Santa Clara County Grand Jury
2013-2014
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 (8)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The Office of the District Attorney has an important role in collecting victim loss information prior to the time the defendant is sentenced, but attention to completion of victim loss information is not consistent within the Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The District Attorney should develop ways to improve the collection of victim loss information prior to the time the defendant is sentenced. DOR Response - Finding 1 DEFER to the Office of District Attorney with regard to assessment of their procedures and practices for collection of victim information prior to sentencing of the defendant.
F2:
The 2011 escheated victim restitution funds were sent by DOR to the District Attorney's Office and were not deposited into a designated victim services account.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The District Attorney should deposit escheated victim restitution funds into an account designated for victim services. DOR Response – Finding 2 DEFER to the Office of District Attorney with regard to management of their internal departmental accounts. DOR Note: DOR deposited 2011 escheated victim restitution funds to GLA 4422950, State- SCC Victim/Wit, in SAP, the County's accounting system. This account was also used for the 2014 escheatment. It is our understanding that it holds funds designated for victim services. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
F3:
The Probation Department does not regularly review victim restitution obligations for criminals who are in banked probation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should ensure criminals in banked probation are regularly reviewed by the Department of Probation for victim restitution obligations. DOR Response – Finding 3 DEFER to the Probation Department with regard to their procedures and practices for reviewing the status of debtor accounts related to victim information.
F4:
The Probation Department rarely seeks to revoke probation for a criminal whose only probation violation is failure to pay court-ordered victim restitution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should direct the Probation Department to aggressively ascertain the criminal's ability to pay and then calendar a violation of probation hearing when a criminal fails to pay court-ordered victim restitution. DOR Response - Finding 4 DEFER to the Probation Department with regard to their procedures and practices for revoking probation, conducting financial investigations, invoking VOP (Violation of Probation), and calendaring court hearings.
F5:
DOR is primarily a billing agency that rarely enforces collection of victim restitution in the same way as a private sector collection agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should direct DOR to develop and implement procedures that reflect the methodology used by private collection agencies in the collection of victim restitution in order to ensure that victim restitution is paid in full. DOR Response – Finding 5 AGREE WITH CLARIFICATION DOR provides much more than billing services for the County, and its primary role is to be the County's central collections office for County agencies and departments, as well as other public entities and victims of crime. The office provides professional collection services using collection enforcement techniques comparable to those used in the private sector, and tailored to the type of debt being collected. DOR Response to the June 2014 Grand Jury Report, 8-6-14 For example, collection activities for court ordered debt will vary somewhat compared to collection activities for hospital debt, debt with subrogation, or non-medical departmental debt. Variations include differences in statute limitations, court order authority, and/or availability of programs for indigency status. Collection of victim restitution has special requirements distinct from other justice collections, and private sector collection of this type of debt is rare. DOR provides collection pursuit and debt management that includes debtor contact and interviewing, financial evaluation, negotiation of payment schedules, interpretation and explanation of forms, statements, correspondence, documents, legal documents and the possible legal penalties for non-payment; as well as skip tracing; investigation and research regarding account discrepancies, complaints and payment disputes; coordination with client departments to facilitate processes (court hearings, driver's license suspension, bench warrants, referral for civil assessment, financial aid and insurance eligibility); appearance / testimony in court; account adjustments and compromises and legal enforcement (such as wage garnishments, property liens, reimbursement agreements, suits, order of examination, and bankruptcy and probate processing). Most of these activities are utilized for victim restitution accounts. However, it is correct that some collection practices used by the private sector are not employed by the County. Examples of these are home field collections and confiscation, forced sales of personal property, till tap/ till keep actions (If the debtor is a business with a cash register, the sheriff can go to the address of the business and take enough money out of the cash register to pay the judgment debt and the sheriff's fee, or remain in the judgment debtor's business establishment and take all the funds that come in until the judgment is paid), and debtor contact during late evening. DOR is interested in exploring some collection measures commonly used in the private sector but that have not been traditionally used by the County, specifically, bank levies and negative credit reporting. Both methods have potential significant downsides: Bank levies can have harsh and undesirable consequences which might jeopardize a debtor's basic food and housing funds, and negative credit reporting for court ordered debt has been controversial, with variant conflicting legal interpretations. DOR will re-look at the feasibility of adding these collection tools to its service model, and will request legal counsel to review and investigate legal implications for doing so. Note that DOR is certified by the State as a Comprehensive Collections Program (CCP) to collect and enforce court ordered debt pursuant to Penal Code 1463.007. This certification reflects the standards and best practices required by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) under which a county may recover collection costs. CCPs must use at least 10 of 17 identified collection program components to qualify for this certification. DOR employs 15 of these components (not used: credit reporting and driver's license suspension initiation; the Court provides the latter service).
