Santa Clara County 2011-2012 - California Grand Jury Reports

December 12, 2012 — JAN 1 0 2013 December 12, 2012 David H. YAMASChief Executive Officer/ Superior Court of CA County Honorable Richard J*

17 pages 4 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: The Board is conducting meetings and taking unlawful actions without regard to the legal parameters that govern their conduct.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board should obtain the required training focused on their ethical, legal, and fiscal responsibilities for being a board member and, in particular, for running a veterans memorial district.

F2: The District does not have a written mission statement or bylaws to guide it in defining and fulfilling the District's purpose, and communicating its function to veterans in the community or the District residents in general.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The District should adopt a written mission statement and set of bylaws. This activity could be coordinated with the local chapter of the California Association of Special Districts and modeled after other veterans memorial districts.

F3: The District has no oversight that would ensure they are fulfilling their special district obligations. Response: The respondent partially agrees with the finding. LAFCO, through its service reviews and boundary change process provides a layer of oversight for special districts, but LAFCO does not have the legal authority to ensure that the South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District (SSCVMD) or any other special district is fulfilling their special district obligations. LAFCO, through its service review process, strives to increase the public's awareness of special districts and to encourage special districts to fulfill their obligations. Additionally, the County and the State of California can provide a layer of oversight as it relates to the District's finances, budget, governance and operations (e.g. collection of financial statements and annual budgets, and the ability to investigate alleged violations of the Brown Act or other laws). However, neither the County nor the State 70 West Hedding Street • 11th Floor, East Wing • San Jose, CA 95110 • (408) 299-5127 • (408) 295-1613 Fax • www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov COMMISSIONERS: Pete Constant, Liz Kniss, Margaret Abe-Koga, Mike Wasserman, Susan Vicklund-Wilson ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS: Sam Liccardo, George Shirakawa, Terry Trumbull, Cat Tucker EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Neelima Palacherla has the legal authority to ensure that SSCVMD is fulfilling their special district obligations. Ultimately only the voters in a special district's boundary have the power, through communications to the district board, election of district board members, initiatives and referenda to ensure that a district is meeting its obligations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: LAFCO should include this district in its next service area review and should expand the review to a performance management review, examining the District's ability to deliver appropriate services and determine whether the District has the operations knowledge to perform their duties. Response: The recommendation is being implemented to the extent feasible. LAFCO is currently conducting a service review of the South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District (SSCVMD) as part of LAFCO's current Special Districts Service Review. In addition to including the required analysis and written statement of service review determinations, the Service Review will address the following four key areas for each of the affected special districts, as appropriate: Purpose of the district at the time of creation, services currently provided by the . district, and any changes in the mission of the district or in the needs of the community since the creation of the district Opportunities for consolidation of services or changes in governance to reduce costs and/or increase service levels Opportunities for increased transparency in operations, management and administration and for increased public accountability of the district Benchmarks and standards for measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the 9 district and opportunities for increasing the district's efficiency and effectiveness. Furthermore, LAFCO is aware of the issues and concerns that the Civil Grand Jury has raised regarding the SSCVMD. LAFCO's Service Review for the District will address these concerns to the extent feasible. It is anticipated that LAFCO's review of SSCVMD will be completed by May 2013. Such reviews include agency specific recommendations and LAFCO establishes a time-frame for each agency to implement the necessary reforms and to report back to LAFCO on their progress. We appreciate the Civil Grand Jury's interest in the South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District and LAFCO of Santa Clara County. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the finding/recommendation presented in the Report. Sincerely, Pete Constant, Chairperson LAFCO of Santa Clara County

F4: The District demonstrates no effort to communicate its mission and operations to all District veterans.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The District should communicate its mission and advertise their programs to all veterans in the District. For instance, it could establish a website to promote and welcome all military veterans.

September 17, 2012 — Change Starts at the Top in Date: Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Resuscitation

12 pages 7 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: – The new SCVMC management team is making good strides to address historically poor financial management by creating cost center management responsibility, targeted to deliver break- even or better financial performance. The SCVMC management team appreciates the Civil Grand Jury's recognition and offers a few points to address the steps being taken toward this effort. A weekly financial and operational performance review has been established. A daily flash report is distributed to managers. The report is being revised in order to provide more useful data for managers to act upon. In addition, the SCVHHS leadership team has included in its strategic plan efforts to develop a culture of accountability.

Page 6

Related Recommendations (2)

R1A: – The County should require that SCVMC stay within the budget to avoid future unplanned subsidies from the General Fund. SCVMC agrees in concept. Each year, SCVMC presents its budget plan that is intended to lead to a balanced budget, which usually requires a General Fund subsidy to address the uncompensated costs addressed in the background section of this response. Increases to the subsidy are never planned and are never desired. The County has always required SCVMC to stay within budget. SCVMC Administration, Finance and managers work to stay within budget each year. The challenge lies in managing to the changing financial models (both Federal and State), Federal and State budget issues, unpredictable fluctuations with inpatient and outpatient volumes and payer mix, and working within the constraints of union contracts and County processes. For example there was a significant decrease in the average daily census for medical patients and we were unable to redistribute staff for several months. This resulted in a higher than desirable level of staff related to constraints of union contracts. Page The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors governs and oversees the operations of the County through a Committee structure. The Health and Hospital Committee has as its members two of the Board of Supervisors. This Committee meets monthly during which detailed financial information is presented by the SCVHHS Chief Financial Officer for discussion, review and approval. In the instance of the SCVMC requiring an increased subsidy in FY 2011-12, the County Executive continually informed the Board of Supervisors of the financial status of SCVMC leading up to the request for additional General Fund support. The approval of additional funds included specific direction SCVMC that the support was one- time in nature rather than an ongoing increase to the subsidy. As referenced earlier, SCVMC has a process in place whereby the FPR Committee is monitoring and taking action to address poor performance and negative variances. These efforts are being expanded on in FY13. Significant strides have been made. SCVMC is preparing for better financial performance in the future.

R1B: — The County should require that hospital leadership runs SCVMC as a business and require leadership to make appropriate financial decisions using the data the hospital systems generate. SCVMC partially agrees. The County has always required SCVMC leadership to run SCVMC as a business and in accordance with the County's mission. The challenge lies in managing to the changing financial models (both Federal and State), Federal and State budget issues, fluctuations with inpatient and outpatient volumes and payer mix, and working within the constraints of union contracts and County processes. SCVMC is implementing a new cost accounting system as well as expanding its analytical and decision support capabilities. These efforts will provide better financial data to support timely and effective analysis and financial decisions. This type of data-driven approach is critical to the effectiveness of the FPR Committee and SCVMC management teams. The SCVMC Administration will continue to manage and operate SCVMC in a manner consistent with the direction, policies and decisions of the Board of Supervisors as led by the County's Chief Executive Officer. SCVMC recognizes that General Funds allocated to support the operations of the hospital become unavailable to other core functions of the County including Public Safety and Social Services. SCVMC Administration continues to implement the Revenue Cycle and other improvements described in the Grand Jury Report to minimize the size of the subsidy.

F2: - SCVMC has historically operated below capacity, which directly contributed to its chronically poor financial performance, resulting in County bailout from the General Fund. Increasing productivity is critical to SCVMC's financial performance. SCVMC agrees that increased productivity is critical to SCVMC's financial performance. What is referred to as a "bailout" is not defined and thus could be argued. If the Civil Grand Jury is referring to the General Fund subsidy utilized to cover the cost for custody health services, care for the unsponsored and for the portion of services provided to Medi-Cal patients, then SCVMC disagrees with the Grand Jury's statement. Such expenses should not be deemed a "bailout". If, however, the Grand Jury is referencing the additional $30 million provided to SCVMC in FY 11-12 as a "bailout", then SCVMC would agree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page

Page 7

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: – the County should implement systems to increase productivity in reaching break- even financial performance. SCVMC agrees. Steps have already been taken to increase productivity and the number of patients seen. In January 2012, SCVMC Administration began a detailed review of all provider schedules in the scheduling system to maximum its visit capacity. Provider schedules were standardized to reflect a certain number of appointment slots in the morning, afternoon and evening. These changes were made to schedules in Primary Care Medicine, Primary Care Pediatrics, Ob/Gyn and various specialty areas. The provider schedules now reflect 10 appointment slots per half day for all providers in Primary Care Medicine, 11 appointment slots per half day for all providers in Primary Care Pediatrics and 10 appointment slots per half day for all providers in Ob/Gyn.

F3: – The performance indicators imposed by the HCRA – improved patient experience, improved capacity and access, measure and cost control - are precisely the measures that should have been in place years ago, and if implemented, can lead to significantly improved SCVMC performance. SCVMC agrees that the performance indicators included in the HCRA are good measured and is taking steps to make improvements in each area.

Page 8

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: - Regardless of how HCRA may be affected by the United States Supreme Court decision, the County should adopt performance measures consistent with the HCRA indicators because they can lead to improved SCVMC performance. SCVMC agrees. With regard to adopting performance measurements related to improved access and capacity, Ambulatory clinics have been consistently tracking metrics such as appointment availability, no show rates and number of patients seen per day in order to monitor performance. An interdisciplinary committee for improving the patient experience was formed in 2010 and a regular report on this subject is provided to the Health and Hospital Committee. Although in the aggregate we must improve the patient experience we have several areas that excel in patient satisfaction. The Burn and the Rehabilitation Centers received national recognition for patient satisfaction this past year. In addition, through the California Association of Public Hospitals we are participating in the delivery system incentive plan, including a focus on multiple areas of improvement identified by CMS as important. SCVMC has extensive quality improvement and measurement processes in place related to these measures, and also includes regular reports to HHC.

