman N. Abrahams, DDS Foreperson Pro Tem Joyce S. Byrne Secretary
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Despite having had training and despite the availability of outside support resources, the OSD Board of Trustees erred in at least three major areas: business and organizational management; compliance with state education codes; and compliance with the Brown Act. (Ref. Facts #1-29)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Review major sections of the applicable California codes as they relate to the duties of the board and then define, document and _________________________________ implement a plan to make effective Norman N. Abrahams, DDS use of advice from legal counsel in Foreperson Pro Tem these areas. (Ref. Findings # 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
F2:
The board exhibited gross negligence in financial planning and control, including: failure to monitor expenditures versus budgets; failure to assess the risks associated with budget planning assumptions; and failure to ensure adequate funding for all district policy decisions. Various education codes limit or require special authorizations to move district monies between general operational funds and “capital” funds (including interest). The evidence collected by the Grand Jury indicates that the board and superintendent either did not understand these requirements or chose to ignore them. (Ref. Facts # 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Perform a thorough assessment of particularly in the areas of financial board needs and responsibilities and management, budget preparation and then define, document and education code requirements. (Ref implement an annual plan to train
F3:
The board failed to understand the balanced management focus necessary to accomplish concurrent district goals. The board and the superintendent focused almost entirely on test scores to the exclusion of other critical areas. (Ref. Facts # 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
F4:
The board did not recognize or act upon the seriously deteriorating relationship 7 Act Section 54954.2) (Ref. Facts # 11 & 14)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Distribute information once a year to parents and other community _________________________________ members regarding provisions of the Joyce S. Byrne Brown Act and district procedures Secretary for handling complaints and questions. (Ref. Findings # 4, 10, 11) 9
F5:
Personnel decisions were made without projections for determining needs. The resulting imbalance of teaching staff contributed to the serious shortfall in the 2000-2001 budget. (Ref. Facts # 18, 19, 20)
F6:
The board did not follow state guidelines to ensure fair personnel practices for all employees. (Ref. Facts #19 & 23)
F7:
The board and its administration failed to consistently create and maintain the documents necessary to maintain orderly records of its meetings and official actions as required by California Education Code Section 35163. (Ref. Facts # 12, 13, 15) The story of OSD is a cautionary tale for school boards statewide. The public trust was breeched at almost every level of OSD administration. As the district teetered between difficulties and chaos, the consequences of the board’s weak governance grew increasingly serious.
F8:
The board failed to make timely reports of budgets and expenditures to the county office of education as required by California Education Code Section 42100. (Ref. Fact # 21) In the opinion of the Grand Jury, the most troublesome blunder at OSD was an apparent lack of respect for the public’s right to oversee the business of the district. This disregard for the principle of open government by the OSD board and superintendent was evidenced by outright neglect of the Brown Act and relevant sections of the appropriate California codes.
F9:
The district failed to monitor the status of compliance to legal mandates. The board was oblivious to these issues, thereby incurring risk to the district’s legal status and, in some cases, to the quality of education being provided OSD students. (Ref. Fact # 22) The public has both a right and a duty to ask reasonable questions and to expect that those questions be answered. This process provides a safeguard that is critical to the successful operation of democratic government. At OSD, a careless board and autocratic administration created an environment ripe for disaster. Had the public been given proper access to the workings of the district, the problems at OSD might have been recognized and averted before the current crisis.
F10:
The board failed to consistently post required agendas sufficiently ahead of meetings and then failed to consistently follow the agendas during meetings as required by the Brown Act. This omission hindered the public’s ability to understand when and how decisions were to be made. Consequently, the public’s ability to make fair comment before the board was abridged. (Brown
F11:
The board failed to conduct closed sessions in the approved manner, including properly reporting actions taken, as required by the Brown Act. This omission thwarted the public’s ability to understand what was happening in the district. (Brown Act Sections 54954.2 and 54957). (Ref. Fact # 12)
F25:
Prior to March 2001 there had not been a continuously functioning School Site Council, a violation of Education Code Sections 52011 and 52012. During this time, parents and staff were asked to sign documents, implying that the council existed when it did not.
F26:
A school-wide plan, including a needs assessment, developed with broad involvement of school personnel and parents was not in place, as required by Education Code Section 52011.