F6:
DOR rarely sends delinquent victim restitution accounts to a private collection agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County should direct DOR increase the use of private collection agencies to increase the DOR Response to the June 2014 Grand Jury Report, 8-6-14 amount of victim restitution collected from delinquent criminals. DOR Response – Finding 6 AGREE DOR does not send VR accounts to outside (private or public) collections with the exception of the Tax Intercept Program (TIP) of FTB (Franchise Tax Board), where there is minimal cost ($1.49 per account in FY14). The victim is not charged collection fees, so any cost must be absorbed by the County (the County does not have authority to diminish the amount to be paid to the victim). In early 2014, a proposal was considered to refer recalcitrant delinquent victim restitution accounts to the FTB Court Ordered Debt (COD) Program and absorb related 15% collection fees. This proposal was not accepted by the County Executive, in recognition of the existing collection services provided by the County, as well as victims' statutory rights to further pursue payment through the civil court system.
F7:
Victims are not routinely made aware that they can use the Order for Victim Restitution and the Abstract of Judgment to pursue collection of restitution in the civil court, if they are not satisfied with DOR's collection and distribution of the restitution funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The County should direct DOR to notify victims, who are not satisfied with the collection and distribution of restitution by DOR, that they can pursue collection of restitution in the civil court with the Order for Restitution and the Abstract of Judgment. DOR Response – Finding 7 AGREE WITH CLARIFICATION The Order for Victim Restitution and Abstract of Judgment are commonly provided to the victim by one or more offices during the course of the victim restitution process, i.e., 1) by the District Attorney's Office before sentencing, 2) by the Court at the sentencing hearing, and 3) by the Probation Department during term of probation. However, these are not created for every case, and for such times, or when all three offices have not provided these documents, it is possible for some victims to miss receipt of this information. Accordingly, DOR does not object to adding a 4th pass to inform the victim(s), and can add to its procedures an advisory to victims referencing these documents and the importance of the information they provide. We will add this information to our standard letters to victims when the account is referred to DOR, and again at the end of the probationary term.
F8:
A portion of victim restitution funds collected is often not disbursed to victims because the DOR did not receive the victim's change in contact information even though it was known by other county agencies. DOR Response to the June 2014 Grand Jury Report, 8-6-14
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The County should explore ways for the various agencies to improve the sharing of victim contact information In order to increase the rate of disbursement of restitution. DOR Response – Finding 8 AGREE The sharing of victim contact information among the various agencies has improved significantly over the last several years. However, we are always looking for more and better ways to find missing contact information, as well as to update and correct the data base on file. The Victim Restitution Application (VRA) module in CJIC (County Justice Information System), a project of the Victim Restitution Committee, was developed by the ISD-CJIC Team with this primary goal. The VRA module has moved the County's victim restitution program a very long way in supplying important information that is shared among key departments. VR information can be reviewed over the full course of the restitution process, is much quicker than the older paper transfers, is tied to key criminal justice case elements, and is supported in by the County's infrastructural CJIC-IT service. Nonetheless, the module has not reached its full potential. In spring of 2014, the Victim Restitution Committee determined to convene a subcommittee to work on finding ways to improve this valuable centralized information source. This project will be launched in the fall of 2014. Also, DOR meets regularly with the Probation Department and the Superior Court in single department venues, as well as at the Countywide Victim Restitution Committee meetings in order to review issues, data and processes; discuss best ways to maximize collections; and work on special projects such as training or new legislation. Exploring ways to improve interdepartmental collaboration, including the sharing victim contact information, will continue to be a high priority at these meetings.
F9:
The Victim Restitution Committee has been ineffective in realizing its original goal of improving performance and outcomes in the collection of victim restitution.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9a:
The County should review the performance and effectiveness of the Victim Restitution Committee.