F4: - The Audit pointed out that SCVMC keeps a separate set of books from the County's SAP system, and that the two do not match. This makes it difficult to obtain accurate financial information. The theme of this Finding in the Grand Jury's report appears to be that enough has not been done to integrate the financial management and reporting of SCVMC and the rest of the County of Santa Clara's operations. There are two primary systemic differences between the financial operations of SCVMC that have driven the aforementioned separate financial management: 7|Page The financial operations and revenue/expenditure cycles of SCVMC are entirely different than those of other County operations, so much so that in the past the traditional financial tools and systems used the rest of the County did not meet the operational needs of SCVMC and were not designed to meet the detail operational and regulatory reporting requirements of hospitals. Santa Clara County, per the Board of Supervisors, created the Health and Hospital System to integrate similar health functions and establish a specialized administration including financial management. Over the last few years improvements in the sharing of financial information and the integration to the extent possible of SCVMC and County Controller/Finance systems has taken place. Unfortunately, the full and immediate integration of SCVMC's financial management and operations into SAP would result in slower financial processing and ultimately increase the SCVMC General Fund Subsidy because such a conversion would cost millions of dollars. The long term objective (3 years or longer) is for SCVMC to fully utilize SAP, presuming it can be supported by a detailed cost benefit analysis, and the funding and resources are made available. The SCVMC Financial Management staff and the County's Department of Finance meet regularly to discuss integration and identify opportunities to increase the transparency of the SCVMC financial management information. Because this collaboration is being led by the SCVMC CFO and the County's Director of Finance the efforts have and will continue to address the concerns raised by the Grand Jury in this section of the report.

Page 8

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: — The County should develop and implement an interface between SCVMC and the County systems to ensure data consistency, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. SCVMC partially agrees. SCVHHS Finance has been working with the County Controller's ASAP team to develop an interface and reconciliation process between the County's general ledger and SCVHHS's general ledger since 2010. Monthly reconciliation files are sent to SAP after SCVHHS finalizes its monthly financial statements. Reconciliations have been completed for fiscal years 2010, 2011 and monthly through May 2012. SCVHHS Finance will continue to work with the County Controller's Office to improve SCVMC reporting.

F5: - SCVMC financial data is not transparent to the public due to the confusing ways SCVMC finances are broken up and tracked in the County's CAFR.

Page 9

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: - The County should require SCVMC consolidated financial statement reported as part of the CAFR. SCVMC partially agrees. The SCVHHS Enterprise Funds are audited as part of the County's annual financial audit. A separate audit and annual report for SCVMC is prepared each year. SCVHHS Finance will provide access to this report in the future. In addition, the year-end financials presented to HHC along with other related reports provide a complete picture of SCVMC's financial performance. and the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second seco . . . 8 | Page . Health care operations and finance are complicated areas. Seasoned healthcare analysts are challenged when reviewing and projecting financial performance. SCVHHS Finance will continue to improve and supplement its financial reporting for the Board's and public's benefit. In addition, SCVMC will work with the County Information Services Department to more prominently post SCVMC financial reports to the public.

F6: — The new EpicCare system offers benefits in streamlining records, patient access to records, and accounting performance (accounts payable/accounts receivable systems). SCVMC agrees.

Page 10

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: – The County should give SCVMC's implementation of EpicCare top priority to meet the scheduled May 2013 date. SCVMC agrees and appreciates the involvement of County Information Services Department and the County's Executive's Office in making HealthLink (SCVMC's name for its Epic system) a top priority.

F7: - SCVMC has best-in-class care facilities that would be attractive to new patients, but SCVMC does little to advertise its services and specialties to attract new patients. SCVMC appreciates the recognition from the Grand Jury regarding its facilities and centers of excellence.

Page 10

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: – The County should establish a marketing function directed at increasing public awareness of the services SCVMC offers. SCVMC partially agrees. There is a small office within SCVHHS that works on marketing and increasing public awareness. In addition, the Rehabilitation Center has a Rehabilitation Marketing Manager and has invested in a new website and marketing materials; thus such a function exists. Should additional funding become available, marketing efforts could increase. In the meantime, the VMC Foundation is assisting in marketing the Rehabilitation Center. Currently, conducts small amounts of marketing and relies on targeted awareness efforts, media relations, use of social media, and providing information to patients to promote and raise awareness about SCVMC's services and specialties. A short description of the more recent marketing and awareness efforts is included for reference: Pediatrics - A comprehensive Pediatric Provider Directory was produced to provide referral information, as well as a listing of SCVMC's specialties and sub-specialties in the following area: Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Newborn Medicine, Centers of Excellence (Rehab and Burn), South Bay Regional Genetics Center, Pediatric Healthy Lifestyle Clinic, High-Risk Infant Clinic, Behavioral & Developmental Disorders Specialties, and Pediatric Specialty Services. Physician profiles were listed by specialty and contact information was provided. The Pediatric Provider Directory with a cover letter from Dr. Stephen Harris, Chair of the Pediatrics Department, was mailed and/or delivered to Santa Clara County pediatricians, health plans and health insurance providers. Catastrophic Injury Services - A brochure was developed to highlight the comprehensive care SCVMC can provide to catastrophic illness or injury cases. The brochure featured: Emergency Medicine and Trauma 9 Page Services; Burn Care; Spinal and Neurological Injuries; the Rehabilitation Center; the Rehabilitation Trauma Center; Pediatric Trauma, Intensive Care and Rehabilitation; High-Risk Pregnancy and Neonatal Intensive Care; Palliative Care. The brochure was distributed to referral sources that included physician groups, health plans and health insurance providers. Rehabilitation - In November 2011, the VMC Foundation launched an effort to increase the visibility of SCVMC's nationally-recognized SCI/TBI Rehab Center. A plan was launched to attract a greater percentage of privately-paying patients to the Rehab Center of Excellence. Between January and August 21, 2012, various projects have been undertaken on behalf of these efforts. Among them are: Production and release of a 12-page "advertorial" in the Silicon Valley Business Journal, ¼ of • which focused on the features of the Rehabilitation Center at SCVMC. Positioning of Dr. Steven McKenna, Chief of SCVMC's Rehab Trauma Center, as a national pioneer of regenerative medicine, in local/regional speaking engagements. Development of outreach materials to promote the Rehab Center, clinical outcomes, and . ongoing research. Creation, planning and marketing of two Rehab conferences; one focusing on regenerative . medicine (in October, regional in scale) and one on traumatic brain injury (in February 2013, national in scale). Six videos have been produced to highlight the work and excellence of the Rehab Center. Most are available to view on the newly-developed, outside-funded website www.scvmcrehab.org Media Relations - Local newspaper, television stations and radio stations coverage on a story about SCVMC programs is one of the best ways to make the community aware about the services offered and the expertise of SCVMC's staff. There have been hundreds of articles and news broadcasts about services, programs and staff, including those that have featured accreditations or verifications by third- party organizations, awards and significant research. Programs and services that have been featured in news stories include: Burn Center, Cardiac Care System, Diabetes Center, Emergency services, HIV/Aids Program, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Palliative Care Program, overall Pediatric services and specialties, Rehabilitation Center, and Women's Health services. Additionally, by providing medical staff for interviews on a variety of topics, SCVMC not only helps to raise awareness about a health issue or service, but also positions itself as having some of the best experts in the field. In addition to the topics mentioned above, SCVMC medical staff has also conducted interviews, to cite a few examples: First clinical trial of human embryonic stem cells in patients with spinal cord injuries How progesterone may improve the recovery of patients with traumatic brain injuries Treating infants with a whole body (or therapeutic) cooling technique Benefits of a tai chi program for patients in wheelchairs Childhood nutrition Chronic diseases ............ 10 | Page Heat related injuries • Traumatic brain injuries Vehicle back-over injury prevention • In addition, the participation of medical staff, nursing staff, allied health professionals and other medical center staff in outside programs provide an opportunity to expose the public to SCVMC. There are many publications and presentations made at national and international conferences that expose the public to the work of SCVMC. In addition, the Trauma, Burn, Rehabilitation and Neonatology services regularly host regional professional conferences that highlight many of the medical center's teams. Social Media - Since 2011, SCVMC has had a social media presence on Facebook. While a many of the postings provide health tips to the community, including a number of anti-smoking tips in support of Public Health Department activities, other postings have covered SCVMC services and specialties: The current trend is that more people are turning away from traditional news sources, using less and less printed formats for information, going to Web based sources for information, and moving to a more social Web. SCVMC will stay abreast of these trends and consider how best to communicate with patients, the medical community and the residents of our county. Moving in that direction, SCVMC now shares a Twitter account with the Public Health Department, the Mental Health Department, and the Department of Alcohol & Drug Services. SCVMC and the Public Health Department are beginning to use YouTube and exploring what other social media tools would be helpful in raising awareness about health programs and issues. Information to Patients - "Word-of-mouth" is one of the most credible forms of advertising. Along with providing good service and great care, information given to patients can be used when our patients talk with family and friends. When people talking about the care or services they received don't stand to gain personally, it makes the message very powerful. Here are some examples of the information SCVMC provide to patient, typically in English, Spanish and Vietnamese: Burn Center: patient/family & referral materials • Diabetes Center materials New Parent Guide • Palliative Care brochure . Pediatrics materials, including NICU physicians piece and Pediatric Healthy Lifestyles brochure • and flyer Prevent Scalds brochure Primary Care Services brochure Rehabilitation Center: brochure, technology and outcomes flyers ٠ 11 | Page

August 27, 2012 — County Updates the Look and Feel of Its Website Without Attention to <b>SUBJECT:</b> Content*

5 pages 2 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: The County Lacks a policy that governs website management, structure and content. 933.05(a)(1) The respondent agrees with the finding. Response:

Related Recommendations (3)

R1A: The County should develop and implement a comprehensive website management policy. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Administration agrees with this recommendation. In March 2012 the County began a governance process to address this issue. The Enterprise Content Management Center of Excellence (ECM CoE) was formed and is responsible for developing policies and other content management related issues. The ECM CoE has tasked ISD with documenting the best practices and guidelines used while working with agencies and departments to improve their content so that polices can be established by the ECM CoE. New positions were created in the FY 2013 budget within ISD to support and facilitate these efforts.