F27:
There was no Gifted and Talented Education Program (GATE) during the 2000-2001 school year. It is unclear just how long this situation had existed prior to 2000-2001. Until parents openly complained, the district had improperly accepted the GATE money issued by the state. The 2000-2001 money has since been returned.
F28:
No process was in place for disseminating information about the complaint procedures to students, employees, parents, guardians, school advisory committees and interested parties, as required by district policies 1313 and 1314.
F29:
Because the OSD English Language Learners Program has been frequently out of compliance, the district has been targeted by the state department of education to participate in a specialized process of strict monitoring and intensive assistance. This program targets chronically non-compliant English Language Learners Programs
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Define, document and implement a Orchard School District Board of Trustees: plan to increase its efforts at offering support services to school districts,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F3:
Continue operation of the assessment #17) center at Osborne and McKenna Schools to assure students are The 2001-2002 Santa Clara County Civil properly identified and appropriate Grand Jury recommends that the County educational plans are current. (Ref. Office of Education and the Santa Clara Findings # 7 & 12) County Board of Supervisors: The 2001-2002 Santa Clara County Civil 8. Mutually agree to reduce the rental Grand Jury recommends that the County and maintenance cost paid by COE to Office of Education and the Probation the county for school facilities at the Department: various institutions. The monies saved should be applied to the 4. Continue to provide character operation of the alternative court development as a part of the court schools in those institutions. (Reference Finding #16) 14 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Children and Families Committee (CFC) is currently chaired by Supervisors Alvarado and Beall. In May 1999, the CFC established the Children and Families Leadership Team that provides leadership for an integrated system of children and family services. It includes all county departments serving children and the Deputy County Executive. A common vision statement was adopted to address the observation that county agencies serving children and families did not have a single unifying vision for children. Without a common vision and shared goals, agency affiliations and professional disciplines presented barriers to client-focused service delivery and effective collaboration. The team reports through the CFC and other committees as appropriate to the Board of Supervisors. Community School may be established pursuant to Education Code Section 1980 et seq. The County Board of Education may enroll pupils who are any of the following students: expelled from a school district; referred by school district as a result of a
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
System-wide team Juvenile Court and/or appropriate The system-wide team provides standing committees.” operational direction and program accountability for the various sites, The three-level governance structure services, disciplines and agencies meetings provide the boards with status providing programs in juvenile hall and reports. the ranches. The system-wide team includes the director of the alternative The executive team has developed an schools department, director of special attitude of collaboration and cooperation education, deputy chiefs of probation for among the major agencies after nearly juvenile services and juvenile detention, two years of contentious meetings, deputy director of mental health, and including agency territorial disputes and deputy director of the department of personal verbal attacks. As an example, drug and alcohol services. Members for several years the students in the meet bimonthly at a minimum, or more ranch schools attended school every frequently if needed. other day. The COE had argued since 3 1997 that this is an educationally unsound practice and the dialogue 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #1: between COE and probation on this The reporting requirements to the boards point has been described by all parties as are satisfied through the three-level contentious. This concern was governance structure meeting status eventually resolved. As of November reports. The JTF no longer functions as 2001, all students at the ranch schools an entity. attend school on a daily basis. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 2 Appropriately inform responsible parties of performance evaluation consequences for delays in meeting strategies. RESPONSE: We agree that the appropriate staff will be held accountable for meeting the strategies. Responsible parties are informed negative delays impact their annual performance evaluations. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #2: Each site has developed a work plan that Although this recommendation was identifies specific action items, person(s) addressed to the board of education and responsible, and a completion date. board of supervisors, the responsible These work plans are reviewed at each parties held accountable appear to be site team’s monthly meeting, progress staff-level individuals. Individual reports are made, and solutions to teachers, site administrators and county problems are discussed. Within COE, administrators are evaluated for their job performance ratings for teachers, site efforts to assist in the development and administrators and county administrators implementation of site-specific strategies include accountability goals stated in the during their annual performance work plan. evaluations. 4 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 3: Collaboratively identify and provide additional resources adequate to maintain timelines should such action be deemed necessary in their view to comply with the “urgent need” qualifier of the Court Order. RESPONSE: Both Boards have responded to the “urgent need” qualifier of the Court Order and have allocated additional resources to meet the critical needs of youth in institutions. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Acquired staff, instructional materials and other Facts: support necessary to implement the new Schools located at juvenile hall, the strategies at court schools. Funding for ranches and the children’s shelter have staff training was approved by the board developed goals, strategies and timelines of supervisors in its 2001 budget; the to meet the unique educational needs of COE provided $50,000 as matching children placed under their care. Among funds. The COE also funds ongoing the five sites, 83 strategies have been educational programs in court schools. developed. Information from the system- wide team indicates 61 strategies were 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #3: completed by March 31, 2001. Other As stated in the response, the two boards strategies are in progress and expect to did find a need for additional support be completed by September 2002. The resources. These resources are being board of education and the board of funded and provided. Resources supervisors are working in a included funding for additional staff and collaborative manner to provide needed instructional materials. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 4: Include in the definition of core services to be identified in the governance agreement Age-appropriate and meaningful work experience that meets the criteria of school credit. RESPONSE: We agree with the importance of work experience within a comprehensive program. Based on the needs of the youth, the governance structure will evaluate the best means of incorporating such experience. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: As of the writing of this report, there is The governance committee concluded in still no work experience credit available a May 2000 report that vocational for the court school students. Instead of training is a core service and would be a work experience program, a teacher is improved through school credit. assigned to provide the students with an 5 introduction to work experience choices, testing, preference for jobs, pro-social The auto shop program is limited to skills and role-playing. skills needed for work at an oil change type of business. (a) The Grand Jury was told there is no school credit earned nor outside contract for work experience available with any 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #4: agency. Although the governance committee concluded its evaluation and considers (b) Students who are on work crews with credit for work experience beneficial, no the Santa Clara County Water District school credit is currently given. do not receive school credit for this experience. The vocational programs currently operating are construction and auto shop. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 5. Continue to financially support an ongoing program of literacy workshops for teachers and other support staff directly involved with children in institutional schools; and that funding be allocated for training to facilitate the transition to the new model of collaborative decision making. RESPONSE: Funding has been allocated to provide literacy workshops for teachers and other staff, as well as to facilitate the transition to a collaborative decision-making model. alternative school administrators from 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: surrounding counties. Teachers are now receiving both literacy and numeracy training. The COE provides funding and substitute teacher The COE estimates it will need an replacement for two days of training additional $400,000 to maintain current offered on a Saturday or during the programs. The COE is in the process of week. Three additional training days are reducing the number of instructional funded through the State of California. aides, teachers, and administrators at its Under the direction of experienced court schools. The student-to-teacher personnel, the training takes place at ratio has already been raised from 12:1 Santa Clara University. to 15:1. A workshop for administrators is also 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #5: available. Santa Clara County school Funding continues to be provided for administrators attend training with other both literacy and numeracy training. Due 6 to reduced funding levels, the literacy training and other programs could be negatively affected. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 6. Include in the Governance Agreement a provision that will address the maintenance of school staffing stability in view of the declining or fluctuating enrollment levels at the court schools. RESPONSE: We agree that staffing stability is important and plans are being developed to address staffing in view of declining or fluctuating enrollment. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: (2) With a ratio of 20:1, staff feels safety An MOU delineates the governance will become a greater issue. structure in place between the COE and the county. Many provisions are (3) Site administrators (principals) will understood and agreed upon by the be reduced from five to three for the parties; however, stability and 2002-2003 school year. maintenance of staffing are not mentioned as a separate provision. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #6: Even though COE agrees staffing The COE expects the following will stability is important, reductions in negatively impact the maintenance of funding levels will affect staffing at all school staffing stability beginning in the levels. The increased teacher-student summer of 2002: ratio causes both safety and educational concerns to COE and probation staff. (1) Starting in the summer of 2002, the COE has dictated that the teacher student ratio in classes will be 20:1. 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 7. Develop a timeline for the implementation of an assessment center at Osborne School. Results should be included in the Joint Task Force report to the Boards. RESPONSE: The Probation Department, Osborne School and the Mental Health Department have designed an interim assessment center. The center is operational. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and leave juvenile hall where Osborne It was reported by staff that on any given School is located. Fifty percent of the day an average of thirteen students enter students who enter do not stay longer 7 than three days. The board of education program (IEP). An updated supervisors has provided funds to IEP is created for students identified as refurbish a juvenile hall living unit for needing special education. use as an assessment center. Within the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #7: first three days of entering juvenile hall, The assessment center continues to students are assigned to the assessment operate and appears to provide the center where they are tested in reading necessary evaluation services. There has and mathematics. A career inventory is been a marked improvement in the also administered. Students requiring number of students leaving the additional assessment are referred to the institutional facilities with up-to-date student study team coordinator. individual assessments results. These results are then available for a student’s One-third of the student population next educational experience. enters with a special education diagnosis and with an expired individualized 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 8. Collect and evaluate data and best practices for grouping students by age or living unit (performance) learning levels and consider implementing functional (ability) groupings at Osborne School. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to group students in order to maximize learning opportunities without compromising safety and security. Each site team will evaluate data and best practices and make recommendations related to class assignment procedures. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: classroom facilities make grouping by At McKenna School the children have academic level challenging but not not been convicted for illegal activity impossible. There have been and are more easily grouped for discussions among COE, probation, and academic reasons. At Osborne School the courts about assigning all special such grouping is difficult because many education students to one of the ranch of the students have a history of schools in order to centralize services. violence, and safety issues must be addressed for the academic program to 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #8: be effective. Architectural planning for The site teams continue to deal with the the remodeling at juvenile hall includes student grouping issue, but it remains a the concept of bringing teachers into the complex and unresolved issue. living areas. At the ranches, limited 8 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 9. Collect information to measure the effectiveness of the alternative school department's program. Also, redesign and identify program elements that may need further refinement. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to collaboratively evaluate all aspects of the program and are committed to utilizing evaluation results for continuous improvement. Site teams will have the responsibility for this effort and will report as appropriate. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and at four of the schools the probation Efforts towards continuous improvement department has added a character and collaborative evaluation of programs development component to its program. have been realized through the creation of The COE contract with Santa Clara site teams, a system-wide team, and an University to provide teacher training in executive team. The site team oversees literacy has resulted in improved reading the services delivered at a particular site levels. The contract with Santa Clara and resolves issues as they arise. The site University also includes numeracy training team also receives and provides input from but it is still too soon to have collected the system-wide team related to gaps in reliable data in this area. core services, program needs, site priorities, policy modifications and budget 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #9: recommendations. The executive team Site teams currently in operation monitors the implementation of the MOU, continue to evaluate their programs. as well as a multi-year action plan that was Reports are made by the site teams to the developed by the JTF. system-wide team. Both the COE and county executive’s office make regular The COE has redesigned its academic reports to the children and families program to focus on literacy and numeracy committee. (See Glossary) 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 10. Collect and evaluate relevant literature to address the issue of how educational services and the work programs may best be delivered to meet the critical educational needs of wards and dependents. RESPONSE: We agree that relevant literature needs to be reviewed to ensure that educational services and the work progress best meet the critical needs of youth in institutional settings. The site teams are developing a proposal based on relevant best practices. 9 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: School staff showed the Grand Jury new According to California law “...the learning packets and materials for Governing Board of each school district improving the educational program. shall prepare and keep on file for periodic inspection the courses of study (b) Students have an opportunity to prescribed for the schools under its participate in various character jurisdiction." (Ed. Code 51040) The development program options, such as court schools have updated and revised anger management, drug and alcohol all courses of study in the past three counseling and sports programs. years to meet California State Department of Education framework and 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #10: standards. Site team evaluation and recommendations for improving student educational needs (a) Site teams have contributed to the are being implemented as funding is development and implementation of a available. In addition to educational core program based on state guidelines programs, character development classes and best practices developed through support the critical needs of the students. staff training sessions with a consultant from Santa Clara University. Osborne 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 11. Provide additional resource specialist support at Osborne School so that caseloads do not exceed the maximum allowable. RESPONSE: We agree and an additional Resource Specialist has been assigned to Osborne School. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: (c) Once the IEP’s are completed, At Osborne School, the Grand Jury placement and services are delivered in found the following: accordance with a student’s plan. (a) An additional resource specialist 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #11: was hired to serve students and to The recommended resource specialist support general education teachers. was hired as stated in the response. Special education students receive direct Placement and identified services are services at a teacher-to-student ratio being delivered in accordance with the from 1:1 to 8:1. students’ updated educational plans. (b) A full-time student study team coordinator is available Monday through Friday. 10 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 12. Develop a tool to evaluate progress of Court school students and establish expectations for student achievement to be realized in six month intervals. RESPONSE: We agree and an assessment instrument has been selected, field tested and will be operational in all Court schools by September 1, 2000. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: computer. This information assists in The STAR-AL (STAR) was selected as tracking a student's achievements and the instrument used to assess all students expectations. Court school students are in reading and math. The scores re-tested every sixty days. represent how students performed on the test compared with the performance of a 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #12: nationally representative sample of STAR was the assessment instrument students. The scores present a snapshot initially selected. This instrument is of achievement at a specific point in routinely used and it is providing time. Based on the student's performance information for tracking student on the STAR reading and math tests, a achievement and expectations. diagnostic report is produced by 1999-2000 Grand Jury Recommendation 13. Require each Court school teacher to attend a specific number of literacy workshops and follow-up sessions each year so all teachers may be considered initially "trained" by September 2002. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation and the new contract agreement requires all teachers to attend three additional days of training for a total of five days. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #13: A contract between COE and Santa Literacy training is available and all staff Clara University’s Markula Center for is completing the required five days of Applied Ethics was negotiated and training. signed in 2000. A new contract was recently signed to continue this training service. 11 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 14. Collaboratively establish appropriate policies and procedures for the exchange of information under the Integrated Children's Services Program. The results of their efforts should be included in the JTF report to the Board of Education and the Board of Supervisors. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation, protocols for sharing are in place. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and alcohol services Members meet The governance structure allows for a bimonthly, or more frequently as site-based, system-wide form of needed. management to address collaborative program development, exchange of At the site level, the site team is information, resource allocation, budget responsible for working with site staff to decisions, problem solving, program oversee the services delivered and evaluation and accountability. resolve issues that may develop. The integrated children’s services team 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #14: includes the director of special Use of the governance committee education, deputy chiefs of probation for structure provides the mechanism for juvenile services and juvenile detention, informational exchanges and program deputy director of mental health and the status sought by the 1999-2000 Grand deputy director of the department of Jury recommendation. drug 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report Recommendation 15. Continue to seek an appropriate facility for the purpose of establishing a sub-acute residential treatment program as a continuum of care for children and adolescents of Santa Clara County. Once an appropriate facility is secured, it should be renovated as may be necessary and opened as soon as possible. RESPONSE: We are pleased that this long-standing need is being met. We project that the facility will be open in October 2000. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: for youth between the ages of 12 through The board of supervisors authorized the 17 provides a secure residential and out- purchase of the Charter Hospital located patient treatment program for severely at 455 Silicon Valley Boulevard in May emotionally disturbed youth. of 2000. The facility opened in September 2001. The Starlight Program 12 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #15: In addition to community schools, there The county finalized the purchase of a is a transition process that has been facility, although it took longer than developed by COE, probation and social originally anticipated. services using state After Care Grant funds. The agencies continue to work NOTE: After the interviews, observing cooperatively to provide this transition site teams in action, reading the service for students returning to their documentation provided, listening to home school. speakers at various committee meetings and evaluating the current status for Up to three weeks prior to a student’s compliance with the court order, the release a transition counselor meets with 2001-2002 Grand Jury also finds the the student to develop an individualized following: plan for returning to the home school, community school, continuation school 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: or a job training program. In order that children placed under the care of the court are ensured their Each school district has a designated educational needs are effectively contact person for the transition. The addressed, community schools remain a transition counselor and district contact realistic option. The COE will need person review the student’s educational financial assistance from local school status and other information necessary to districts to maintain the current level of make final preparation for a student’s service. This concept has not been return. embraced by the local districts facing financial problems of their own. Many During the transition process the school local districts are developing their own district representative is responsible for programs for returning students. making parental contact. The COE and county have recognized Upon return to the home school, the the expected reductions in funding from juvenile’s probation counselor is state and federal sources. In a proactive responsible for student follow up for as manner, both have invested staff time 10 weeks. After 10 weeks, an After and effort to identify potential strategies Care probation officer or California to absorb the impact of these cuts. outreach officer continues the follow-up Increased class size, reduction of process. personnel and increased financial support from local school districts have 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #17: all been implemented to some degree, Students returning to their regular school yet the anticipated shortfall has not been setting require cooperative support covered. between local schools and county agencies. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Finding #16: Reductions in available funding will severely threaten the progress made since the court order was issued. 13 schools’ curriculum. (Ref. Finding RECOMMENDATIONS #10) The 2001-2002 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County 5. Provide work experience classes and Office of Education: credit for those students at the Wright, Holden, and James Ranches.