R9b:
The County should develop effective methods of improving performance outcomes in the collection of victim restitution. DOR Response - Finding 9 DISAGREE. DOR Response to the June 2014 Grand Jury Report, 8-6-14 The County's Victim Restitution Committee was established in 2004 to ensure a "concerted, collaborative and focused effort among public entities involved in the criminal restitution process to increase communication and coordination, and thereby improve performance and outcomes of the collection of restitution." Attendees represent the DOR, County Counsel, District Attorney's Office, Public Defender's Office, Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, Superior Court, Victim Witness Assistance Center, Sheriff's Office, and Information Systems Department - CJIC. Over the years, numerous guests have joined us, e.g., victims, Parole Board representatives, and members of 2 Grand Jury groups. In the 3 years prior to the committee's creation, DOR's average annual collection rate for formal probation VR accounts was 38%. Since 2004, this rate has increased to 45% in FY13. The increase from 38% to 45% is significant, considering this debtor population. Many have a low education level, decreasing the likelihood of their finding employment compatible with obligations to meet their responsibilities to victims. In addition, the fact that these individuals have criminal records negatively impacts their ability to find employment substantive enough to compensate victims with restitution. A great many of these debtors live lives of great upheaval: drug abuse, frequent address changes, frequent changes in relationships with companions, high incidence of serious medical needs for both themselves and family members, child support payment responsibilities to multiple households, etc. They are also likely to have few assets or income sources. The activities, initiatives and projects of the VR Committee have served to improve performance and outcomes of the collection of restitution in Santa Clara County, through its efforts and projects, as well as from the ongoing rich communication, collaboration and coordination among departments who manage VR services for the County. An excellent example of this is the development and Implementation of the California Judicial Council Forms, CR110 for adults and JV790 for juveniles, which were modified to better meet the County's specific needs. This change replaced the previously used civil judgment, which was limited to ten years. Conversely, the CR110 and JV790 are not time limited and afford victims greater legal remedy. There are also many important ongoing collateral VR activities that are continually followed and supported by the VR Committee, frequently with individual departmental sponsorship or participation, such as the reinvigoration of Juvenile Probation Department (JPD) Victim Services, and the enhancement of outreach to victims attending court. Victims are now provided with a Probation staff advocate, who assists them through the court process and aids them in seeking victim restitution orders at the time of disposition. A victim waiting room was created, which was decorated with fundraised monies and donations from the community. Weekly groups for offending minors continue throughout the county (to include classes offered at the Ranch) which promote victim empathy. Much of the above is overseen by a Juvenile Probation Officer, who is the Victim Services Coordinator. Attachment 1 summarizes VR Committee activities, showing accomplishments and associated departmental VR efforts. There is always room for improvement and reinforcement of the committee's mission. Several DOR Response to the June 2014 Grand Jury Report, 8-6-14 past projects should be continuously reviewed for possible improvements or change to coincide with new programs and legislation, and/or altered policy or conditions. The committee will also reach out to other key VR participants to invite their participation and involvement, e.g., Parole Board, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), California Revenue Officers Association (CROA) and CA Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCGCB).