R1B: The County should assign an individual within the Office of the County Executive with countywide website management responsibility. Response: 933.05(b)(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The Administration agrees in part with this recommendation. The Administration agrees there should be clear delineation of responsibility of for website management, but disagrees it should be an individual. The Administration has delegated website content management to the ECM CoE which is a group formed of multi-departmental representatives who specialize in a variety of fields. The ECM CoE governance committee now owns and has taken on the responsibility of not just the County's public facing portal content, but all areas related to content, including but not limited to: portals, collaboration, document management, records management and social media. A cross-county team is recommended to manage website oversight, along with subject matter experts on an as-needed basis to assist or help establish guiding principles, best practices and the development of a good training program and communication plan. Discussions have begun with the County's Employee Development managers, and communication experts are being interviewed.

R1C: The County policy should require departments to identify an individual responsible for department content and updates. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Administration agrees with this recommendation. The ECM CoE chair and co-chair met with representatives from various departments and the Deputy County Executive responsible for the Employee Services Agency (ESA) to establish and identify content owners responsible for agency/department content. The CoE has discussed this issue, and will incorporate this requirement into the future policy.

F2: The County website contains broken links and dead-ends, making it difficult to navigate. 933.05(a)(1) The respondent agrees with the finding. Response: The Administration agrees with this finding. It isn't uncommon for websites to have broken links, especially where sites are managed by independent content owners from multiple agencies, departments, and programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The County should implement a website control function to ensure ease of access and functionality. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The County has procured tools that assist in identifying broken links. Reports are available to the department content administrators, but a lack of Countywide resources presents a challenge to update and maintain the sites. ISD has used available resources to correct the problems where department intervention was not required, is training departments to fix their links as part of phase 2 of the migration to the new platform, and is in the process of training the department content administrators how to leverage the tools in place. The ECM CoE will be discussing how to manage the broken links report on a long term basis, and will incorporate this issue into the policy. CHILD IMPACT The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on children and youth. SENIOR IMPACT The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on seniors. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS The recommended action will have no/neutral sustainability implications.

August 27, 2012 — a few weeks prior to release*

10 pages 10 findings 15 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: A majority of female inmates lack information about and assistance with planning for successful re-entry to the community. Most released individuals are not given written instructions to aid in the immediate terms of release.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1A: The County should prepare, maintain and distribute the written list of re-entry keys to success to be given to inmates a few weeks before their release date. Such information would include transportation information and relevant agencies with explanations of their roles, contact number and addresses, where and when to find a bus, a free ticket, a free phone call, a volunteer to talk to if needed. Office of the Sheriff/Department of Correction Response to 1A: The Department agrees with this recommendation, while recognizing the difficulty with not always knowing when an inmate will be released from custody. Since over 70% of the current population is un-sentenced, there is no stated release date for a majority of our current inmates. The difficulty with distributing relevant information to this specific population arises when the Department is notified of an inmate's pending release within hours of the actual release, (bail, OR, conviction with time-served, found not guilty at trial, charges dropped, etc.). As for the sentenced portion of our current population, an internal review of our practices revealed the Department currently provides many of these services and information* prior to release. The Department does acknowledge the need to update the incoming orientation video and the post-release pamphlets and housing unit bulletins with current resource information, and ensure that this information is made available to every incoming and outgoing inmate. The Department also recognizes the need to coordinate the posting of post-release services information in appropriate areas. *In 2009, the Office of Women's Policy, in collaboration with the Commission on Status of Women and the Department of Correction developed a resource guide (see attached) for women. This resource guide was available at the release counter, however, there was a lapse in printing these guides which led to their not being available for a period of time. The printing issues have been resolved and the Department will ensure that the guide is available to all women being release from custody. The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original ATTEST: Lynn Regadanz, Interim Clerk of the Board Deputy ClerkAUG 2 1 201 Date: SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2011-2012 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF / DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RESPONSE

R1B: The County should ensure the information developed in Recommendation 1A is delivered into the hands of inmates a few weeks prior to release (where possible) including an acknowledgment, signed by the released inmate and retain in their file, that the information is received. Response to 1B: The Department agrees that prior to release, inmates will be provided with community resource information. As stated above, there are specific reasons why it will be impossible to provide this information "a few weeks prior to release" to our entire population, but it is available to all inmates at some point prior to their release. In addition to this information, the Department is currently providing post-release counseling services to inmates enrolled in custodial rehabilitative programs or who have access to a Rehabilitation Officer (RO). The Department endeavors to provide these services to as many inmates as possible, but the constraints associated with providing rehabilitative counseling services to un-sentenced short-stay-inmates limits our ability to reach the entire population. The Department does not see the need to force an inmate being released to acknowledge, in writing, that they have received these services, or the need to retain that acknowledgment in their custodial file. Because most of the inmates we release were in custody for only a few days or even a few hours, past experience tells us the overwhelming majority will reject our offer to provide them with this specific information. The Department does not feel that establishing a process, which may ultimately lead to a conflict as the inmate is being released, would be beneficial to the overall goal.

F2: Some in-custody programs are proven to be effective and improve outcomes for released inmates. In the past the DOC has provided programs for all risk levels of women inmates. Today, program space is limited to a fraction of the women's population.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2A: SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2011-2012 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF / DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RESPONSE Consistent with its "treatment versus re-incarceration" approach, and its commitment to effective programs, the County should re- evaluate the DOC budget to determine the value of reallocating or increasing funding to provide more programs to a larger population of women at Elmwood. Response to 2A: The Department of Correction - Programs Unit strives to offer programs and services to as many women inmates as possible. At this time all women inmates receive some form of effective programming. Although additional funds would obviously increase our ability to offer programs to all of our inmates, the types of programs we offer to women are constricted by a number of factors which include, length of stay, type of offense charged, violence potential, classification/segregation needs, and space requirements. The Department continues to do whatever we can to ensure the programming needs of all of our inmates are met.

R2B: Based on the success of the recent Summit program hosted by the Chaplaincy, the County should consider including more summits on a regular basis. Response to 2B: Although the recent Summit hosted by the Chaplaincy was a well-attended summit, it may be too soon to measure the actual outcomes. The Department is currently tracking the participants and will be evaluating the effectiveness of this type of programming over the next 12 months. If the measured outcomes are significant, the department will certainly work with the Chaplaincy to host future summits.

F3: Most female inmates lack information about available in-custody programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The County should improve communication about programs to the incarcerated women by posting the same, standard description of SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2011-2012 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF / DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RESPONSE all in-custody programs available in all housing units, along with which units are eligible to participate. Response to 3: The Department agrees with this suggestion and is working to ensure that the resource information is posted in all of the housing units. The Department is always cautious about allowing inmates access to housing units that are outside of their classification, or accessing inmates in other housing units that may be incompatible, but will work towards providing information about programming options as suggested. One suggestion to resolve some of these issues was to develop additional classroom space where these inmates could come together outside their housing units. Once a source of funding has been identified, the Department will work on providing the necessary security staff to open one of the closed areas of the Elmwood campus.

F4: Inmates are classified according to their behavior and past history and are assigned to housing units accordingly. No further consideration of the availability of programs that could rehabilitate is done during initial classification.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4A: The County should broaden the classification assessment to determine whether an inmate will avail themselves of education programs and then house them accordingly. If inmates choose non-participation, they should be moved into a housing unit where no programs are offered, freeing up space in the units that offer programs for the inmates who want them. Response to 4A: This process is already in place, and will become more institutionalized as the new CAIS evaluation System is put into place later this year. Inmates are screened for programming at intake and throughout their incarceration period by both the Classification Officers and Rehabilitation Officers. The Department has already designated housing units that provide specialized classes and services, and absent security concerns, inmates who meet a certain classification criteria are housed together in these units. The Department also recently acquired the CAIS (Correctional Assessment and Intervention System) tool through NCCD (National Council on Crime and Delinquency). This tool will enhance the Department's ability to assess the inmates for Risk levels and to place inmates in appropriate housing units where they can access appropriate programing. SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2011-2012 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF / DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RESPONSE

R4B: The County should also post information about requesting re-evaluation of one's classification to clarify how it affects participation in programs. Response to 4B: The County has a protocol set up for re-evaluating the classification of each inmate at different stages of their incarceration period. This protocol includes a 30 day file review and/or an oral interview with a classification officer for inmates in level 3 and 4 housing. However, due to security reasons, the Department is unable to post the specific criteria used to classify inmates, or assess their security risk to staff or other inmates. The Department does agree that the posting of a generalized statement that inmates may request a review of their classification would be beneficial.