R3:
Continue operation of the assessment #17) center at Osborne and McKenna Schools to assure students are The 2001-2002 Santa Clara County Civil properly identified and appropriate Grand Jury recommends that the County educational plans are current. (Ref. Office of Education and the Santa Clara
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Site team at each location as necessary. The site teams have responsibility for overseeing the services delivered at a The current reporting process and particular site, including the resolution schedule referenced in the response are of any issue that may arise. Members of defined on page five of the MOU: “The a site team are selected by the staff at Site Teams shall provide periodic status each site, along with the system-wide reports to the System-Wide Teams. The team. Site teams meet monthly, or more Executive Team shall also prepare frequently if necessary. quarterly reports to the Board of Supervisors, Board of Education,
R5:
Continue to financially support an ongoing program of literacy workshops for teachers and other support staff directly involved with children in institutional schools; and that funding be allocated for training to facilitate the transition to the new model of collaborative decision making. RESPONSE: Funding has been allocated to provide literacy workshops for teachers and other staff, as well as to facilitate the transition to a collaborative decision-making model. alternative school administrators from 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: surrounding counties. Teachers are now receiving both literacy and numeracy training. The COE provides funding and substitute teacher The COE estimates it will need an replacement for two days of training additional $400,000 to maintain current offered on a Saturday or during the programs. The COE is in the process of week. Three additional training days are reducing the number of instructional funded through the State of California. aides, teachers, and administrators at its Under the direction of experienced court schools. The student-to-teacher personnel, the training takes place at ratio has already been raised from 12:1 Santa Clara University. to 15:1. A workshop for administrators is also 2001-2002 Grand Jury
R6:
Include in the Governance Agreement a provision that will address the maintenance of school staffing stability in view of the declining or fluctuating enrollment levels at the court schools. RESPONSE: We agree that staffing stability is important and plans are being developed to address staffing in view of declining or fluctuating enrollment. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: (2) With a ratio of 20:1, staff feels safety An MOU delineates the governance will become a greater issue. structure in place between the COE and the county. Many provisions are (3) Site administrators (principals) will understood and agreed upon by the be reduced from five to three for the parties; however, stability and 2002-2003 school year. maintenance of staffing are not mentioned as a separate provision. 2001-2002 Grand Jury
R7:
Develop a timeline for the implementation of an assessment center at Osborne School. Results should be included in the Joint Task Force report to the Boards. RESPONSE: The Probation Department, Osborne School and the Mental Health Department have designed an interim assessment center. The center is operational. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and leave juvenile hall where Osborne It was reported by staff that on any given School is located. Fifty percent of the day an average of thirteen students enter students who enter do not stay longer 7 than three days. The board of education program (IEP). An updated supervisors has provided funds to IEP is created for students identified as refurbish a juvenile hall living unit for needing special education. use as an assessment center. Within the 2001-2002 Grand Jury
R8:
Collect and evaluate data and best practices for grouping students by age or living unit (performance) learning levels and consider implementing functional (ability) groupings at Osborne School. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to group students in order to maximize learning opportunities without compromising safety and security. Each site team will evaluate data and best practices and make recommendations related to class assignment procedures. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: classroom facilities make grouping by At McKenna School the children have academic level challenging but not not been convicted for illegal activity impossible. There have been and are more easily grouped for discussions among COE, probation, and academic reasons. At Osborne School the courts about assigning all special such grouping is difficult because many education students to one of the ranch of the students have a history of schools in order to centralize services. violence, and safety issues must be addressed for the academic program to 2001-2002 Grand Jury
R9:
Collect information to measure the effectiveness of the alternative school department's program. Also, redesign and identify program elements that may need further refinement. RESPONSE: We agree with the need to collaboratively evaluate all aspects of the program and are committed to utilizing evaluation results for continuous improvement. Site teams will have the responsibility for this effort and will report as appropriate. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and at four of the schools the probation Efforts towards continuous improvement department has added a character and collaborative evaluation of programs development component to its program. have been realized through the creation of The COE contract with Santa Clara site teams, a system-wide team, and an University to provide teacher training in executive team. The site team oversees literacy has resulted in improved reading the services delivered at a particular site levels. The contract with Santa Clara and resolves issues as they arise. The site University also includes numeracy training team also receives and provides input from but it is still too soon to have collected the system-wide team related to gaps in reliable data in this area. core services, program needs, site priorities, policy modifications and budget 2001-2002 Grand Jury
R10:
Collect and evaluate relevant literature to address the issue of how educational services and the work programs may best be delivered to meet the critical educational needs of wards and dependents. RESPONSE: We agree that relevant literature needs to be reviewed to ensure that educational services and the work progress best meet the critical needs of youth in institutional settings. The site teams are developing a proposal based on relevant best practices. 9 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: School staff showed the Grand Jury new According to California law “...the learning packets and materials for Governing Board of each school district improving the educational program. shall prepare and keep on file for periodic inspection the courses of study (b) Students have an opportunity to prescribed for the schools under its participate in various character jurisdiction." (Ed. Code 51040) The development program options, such as court schools have updated and revised anger management, drug and alcohol all courses of study in the past three counseling and sports programs. years to meet California State Department of Education framework and 2001-2002 Grand Jury
R11:
Provide additional resource specialist support at Osborne School so that caseloads do not exceed the maximum allowable. RESPONSE: We agree and an additional Resource Specialist has been assigned to Osborne School. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: (c) Once the IEP’s are completed, At Osborne School, the Grand Jury placement and services are delivered in found the following: accordance with a student’s plan. (a) An additional resource specialist 2001-2002 Grand Jury
R12:
Develop a tool to evaluate progress of Court school students and establish expectations for student achievement to be realized in six month intervals. RESPONSE: We agree and an assessment instrument has been selected, field tested and will be operational in all Court schools by September 1, 2000. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: computer. This information assists in The STAR-AL (STAR) was selected as tracking a student's achievements and the instrument used to assess all students expectations. Court school students are in reading and math. The scores re-tested every sixty days. represent how students performed on the test compared with the performance of a 2001-2002 Grand Jury
R13:
Require each Court school teacher to attend a specific number of literacy workshops and follow-up sessions each year so all teachers may be considered initially "trained" by September 2002. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation and the new contract agreement requires all teachers to attend three additional days of training for a total of five days. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury
R14:
Collaboratively establish appropriate policies and procedures for the exchange of information under the Integrated Children's Services Program. The results of their efforts should be included in the JTF report to the Board of Education and the Board of Supervisors. RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation, protocols for sharing are in place. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: and alcohol services Members meet The governance structure allows for a bimonthly, or more frequently as site-based, system-wide form of needed. management to address collaborative program development, exchange of At the site level, the site team is information, resource allocation, budget responsible for working with site staff to decisions, problem solving, program oversee the services delivered and evaluation and accountability. resolve issues that may develop. The integrated children’s services team 2001-2002 Grand Jury
R15:
Continue to seek an appropriate facility for the purpose of establishing a sub-acute residential treatment program as a continuum of care for children and adolescents of Santa Clara County. Once an appropriate facility is secured, it should be renovated as may be necessary and opened as soon as possible. RESPONSE: We are pleased that this long-standing need is being met. We project that the facility will be open in October 2000. 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: for youth between the ages of 12 through The board of supervisors authorized the 17 provides a secure residential and out- purchase of the Charter Hospital located patient treatment program for severely at 455 Silicon Valley Boulevard in May emotionally disturbed youth. of 2000. The facility opened in September 2001. The Starlight Program 12 2001-2002 Grand Jury acquired facts: 2001-2002 Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.