Santa Clara County Grand Jury
2011-2012
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (11)
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 re-incarceration. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
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: The respondent agrees with the finding.
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. The respondent agrees with the finding. Response:
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.
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. The respondent agrees with the finding. Response:
F6:
The Sheriff argues that Elmwood Correctional Facility was not designated to house longer-term inmates and needs funds for facility upgrades. The respondent agrees with the finding. Response:
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. The respondent agrees with the finding. Response:
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss • 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.
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, 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.
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.
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. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss 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.
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.
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 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss 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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.