F5: Catholic Charities is contracted to provide emergency bus tokens. However, some women are released without any transportation assistance, such as a ride or a bus pass. They are also released with the clothing they were wearing when booked. The clothing may no longer fit or may be inappropriate given the weather on the day of their release.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5A: The County should ensure Catholic Charities supplies the bus tokens when requested. Response to 5A: In years past Catholic Charities provided bus tokens upon request, but this specific service was discontinued due to budgetary constraints. The Department is willing to distribute bus tokens to inmates being released if we could identify an ongoing funding source for the purchase of these tokens.

R5B: The County should contract a CBO to provide appropriate clothing to released inmate when they need clothing. SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2011-2012 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF / DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RESPONSE Response to 5B: The issue of clothing has been addressed in recent years, but obtaining clothing from community based organizations has been sporadic over the last few years and the Department recently discontinued the practice after discovering contaminated clothing in one of the supply chains. The Department now ensures that every inmate being released has presentable clothing to wear. We either lauder the clothing they wore into the facility, make arrangements to have someone bring in clothing to wear upon release, or provide them with clothing that is available through a secondary source.

F6: The gap in time between release from DOC custody to Probation supervision is a period as long as 72 hours, a sufficiently long time for a newly released individual to be directed toward new criminal behavior.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The County should staff Probation officers at Elmwood to meet with and provide guidance to women on the day they are released. Response to 6: There are currently Probation Officers assigned to the Elmwood Complex. The Elmwood Facility Administration already provides office space on site for Probation Staff.

F7: The one-stop Re-entry Resource Center (RRC) is intended to support all individuals being released (not just those released under AB109); however, this is not clear to potentially participating agencies or released individuals.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7A: SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2011-2012 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF / DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RESPONSE The County should communicate to all participating CCP agencies or departments and to CBO's that the RRC is available to all newly released inmates, not just those being released under AB109. Response to 7A: The Department agrees with this recommendation. All inmates participating in custodial programs who are suitable for transition to out-of-custody programs are transferred to the Reentry Resource Center (RRC). The first phase of the RRC opened in February 2012, the building and the programming concepts are still developing.

R7B: The County, through implementation of Recommendation 8 below, should include the information about the RRC. E.g., its address and hours of operation, to all inmates at the time of their release from jail. Receipt of this information should be acknowledged and signed for by the released inmates at the time of receipt. Response to 7B: The Department agrees with this recommendation. Once the RRC is equipped to accept and meet the needs of the inmates, the Department will provide all inmates with this information. The Department does not see the need to force an inmate being released to acknowledge, in writing, that they have received information about these continuing services, or the need to retain that acknowledgment in their custodial file. Because most of the inmates we release were in custody for only a few days or even a few hours, past experience tells us the overwhelming majority will reject our offer to provide them with this specific information. The Department does not feel that establishing a process, which may ultimately lead to a conflict as the inmate is being released, would be beneficial to the overall goal.

F8: Much of the responsibility for post-release rehabilitation lies with CBO's and faith-based institutions. These organizations want to help, have resources to help, and can perform roles the criminal justice agencies do not.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2011-2012 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF / DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RESPONSE The County should appoint a coordinator to provide oversight and leadership to coordinate County, CBO and volunteer civic groups ready to assist with in-custody and out-of-custody support. Response to 8: The Department agrees with this recommendation. The County has funded and is currently seeking a coordinator for the Reentry Network.

F9: Mentor or sponsor-based treatment groups, such as AA and NA models, are effective because the released individual (addict) has a person upon whom they can rely on for long-term, daily support. A similar network for released inmates does not exist.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The County should consider designing and funding a similar CBO group for the long-term, daily support of previous offenders, e.g., "Offenders Anonymous." Response to 9: The Department facilitates approximately 50 meetings each week for - AA, NA, Al Anon, Chaplains of different religious denominations. In addition to that the Department also holds approximately 30 classes each week. These meetings and classes are held for inmates of all levels and in all facilities. These meetings and classes are facilitated by Communities Based Organizations (CBOs). The Department is also working with a peer mentoring group at the RRC. It is anticipated that this group will potentially expand to include in-custody inmates in the future. As mentioned in response 8, once the newly created Reentry network expands services, other opportunities will be provided to this population.

F10: The inmate request form does a poor job of communicating what type of information or services are available and may be requested. SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2011-2012 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF / DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RESPONSE

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The County should revise the inmate request form, or supplement it with the information distributed in Recommendation 1A to communicate to inmates, the broad range of information that may be obtained using the form, e.g., all the services available to inmates from Catholic Charities. Response to 10: The Department agrees with this recommendation. The Department will review the existing form and expand it to include the additional information/services that may be requested.

August 27, 2012 — How Santa Clara County Decides to Lease Property at Below Fair Market Rates.

7 pages 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: relates to the information that should be included in a staff transmittal to the Board before approval of a BFM lease. First, we note that existing County policy regarding BFM leases is set forth in Board Policy 5.9.5.2, which clearly gives the Board discretion to approve BFM leases. In instances where a BFM lease is presented to the Board for consideration, it seems reasonable to quantify the difference between the actual fair market value (FMV) and the proposed lease amount, as well as the rationale for the proposed BFM lease rate, in order to assist the Board in making an informed decision. Appropriate language could be added to Board Policy 5.9.5.2 to require this information in staff transmittals. The Streets and Highways Code generally requires that Road Fund real property assets be leased or sold at Fair Market Value; a similar requirement exists in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations for airport property. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss 7-007 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith .

R2: relates to the process for determining FMV rates. We agree that a consistent process for determining FMV rates, either by outside professionals or in-house staff possessing the appropriate expertise, should be employed to provide the information recommended in Recommendation 1.

R3: proposes that the County centralize responsibility for County- owned real estate. We note that this recommendation has been suggested internally in the past and rejected. Each Department Head has cognizance over a variety of resources such as labor, equipment, funding and real property assets that he or she utilizes to achieve the department's mission. There is no compelling reason to strip the department head of responsibility for one particular type of resource, which must be deployed in a strategic manner in concert with the other types. Moreover, Road Fund property and Parks property have special statutory standing and constraints associated with their lease or sale. The respective directors of the Roads Dept. and the Parks Dept. are thus best qualified to manage these assets. We would also note that the Board's Finance & Government Operations Committee (FGOC) provides centralized oversight on all proposed leases and sales of County real property before being agendized for Board action. If standardization of policy and practice relating to real property leases is the goal, there are methods of achieving such standardization without resorting to centralizing responsibility for real property management. Recommendations 1 and 2 are a good start. Thank you for the opportunity to review the report. Please let me know if you require any additional information from Roads & Airports. Sylvia Gallegos, Deputy County Executive CC: Robb Courtney, Director, Parks & Recreation Dept. Jeff Draper, Director, Facilities & Fleet Dept. The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of County of Santa Clara the original Parks and Recreation Department ATTEST: Lynn Regadanz, Interim Clerk of the Board 298 Garden Hill Drive Los Gatos, California 95032-7669 (408) 355-2200 FAX 355-2290 By: Reservations (408) 355-2201 Deputy Clerk www.parkhere.org AUG 2012 Date: MEMORANDUM July 26, 2012 Date: To: Gary Graves, Chief Operating Officer Office of the County Executive Robb Courtney, Director From: Parks and Recreation Department Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Subject: In response to your memorandum of July 3, 2012, Parks and Recreation Department (Parks) staff reviewed the Grand Jury Report, and offer the response below: The leases reviewed by the report are administered by Facilities and Fleet (FAF), so the Department will not comment on those findings. Parks does have feedback related to the three recommendations of the Grand Jury as those recommendations relate to the Parks' ongoing business activities and to Parks administration of existing Board policies which govern leasing parkland for park purposes. As an overarching concept, it is important to note that parkland is subject to unique legal and policy requirements that are not applicable to other County real property assets. The leasing program for Parks is not only utilized for commercial partners to provide park services; it is utilized for establishing partnerships with public agencies and not-for- profit entities to provide parks and recreation services on County parkland that are not feasible for the County to provide.

August 27, 2012 — Community-Based Organizations: Partners in the Community*

4 pages 2 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: Departments and CBOs have expressed a need for a low-dollar contracts approval process. Response: 933.05(a)(2) The respondent disagrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The County should develop a review and approval process that outlines how low-dollar, simple scope contracts may be expeditiously approved. Response: 933.05(b) (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. On of the Report, it is stated "Although the Board of Supervisors' policy allows delegation of authority to the Director of Procurement or to the Agencies/Departments, the new policy has raised the delegation of authority from the Departments to Procurement for contracts less than $100,000." This statement is erroneous. Board of Supervisors' Policy Manual section 5 relating to Soliciting and Contracting provides Agencies/Departments with the authority to enter into agreements with a total contract value of $100,000 or less without Board of Supervisors' approval, but the Director of Procurement had previously, and continues to have, executing authority for these agreements. Departments usually execute contracts under $100,000 using the Director of Procurement's authority, ” and the Department has the option to add contracts to the Master Contract List (MCL) if the Department enters into subsequent contracts with the same contractor resulting in a cumulative total exceeding $100,000. In referring to the review process that is under development by the Office of the County Executive and the Procurement Department, the report states on :"However, unless this process re- establishes departmental authority for contracts less than $100,000, the review could become a roadblock to expeditious processing of small dollar contracts, particularly with CBOs who have a proven track record of good service to the County." The primary aim of section 5 is to confirm the authority of the Board of Supervisors as the only body that has authority to enter into contracts and issue solicitations on behalf of the County, unless contracting authority has been specifically delegated to someone other than the Board pursuant to state law, County Ordinance Code, resolution, or express action of the Board. To aid Agencies/Departments in the solicitation process, section 5 provides for advance planning after the identification of a need to ensure that the selected solicitation process will result in the best outcome for the County. The policy states that an informal competitive process may be used to procure professional services with a contract value of no more than $100,000 per budget unit per fiscal year. As has been the past practice, Agencies/Departments utilizing this process must send the solicitation document to a minimum of three vendors, and explain in a written justification to the Director of Procurement why and how the vendors were selected. The solicitation document for this process is not required to be posted or made public.2 The Administration affirms the intent of section 5 is to provide for an open and competitive process for individuals and organizations that do business with the County. The Office of the County Executive and the Procurement Department, along with the Office of the County Counsel, will continue to work with Agencies and Departments to streamline small dollar contracting processes within the limits of the current Board policy.

F2: The County issues numerous, often duplicated, client surveys required for reporting and monitoring CBO performance. 933.05(a)(1) The respondent agrees with this finding. Response:

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The County should initiate a cross-functional team, including representatives of the County Agencies and CBOs, to evaluate ways to streamline or consolidate client surveys. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The recommendation has been partially implemented, but will be fully implemented in the future. The Administration has established communications with the Silicon Valley Center for Nonprofits (SVCN) and other CBOs with regards to contract issues, and this issue was included in past discussions. A cross-functional team with representatives of County operating departments and CBOs will be established to evaluate ways to streamline and improve the survey and monitoring process. This team will begin meeting in mid-January, after the CBO peak season. Cal, Gov. Code § 23005; Policy 5, section 5.3.5.1 Authority of the Board. Policy 5, section 5.6.5.1.C.2 Informal Competitive Procurement Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss CHILD IMPACT The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on children and youth. SENIOR IMPACT The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on seniors. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS The recommended action will have no/neutral sustainability implications.

August 23, 2012 — City of Sunnyvale*

5 pages 7 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Public sector employees are eligible for retirement at least 10 years earlier than is common for private sector employees. City Response: The City disagrees partially with the finding. There are positions in the public sector that do not typically have comparable private sector counterparts. Most notably, police and fire services are typically provided by the public sector only, so it is difficult to compare retirement ages for public safety personnel against the private sector. As such, the City of Sunnyvale disagrees with the finding as it relates to our Safety personnel.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Cities should adopt pension plans to extend the retirement age beyond current retirement plan ages. City Response: The City of Sunnyvale, as a contracting agency of CalPERS, does not have the ability to extend the retirement age beyond current retirement plan ages offered by the CalPERS formulas. The City has recently implemented a second-tier retirement plan for its Safety employees that increased the retirement age from 50 to 55 and is actively working to extend Miscellaneous from 55 to 60. Additionally, the Sunnyvale City Council took formal action on April 3, 2012 to endorse Governor Brown's 12-point pension reform plan. One of the components of that plan is to increase the retirement age for both Miscellaneous and Safety. If implemented as proposed, the retirement age would increase for the City's pension plans.

F2: Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, and Palo Alto have adopted second tier plans that offer reduced benefits, which help reduce future costs, but further changes are needed to address today's unfunded liability. Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale have not adopted second tier plans. City Response: The City disagrees partially with the finding. In the time between the City of Sunnyvale completing the survey and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury issuing its report, a second-tier pension plan was implemented for Safety employees, with new Safety employees now on the 3% @ 55 formula.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2A: Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale should work to implement second tier plans. City Response: Agree. This recommendation has been implemented for the City's Safety employees and is in negotiation for its Miscellaneous employees, with three of four Miscellaneous bargaining units already in agreement on a second tier. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the fourth Miscellaneous bargaining unit expired on June 30, 2012, and negotiations on a new MOU are nearing a conclusion. As noted previously, the intended outcome of those negotiations is a second-tier pension plan for Miscellaneous employees.

R2B: For Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas, and Palo Alto, which have not implemented second tier plans for MISC and Public Safety second tier plans should be implemented for both plans. City Response: Not applicable

R2C: All Cities' new tier of plans should close the unfunded liability burden they have pushed to future generations. The new tier should include raising the retirement age, increasing employee contributions, and adopting pension plan caps that ensure pensions do not exceed salary at retirement. City Response: Increasing the retirement age is addressed in the response to

F3: Retroactive benefit enhancements were enacted by the Cities using overly optimistic ROI and actuarial assumptions without adequate funding in place to pay for them. City Response: The City agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Cities should adopt policies that do not permit benefit enhancements unless sufficient monies are deposited, such as in an irrevocable trust, concurrent with enacting the enhancement, to prevent an increase in unfunded liability. City Response: Agree. The recommendation has not yet been implemented; however, City staff will update Council Fiscal Policy with a statement that addresses this recommendation and will seek Council approval of the update prior to the end of FY 2012/2013.

F4: The Cities are making an overly generous contribution toward the cost of providing benefits. City Response: The City agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4A: The Cities should require all employees to pay the maximum employee contribution rate of a given plan. City Response: The City agrees with this recommendation. As noted previously, on April 3, 2012, the Sunnyvale City Council took formal action endorsing Governor Brown's comprehensive pension reform proposal. One of the points of the Governor's 12-point plan is to have agencies and their employees equally share the normal cost of the pension benefit. If this component of the Governor's plan is implemented as proposed, it would ensure Sunnyvale's employees paid the maximum employee contribution rate plus a portion of the employer contribution rate. Currently, the City is making incremental progress with its bargaining units to achieve full contribution by employees of the employee contribution rate. Currently, five of six bargaining units are contributing 3% of pay towards the employee contribution rate. The sixth bargaining unit is currently in negotiations with the City on a new MOU, and the City's expectation is that bargaining unit will also move to a 3% of pay contribution. Going forward as contracts expire, the City will continue to negotiate an increase in the amount the employees contribute to the employee portion of the pension expense until the maximum employee contribution is reached.

R4B: The Cities should require employees to pay some portion of the past service cost associated with the unfunded liability, in proportion to the benefits being offered. City Response: As noted above, the City is currently focused on making progress toward employees making the full employee contribution of the pension expense. Requiring employees to pay some portion of the past service cost associated with the unfunded liability would require negotiation, but is something that the City can consider once it has negotiated full employee contribution of the employee share of the pension expense. With that said, implementation of this recommendation would need to be considered and potentially pursued within the context of all elements of an MOU, and as such, the City cannot definitively commit to implementing this recommendation.

F5: The Cities are not fully funding OPEB benefits as evidenced by large unfunded liabilities and small funded ratios. City Response: The City agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Cities should immediately work toward implementing policy changes and adopting measures aimed at making full OPEB ARC payments as soon as possible. City Response: Agree. The City of Sunnyvale has implemented measures to fully fund its OPEB liability. The City has been making the full Annual Required Contribution (ARC) on our OPEB obligation since FY 2010/11. Furthermore, the City Council approved the establishment of an OPEB Trust in 2010, with initial funding of $32.6 million contributed during the first half of 2011. As of June 30, 2012, the OPEB Trust has a balance of $37.8 million. Contributing the ARC each year is incorporated into the City's long-term financial plan, and doing so is expected to result in the OPEB Trust being fully funded by FY 2031/32. At that point, earnings from the Trust will be used to partially offset the City's annual cost for providing retiree medical benefits.

F6: The City of San Jose permits the transfer of pension trust fund money, when ROI exceeds expectations, to the SRBR, despite the fact that the pension trust funds are underfunded. City Response: Not applicable

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The City of San Jose should eliminate the SRBR program or amend the SRBR program to prevent withdrawal of pension trust money whenever the pension-funded ratio is less than 100%. City Response: Not applicable

F7: The Cities' defined benefit pension plan costs are volatile. Defined contribution plan costs are predictable and therefore more manageable by the Cities. City Response: The City agrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Cities should transition from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans as the new tier plans are implemented. City Response: As noted previously, the City of Sunnyvale contracts with CalPERS to administer the pension benefit for existing employees. CalPERS does not currently offer a defined contribution plan, and the City does not have the option of going to a defined contribution plan outside of CalPERS for new hires. However, one of the components of the Governor's pension reform plan is a hybrid defined benefit/defined contribution retirement plan. Should this aspect of the Governor's plan be implemented, the City will then have a portion of its retirement benefit shifted from defined benefit to defined contribution. If this particular component of the Governor's plan is not implemented, it would be up to CalPERS to otherwise offer a defined contribution plan in the future for the City to have this option. Should this occur, setting up a new tier plan based on a defined contribution is something that the City can consider. This would have to be negotiated with the City's bargaining units, but it would provide another option for containing personnel costs that the City could explore.

June 19, 2012 — 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report San Jose’s City Hall – a Promise Kept or a Promise Broken?

17 pages 2 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: The language of the 1996 Measure I seemed clear and simple, a reasonable promise by the City to the voters. However, it failed to provide for long-term accountability to the taxpayers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The City should ensure that future measures include citizen oversight committees and should require periodic accounting reports to demonstrate compliance with the measure.

F2: The City can perform a compliance update but has chosen to not certify ongoing compliance of the Civic Center Project to Measure I, meaning taxpayers are not able to determine whether the City met the will of the voters.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The City should commission an independent audit of the project to determine compliance to Measure I. Appendix A: 1999 - 2000 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report and the City of San Jose Response 11 12 13 14

June 13, 2012 — 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report County Updates the Look and Feel of Its Website Without Attention

6 pages 2 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: The County lacks a policy that governs website management, structure and content.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1A: The County should develop and implement a comprehensive website management policy.

R1B: The County should assign an individual within the Office of the County Executive with countywide website management responsibility.

R1C: The County policy should require departments to identify an individual responsible for department content and updates. 4

F2: The County website contains broken links and dead-ends, making it difficult to navigate.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The County should implement a website quality control function to ensure ease of access and functionality. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 29th day of May, 2012. Kathryn G. Janoff Foreperson Alfred P. Bicho Foreperson pro tem James T. Messano Secretary 6

March 16, 2012 — 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report an Analysis of Pension and Other Post Employment Benefits Issue

35 pages 18 findings 23 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 18 findings

F1: Public sector employees are eligible for retirement at least 10 years earlier than is common for private sector employees.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Cities should adopt pension plans to extend the retirement age beyond current retirement plan ages.

F2: Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Palo Alto have adopted second tier plans that offer reduced Benefits, which help reduce future costs, but further changes are needed to address today’s unfunded liability. Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale have not adopted second tier plans.

Related Recommendations (4)

R2: Does CalPERS administer your pension fund? If not, please identify and describe the manner in which the pension plan is being administered.

R2A: Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale should work to implement second tier plans.

R2B: For Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Palo Alto, which have not implemented second tier plans for MISC and Public Safety second tier plans should be implemented for both plans.

R2C: All Cities’ new tier of plans should close the unfunded liability burden they have pushed to future generations. The new tier should include raising the retirement age, increasing employee contributions, and adopting pension plan caps that ensure pensions do not exceed salary at retirement. 26

F3: Retroactive Benefit enhancements were enacted by Cities using overly optimistic ROI and actuarial assumptions without adequate funding in place to pay for them.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Cities should adopt policies that do not permit Benefit enhancements unless sufficient monies are deposited, such as in an irrevocable trust, concurrent with enacting the enhancement, to prevent an increase in unfunded liability.

F4: The Cities are making an overly generous contribution toward the cost of providing Benefits.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: For each identified plan, what percent of an employee’s income is earned toward retirement each year of employment? • For each identified plan, is there an identified maximum salary percent cap that can be earned in retirement?

R4A: The Cities should require all employees to pay the maximum employee contribution rate of a given plan.

R4B: The Cities should require employees to pay some portion of the Past Service Cost associated with the unfunded liability, in proportion to the Benefits being offered.

F5: The Cities are not fully funding OPEB benefits as evidenced by large unfunded liabilities and small funded ratios.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Cities, should immediately work toward implementing policy changes and adopting measures aimed at making full OPEB ARC payments as soon as possible.

F6: The City of San Jose permits the transfer of pension trust fund money, when ROI exceeds expectations, to the SRBR, despite the fact that the pension trust funds are underfunded. 27

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The City of San Jose should eliminate the SRBR program or amend the SRBR program to prevent withdrawal of pension trust money whenever the pension-funded ratio is less than 100%.

F7: The Cities’ defined benefit pension plan costs are volatile. Defined contribution plan costs are predictable and therefore more manageable by the Cities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Cities should transition from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans as the new tier plans are implemented.

F8: How much pension money was paid out in each of the last two fiscal years to retirees? • How many retired employees are currently collecting benefits? • How many active employees are there currently? • How many employees are within five years of being eligible for retirement?

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: How much pension money was paid out in each of the last two fiscal years to retirees? • How many retired employees are currently collecting benefits? • How many active employees are there currently? • How many employees are within five years of being eligible for retirement?

F9: For each plan, please identify and quantify all significant actuarial assumptions used in evaluation of ARC to include: a) Amortization period b) Investment rate of return c) Projected salary increases d) Overall payroll growth e) Inflation factor f) Smoothing duration g) Other, if applicable

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: For each plan, please identify and quantify all significant actuarial assumptions used in evaluation of ARC to include: a) Amortization period b) Investment rate of return c) Projected salary increases d) Overall payroll growth e) Inflation factor f) Smoothing duration g) Other, if applicable

F10: What is the unfunded liability of each identified plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011?

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: What is the unfunded liability of each identified plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011?

F11: Please indicate the major reasons for the unfunded liability. For each reason provided, indicate the approximate percentage of contribution to total unfunded liability.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: Please indicate the major reasons for the unfunded liability. For each reason provided, indicate the approximate percentage of contribution to total unfunded liability.

F12: What is the funded ratio of each identified plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011?

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: What is the funded ratio of each identified plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011?

F13: When was the last time the funds have been funded at the level of 100% or higher?

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: When was the last time the funds have been funded at the level of 100% or higher?

F14: Have pension contributions ever been reduced from calculated ARC payments? • What year was the last time this happened?

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: Have pension contributions ever been reduced from calculated ARC payments? • What year was the last time this happened?

F15: Please summarize any significant changes to pension benefits over the last ten years for each plan. • For each, indicate if this was a pension benefit enhancement or reduction.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: Please summarize any significant changes to pension benefits over the last ten years for each plan. • For each, indicate if this was a pension benefit enhancement or reduction.

F16: Please provide any evidence that indicates how projected pension costs are expected to change in the next 5 to 10 years. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 30 Appendix B: Grand Jury Survey - continued

Related Recommendations (1)

R16: Please provide any evidence that indicates how projected pension costs are expected to change in the next 5 to 10 years. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 30

F17: Please provide any evidence of the strategies that are in work to reduce the rate of pension escalation. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.)

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: Please provide any evidence of the strategies that are in work to reduce the rate of pension escalation. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.)

F18: For each plan, please provide evidence as to how pension fund past performance is doing relative to assumed performance for the last ten years. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) Section 2: OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: For each plan, please provide evidence as to how pension fund past performance is doing relative to assumed performance for the last ten years. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) Section 2: OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

March 14, 2012 — 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Custody or Rehabilitation? the County’s Approach to Women Inmates

26 pages 10 findings 15 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: A majority of female inmates lack information about and assistance with planning for successful re-entry to the community. Most released individuals are not given written instructions to aid in meeting the immediate terms of release.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1A: The County should prepare, maintain and distribute the written list of re-entry keys to success to be given to inmates a few weeks before their release date. Such information would include transportation information and relevant agencies with explanations of their roles, contact numbers and addresses, where and when to find a bus, a free ticket, a free phone call, a volunteer to talk to if needed.

R1B: The County should ensure the information developed in Recommendation 1A is delivered into the hands of inmates a few weeks prior to release (where possible) including an acknowledgement, signed by the released inmate and retained in their file, that the information is received.

F2: Some in-custody programs are proven to be effective and improve outcomes for released inmates. In the past the DOC has provided programs for all risk levels of women inmates. Today, program space is limited to a fraction of the women’s population.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2A: Consistent with its “treatment versus re-incarceration” approach, and its commitment to effective programs, the County should re-evaluate the DOC budget to determine the value of reallocating or increasing funding to provide more programs to a larger population of women at Elmwood.

R2B: Based on the success of the recent Summit program hosted by the Chaplaincy, the County should consider including more summits on a regular basis. 17

F3: Most female inmates lack information about available in-custody programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The County should improve communication about programs to the incarcerated women by posting the same, standard description of all in-custody programs available in all housing units, along with which units are eligible to participate.

F4: Inmates are classified according to their behavior and past history and are assigned to housing units accordingly. No further consideration of the availability of programs that could rehabilitate is done during initial classification.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4A: The County should broaden the classification assessment to determine whether an inmate will avail themselves of educational programs and then house them accordingly. If inmates choose non-participation, they should be moved into a housing unit where no programs are offered, freeing up space in the units that offer programs for the inmates who want them.

R4B: The County should also post information about requesting re-evaluation of one’s classification to clarify how it affects participation in programs.

F5: Catholic Charities is contracted to provide emergency bus tokens. However, some women are released without any transportation assistance, such as a ride or a bus pass. They are also released with the clothing they were wearing when booked. The clothing may no longer fit or may be inappropriate given the weather on the day of their release.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5A: The County should ensure Catholic Charities supplies the bus tokens when requested.

R5B: The County should contract a CBO to provide appropriate clothing to released inmates when they need clothing. 18

F6: The gap in time between release from DOC custody to Probation supervision is a period as long as 72 hours, a sufficiently long time for a newly released individual to be distracted toward new criminal behavior.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The County should staff Probation officers at Elmwood to meet with and provide guidance to women on the day they are released.

F7: The one-stop Re-entry Resource Center (RRC) is intended to support all individuals being released (not just those released under AB 109); however, this is not clear to potentially participating agencies or released individuals.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7A: The County should communicate to all participating CCP agencies or departments and to CBOs that the RRC is available to all newly released inmates, not just those being released under AB 109.

R7B: The County, through implementation of Recommendation 8 below, should include the information about the RRC, e.g., its address and hours of operation, to all inmates at the time of their release from jail. Receipt of this information should be acknowledged and signed for by the released inmates at the time of receipt.

F8: Much of the responsibility for post-release rehabilitation lies with CBOs and faith-based institutions. These organizations want to help, have resources to help, and can perform roles the criminal justice agencies do not.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The County should appoint a coordinator to provide oversight and leadership to coordinate County, CBO and volunteer civic groups ready to assist with in-custody and out-of-custody support. 19

F9: Mentor or sponsor-based treatment groups, such as AA and NA models, are effective because the released individual (addict) has a person upon whom they can rely on for long-term, daily support. A similar network for released inmates does not exist.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The County should consider designing and funding a similar CBO group for the long- term, daily support of previous offenders, e.g., “Offenders Anonymous.”

F10: The inmate request form does a poor job of communicating what type of information or services are available and may be requested.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The County should revise the inmate request form, or supplement it with the information distributed in Recommendation 1A to communicate to inmates, the broad range of information that may be obtained using the form, e.g., all the services available to inmates from Catholic Charities.

October 19, 2011 — 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report the South Santa Clara Valley Memorial Special

10 pages 4 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: The Board is conducting meetings and taking unlawful actions without regard to the legal parameters that govern their conduct.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board should obtain the required training focused on their ethical, legal, and fiscal responsibilities for being a board member and, in particular, for running a veterans memorial district.

F2: The District does not have a written mission statement or bylaws to guide it in defining and fulfilling the District’s purpose, and communicating its function to veterans in the community or the District residents in general.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The District should adopt a written mission statement and set of bylaws. This activity could be coordinated with the local chapter of the California Association of Special Districts and modeled after other veterans memorial districts.

F3: The District has no oversight that would ensure they are fulfilling their special district obligations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: LAFCO should include this district in its next service area review and should expand the review to a performance management review, examining the District’s ability to deliver appropriate services and determine whether the District has the operations knowledge to perform their duties.

F4: The District demonstrates no effort to communicate its mission and operations to all District veterans.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The District should communicate its mission and advertise their programs to all veterans in the District. For instance, it could establish a website to promote and welcome all military veterans.

August 01, 2011 — 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report How Santa Clara County Decides to Lease Property at Below Fair

20 pages 3 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: The historic method of awarding public property in BFM rents and ground leases did not require that transmittals include complete financial analysis and corresponding service summaries to communicate the full value (or benefit) to the County of granting BFM rent or ground leases.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Before awarding a BFM rent or ground leases, the County should require that transmittals include financial analysis and corresponding service summaries to communicate the full value (or benefit) to the County. Specifically, the County should require the transmittals to include: a. A financial analysis—including the fair market value of the property being awarded and the County’s costs associated with the property—to show the value being received by the County in exchange for the BFMR or ground lease. b. A description of how oversight will occur, such as a tie to a service agreement c. A description of the services provided by the lessee and related costs or savings to the County

F2: Fair market value was calculated inconsistently and not in accordance with established appraisal methods.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The County should develop and implement a process that establishes fair market value through more rigorous valuation, such as through a certified real estate appraiser.

F3: No single County department is acting as the point of expertise and control of the County owned real estate subject to BFM rent or ground leases or agreements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The County should identify one department responsible for County-owned real estate, including the responsibility to value and to recommend the award of BFM rent and ground leases to the BOS.

April 06, 2011 — 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Change Starts at the Top in Santa Clara Valley Medical Center

15 pages 7 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The new SCVMC management team is making good strides to address historically poor financial management by creating cost center manager responsibility, targeted to deliver break-even or better financial performance.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1A: The County should require that SCVMC stays within the budget to avoid future unplanned subsidies from the General Fund.

R1B: The County should require that hospital leadership runs SCVMC as a business and require leadership to make appropriate financial decisions using the data the hospital systems generate.

F2: SCVMC has historically operated below capacity, which directly contributed to its chronically poor financial performance, resulting in County bailout from the General Fund. Increasing productivity is critical to SCVMC’s financial performance.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The County should implement systems to increase productivity in reaching break-even financial performance.

F3: The performance indicators imposed by the HCRA—improved patient experience, improved capacity and access, measure and control cost—are precisely the measures that should have been in place years ago and, if implemented, can lead to significantly improved SCVMC performance.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Regardless of how HCRA may be affected by the United States Supreme Court decision, the County should adopt performance measurements consistent with the HCRA indicators because they can lead to improved SCVMC performance. 11

F4: The Audit pointed out that SCVMC keeps a separate set of books from the County’s SAP system, and the two do not match. This makes it difficult to obtain accurate financial information.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The County should develop and implement an interface between the SCVMC and County systems to ensure data consistency, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

F5: SCVMC financial data is not transparent to the public due to the confusing way parts of SCVMC finances are broken up and tracked in the County’s CAFR.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The County should require an SCVMC consolidated financial statement reported as part of the CAFR.

F6: The new EpicCare system offers benefits in streamlining records, patient access to records, and accounting performance (accounts payable/accounts receivable systems).

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The County should give SCVMC’s implementation of EpicCare top priority to meet the scheduled May 2013 date.

F7: SCVMC has best-in-class care facilities that would be attractive to new patients, but SCVMC does little to advertise its services and specialties to attract new patients.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The County should establish a marketing function directed at increasing public awareness of the services SCVMC offers.

April 04, 2011 — 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Ab 109/ab 117 Realignment: is Santa Clara County Ready for Prison

19 pages 7 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The County, through the CCP, has developed a well thought out and progressive approach to AB 109, based on a strategy of treatment versus reincarceration.

F2: The County has missed the opportunity to proactively communicate its work and progress to the community at large. This leaves county residents vulnerable to misinformation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The County should proactively and regularly communicate its approach to AB 109 and its progress, through community outreach or the media to communicate its successes, to educate the public, and debunk misunderstandings.

F3: The County has not defined the metrics it will use to measure success. State-funded incentive payments will be measured by metrics detailed in the penal code.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The County should ensure the County Probation Officer is developing a means of gathering the data and reporting on the metrics outlined in the penal code, as well as developing the metrics to evaluate the success of the CCP Plan as a whole.

F4: The County’s CCP is a cross-functional team made up of the right stakeholders who are collaborating effectively on AB 109 implementation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The County should consider establishing a long-term role for the CCP to ensure the gains made by their collaboration continue. 15

F5: The CCP recommended and the BOS approved a Re-entry Resource Center (RRC) located in a convenient, central county location, for both AB 109 releases and others being released from county jail.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5A: The County should ensure the RRC continues to be fully staffed with the County agencies and CBO representatives needed for effective re-entry, including the addition of case managers to aid in out-of-custody rehabilitation planning.

R5B: The County should communicate broadly, with a clear and consistent message to in- custody and out-of-custody clients, that the RRC is open for business and what resources are available there.

F6: The Sheriff argues that Elmwood Correctional Facility was not designed to house longer-term inmates and needs funds for facility upgrades.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The County should continue to monitor the AB 109 length of stays to determine whether long-term facilities upgrades are needed.

F7: The County’s approach to implementing AB 109 is progressive, evidence-based and focused on treatment versus reincarceration. It is currently limited to just those individuals that fit the AB 109 N/N/Ns criteria.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The County should consider expanding its AB 109 approach to support other individuals being released from jail.

January 19, 2011 — 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Veterans Memorial Restoration:

8 pages 7 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The restoration plan and project status was not communicated by the OCA consistently and accurately to the public.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The City of San Jose should regularly communicate public art restoration projects to the public in a timely and accurate manner.

F2: The OCA recognizes the need for improved security measures, including improved night lighting and security cameras.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The City of San Jose should give funding priority to providing an adequate security solution for the SJVM.

F3: Obtaining copyright and licensing rights from the original manufacturer delayed the SJVM restoration project because such terms were not in that contract.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The City of San Jose should examine and revise contract language used to purchase public art. The City’s goal should be to obtain specific rights to use or license public art designs and/or manufacturing processes, as required by the City, for an indefinite time period.

F4: Silicon Valley Community Foundation General Ledger Report (2008)

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Silicon Valley Community Foundation General Ledger Report (2008)

F5: Silicon Valley Community Foundation General Ledger Report (2009)

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Silicon Valley Community Foundation General Ledger Report (2009)

F6: Silicon Valley Community Foundation General Ledger Report (2010)

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Silicon Valley Community Foundation General Ledger Report (2010)

F7: Silicon Valley Community Foundation General Ledger Report (2011) 7 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 17th day of May, 2012. Kathryn G. Janoff Foreperson Alfred P. Bicho Foreperson pro tem James T. Messano Secretary 8

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Silicon Valley Community Foundation General Ledger Report (2011) 7 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 17th day of May, 2012. Kathryn G. Janoff Foreperson Alfred P. Bicho Foreperson pro tem James T. Messano Secretary 8

📋Fiscal Implications

5 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The County, through the CCP, has developed a well thought out and progressive approach to AB 109, based on a strategy of treatment versus re-incarceration. Response: (cid:9) The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 2

F2: The County has missed the opportunity to proactively communicate its work and progress to the community at large. This leaves county residents vulnerable to misinformation. Response: (cid:9) The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 2

F3: The County has not defined the metrics it will use to measure success. State-funded incentive payments will be measured by metrics detailed in the penal code. Response: (cid:9) The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 3

F4: The County's CCP is a cross functional team made up of the right stakeholders who are collaborating effectively on AB 109 implementation. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 4

F5: The CCP recommended and the BOS approved a Re-entry Resource Center (RRC) located in a convenient, central county location, for both AB 109 releases and others being released from county jail. Response: (cid:9) The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 4

F6: The Sheriff argues that Elmwood Correctional Facility was not designated to house longer-term inmates and needs funds for facility upgrades. Response: (cid:9) The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 5

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss (cid:9) County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith The County should proactively and regularly communicate its approach to AB 109 and its progress, through community outreach or the media to communicate its successes, to educate the public, and debunk misunderstandings. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Office of Public Affairs (OPA) will work with the Probation Department, Department of Correction, and appropriate entities to communicate about AB 109 to the media and public. Prior to implementation of AB 109, the County proactively initiated community outreach and communication to the media beginning with Criminal Justice Realignment Community Forums held in September 2011. OPA disseminated an advisory to the media before the September forum to encourage both public and media attendance. A follow-up news release was distributed to the media. Both were distributed through twitter to 2,000+ followers, and posted online in the County news room. Realignment updates were communicated to the public multiple times at the Board of Supervisors Committee and Board Meetings from September 2011 through budget hearings held in June 2012. As the County gains more experience with AB 109 and continues to achieve milestones, OPA will announce those milestones through news conferences and news releases, as appropriate.

Page 2

R3: The County should ensure the County Probation Officer is developing a means of gathering the data and reporting on the metrics outlined in the penal code, as well as developing metrics to evaluate the success of the CCP Plan as a whole. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. A fundamental principle of effective community corrections management is ongoing measurement of outcomes. Outcome reporting and ongoing evaluation are necessary for stakeholders to understand whether or not the plan or its components is having its intended impact, if not, what needs to change. The Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) formed the Evaluation Design and Policy Research and Data Analysis work group to promote the implementation and long term sustainability of data collection and analysis, track outcomes, and determine the effectiveness of policies, programs and practices in effecting offender behavior change, reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety. The Evaluation Design and Policy Research and Data Analysis work group meets monthly and is currently finalizing a data matrix to share with policymakers. Additionally, the work group hired an independent evaluation consultant to provide a written assessment of the first year of the AB109 program in Santa Clara County, based on primary and secondary data gathered from agencies and program participants. The report will contain a comprehensive description of the AB109 program, including how participants enter and exit the program, the range of services available, waitlists for different types of services, eligibility for specific services, success/completion rates for specific services (e.g. employment training, substance abuse treatment), barriers to reaching project goals, (cid:9) Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: August 21, 2012 implementation issues, process evaluation of key components, and key informant interviews of major players. In January 2012, the County Executive's Office (CEO) and the Chief Probation asked the Information Services Department (ISD) to lead a multi-phased data collection and sharing project to assist all County agencies to better track and manage public safety realignment initiatives. Phase I of this project was completed in June 2012 with the CCP data work group and the CEO directing ISD to develop plans to create a realignment data warehouse, automate the link between offenders referred to services, and standardize terminology and practices for record keeping. The CCP will use the data warehouse to answer key questions, provide reporting and analysis capabilities on cross-departmental data, and reduce manual consolidation and manipulation of data from various departmental systems.

Page 3

R4: The County should consider establishing a long-term role for the CCP to ensure the gains made by their collaboration continue. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The CCP will use the interim evaluation report to be released in the spring of 2013, the data matrix, dashboards, and current experiences on case management and service delivery to establish a long- term role for the CCP. Additionally, the County will assess the role the Re-Entry Network will have as it relates to implementing a strategic plan that is consistent with AB 109 funding and programming.

Page 4

R5A: The County should ensure the RRC continues to be fully staffed with the County agencies and CBO representatives needed for effective re-entry, including the addition of case managers to aid in out-of-custody rehabilitation planning. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. (cid:9) Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: August 21, 2012 Staffing of the RRC is being completed in phases. Currently all involved County agencies have employees stationed at the RRC. The most recent addition occurred in late June 2012 when the Board of Supervisors approved the Final FY2013 Budget which contained 75.5 positions for AB 109, with approximately 12 positions to be located at the RRC. In August 2012, Probation Officers, who are already housed at the RRC, will join the existing Multi-Agency Pilot Program (MAPP) Team to provide enhanced comprehensive case management services to those out-of-custody AB 109 clients. Lastly and currently targeted for late September 2012, CBO representatives will start to be identified and subsequently integrated into the RRC. The County is currently assessing and pinpointing the greatest needs of our AB 109 clients so that we can provide those specific services and programs via our CBO representatives.

Page 4

R5B: The County should communicate broadly, with a clear and consistent message to in-custody and out-of- custody clients, that the RRC is open for business and what resources are available there. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The County will work with its Office of Public Affairs, the Probation Department and the Department of Correction to develop a comprehensive and cohesive Information Sharing Plan (ISP). As additional resources are identified, added and integrated with existing resources, efforts will be made to disseminate this to both in-custody and out-of-custody clients. The County plans to have a permanent RRC Coordinator on board by early August 2012. This Coordinator will be responsible for developing a RRC Newsletter which will contain pertinent information about the RRC, to include available resources. The RRC Newsletter will be disseminated and distributed in September 2012. In early September 2012, the Coordinator will meet with representatives of the above-mentioned County departments to effectuate an ISP and begin its implementation.

Page 5

R6: The County should continue to monitor the AB 109 length of stays to determine whether long-term facilities upgrades are needed. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Since October of 2011, the Department of Correction has been housing inmates sentenced or incarcerated under the Public Safety Realignment Act. Data collected thus far shows that a majority (cid:9) Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: August 21, 2012 of this population consists of ex-felons that returned to our community from State Prison and have been returned to custody after re-offending or violating the terms of their supervision. Since a large percentage of this population have either significant medical needs, special housing needs, or prior convictions for serious and violent offenses, the Department of Correction is extremely concerned about the affects this changing demographic will have on the safety and security of the jail facilities. The recently published Grand Jury Report on AB 109 / AB 117 suggests waiting and studying the effects of the Public Safety Realignment Act before responding to the request for security upgrades at the jail facilities. The Department of Correction is already experiencing many of the effects of realignment, and will continue take a more proactive approach in the area of facility upgrades working with the County Executive's Office. The recent authorization to add Correctional Deputy positions to increase supervision levels at both facilities was a very positive response to what the County was currently experiencing, but the aging state of the County's custodial facilities will continue to restrict the ability to properly manage both current and future inmate populations. Inmate populations are tied to numerous social, political and economic factors. Prior to the enactment of AB 109, the inmate population in Santa Clara County had been decreasing for a number of years, but showing an increase in the percentage of serious violent offenders within the remaining population. With the passage of AB 109, the overall population has once again begun to rise, with a corresponding increase in the percentage of serious violent offenders within the rising population. Since the issue of managing jail populations is not as simple as subtracting the total population number from the number of available beds, the Department of Correction is continually analyzing trends to ensure the County is able to address the issues of care and confinement in the future. Inmates are classified and then housed using standardized criteria designed to reduce if not eliminate security and safety issues. Many years ago a majority of the jail population in Santa Clara County consisted of low-level nonviolent offenders. Since the Elmwood Complex was initially constructed to house low level misdemeanor offenders serving short-term sentences, the Department of Correction was able to accommodate this demographic. However, in the early 80's the inmate demographic in Santa Clara County began to change and the County recognized the fact that the aging facilities were unable to handle the newly developing conditions of confinement. At that time the County authorized funds to construct a new maximum/medium security facility, (Main Jail North), and to add additional medium security housing units inside what had traditionally been a minimum security jail, ("the Farm"). This development relieved pressure on the main jail housing units, but resulted in a dramatic increase in the security issues at the Elmwood Complex. Some of the external security issues have been mitigated over the years through a hardening of the fence line, but this was a public safety response to encroachment issues on the land surrounding the facility and did not resolve the long term safety and security issues inside the facility. With the enactment of AB 109, the facility is now being used to house a much higher risk inmate for a much longer term. While the County recognizes that the overall effects of the Public Safety Realignment Act will not be known for several more years, the Department of Correction believes that a failure to react in a proactive manner today to address the environmental factors that the County is already seeing in the facilities, will result in a reduction in the security of jail facilities and subsequently to public safety. (cid:9) Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: August 21, 2012

Page 5

📋Sustainability Implications

2 pages 1 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings

F7: The County's approach to implementing AB 109 is progressive, evidence-based and focused on treatment versus re-incarceration. It is currently limited to just those individuals that fit the AB 109 N/N/Ns criteria. Response: (cid:9) The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 7

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R7: The County should consider expanding is AB 109 approach to support other individuals being released from jail. Response: 933.05(b)(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The County, via its Re-Entry Strategic Network, is currently completing its Strategic Plan. This should be completed by the end of August 2012. A Program Manager position was added as part of the FY 2013 Approved Budget to specifically manage the working groups and coordinate the implementation of the Plan. This position should be filled by late August 2012 and will then manage efforts, with other Re-entry Network partners, to support other individuals being released from jail. In addition, the RRC is available to not only AB 109 clients, but also to clients currently on Probation in need of various resources available through the Center. Inmates participating Department of Correction's custodial programs who are suitable for transition to out-of-custody programs are currently transferred to the RRC. CHILD IMPACT The recommended action will have a positive impact on children and youth. Implementing the Grand Jury recommendations will continue to support offender's ability to reconnect with their families locally and to receive services needed to reduce recidivism. SENIOR IMPACT The recommended action will have a positive impact on seniors. Implementing the Grand Jury recommendations will continue to support offender's ability to reconnect with their families locally and to receive services needed to reduce recidivism. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS The recommended action will have no/neutral sustainability implications.

Page 7