F10:
The Department of Correction has not implemented a system to deduct a portion of money deposited into an Inmate Personal Fund account of every inmate ordered to pay restitution to be applied to victim restitution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The County should direct to the Department of Correction to implement a system to deduct a percent of the money deposited into an Inmate Personal Fund account of every inmate ordered to pay victim restitution. DOR Response – Finding 10 DEFER to the Office of the Sheriff with regard to their management of Inmate Personal Fund accounts. DOR Response to the June 2014 Grand Jury Report, 8-6-14 Attachment 1: Victim Restitution Committee Activities List Committee Sponsored Accomplishments 1) VRA (Victim Restitution Application) module – cross-departmental shared victim information. CR110/JV790. Development and Implementation of California Judicial Council Forms for use in Santa Clara County, providing victims greater legal remedy to collect restitution. 3) Adult Victim Restitution Court. Specific victim restitution calendars established with designated victim restitution Probation court officer assigned. 4) Education programs. Training series provided for victims, defendants, and staff from stakeholder departments. 5) Sustained and active Santa Clara County VR forum for communication, coordination and collaboration. Collateral Activities – VR Committee Support and Participation ž 1) DOR-Probation monthly process review meetings. 2) DOR-Probation initiation of VOP process at 18 month juncture of 3-year probation term. 3) DOR-Probation Buff Card automation (VR referral mechanism). Juvenile Victim Restitution Subcommittee – revamp of document and work flow 4) processes. 5) Improved inter-departmental protocols for victim skip tracing and VR Order to Show Cause (OSC) referrals. 6) Use of Form 1707 to transmit victim restitution information to central prison sites. 7) Designated Juvenile Probation Officer (JPO) assigned to high victim restitution cases for closer supervision. Informal Juvenile and Traffic Court. Assignment of victim restitution at the time of 8) disposition when appropriate, with DOR enlisted to handle its collection efforts. Victim Services Program (JPD) reinvigorated and outreach to victims attending court 9) enhanced. 10) VR statewide trainings at conferences and workshops. 11) Informational booth and/or participation at community events, e.g., Victim Restitution Day at Cesar Chavez Plaza, annual Unsung Heroes event. 12) Informational subject expert panel participation at special County training events, e.g., Q&A for Inmates at Elmwood, Probation Workshop Luncheon. 13) Traffic Amnesty 2011 (included VR provisions), 14) Discussion and collaboration for new required processes - AB109 (State Realignment Initiative) and Penal Code section 1203.9 (Probationary In and Out of County Referrals). 15) Task Force for Implementation of New Standing Court Order and Victim Restitution Policy Change for Payment Distribution. DOR Response to the June 2014 Grand Jury Report, 8-6-14
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The District Attorney's Office has an important role in collecting victim loss information prior to the time the defendant is sentenced, but attention to completion of victim loss information is not consistent within the Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The District Attorney should develop ways to improve the collection of victim loss information prior to the time the defendant is sentenced. Generally, the sentencing practices are different depending on whether the defendant has been found guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony. For the most part, misdemeanor sentencing occurs immediately after the defendant's plea. Felony sentencing is commonly scheduled at least four to six weeks after the plea so that the matter may be referred to the Adult Probation Department for a pre-sentence report. The victim restitution owed, as determined by Probation, is generally relied upon by both parties and the Court. Misdemeanor Cases Determination of Amount Owed A. Since the defendant is generally sentenced contemporaneously to his guilty plea in misdemeanor cases; if the loss is known, it has been the practice of the Court to order the 6-005 defendant to pay the loss amount and establish a monthly minimum payment for restitution at the time of sentencing. Although the Court will make a general order of restitution if the amount of loss is unknown, it is the best practice to provide the loss amount to the Court at time of sentencing. Prior to November 2012, two staff members from the Victim Witness Assistance Center contacted victims to obtain statements of loss, records, and receipts so that the restitution amount could be proven to opposing counsel and the Court. In November of 2012, the Victim Witness Assistance Center informed the District Attorney's Office that their agency would no longer be able to provide a victim advocate to assist with misdemeanor victim restitution because that job fell outside the scope of the terms of their funding from the State of California's Department of Justice. After efforts to persuade the Department of Justice and the Victim Witness Assistance Center to change their interpretation of the funding guidelines failed, the victim advocate who had been doing all tasks related to misdemeanor restitution departed, and the District Attorney's Office took over the administrative tasks involved in misdemeanor restitution. We currently have a support staff member dedicated full time to misdemeanor restitution. A letter is typed and sent to the victim with a "Statement of Loss Questionnaire" to determine the amount of restitution sought. Follow-up calls to the victim are made if necessary to clarify information provided or to obtain updated address information to send the letter. While we are pleased with how we collect misdemeanor loss information, additional staffing is paramount for improvement in this area. The sheer volume of misdemeanor cases [in any given week approximately 700 new misdemeanor cases appear for arraignment] presents the greatest challenge to our Office. В. Payment Review Calendars The majority of misdemeanor defendants are placed on court [also called "informal" or "summary"] probation. Defendants on court probation do not have a supervising probation officer. In mid-2007, now-retired Judge Randy Rice permitted Deputy District Attorney Kathy Storton to develop a system to file a "violation of probation" in those cases where defendants were on court probation. In September of 2008, a specific calendar for misdemeanor court probation cases involving restitution was instituted and that calendar continues today [every Wednesday morning in Department 42]. The Department of Revenue [DOR] refers cases where defendants are not paying or have fallen behind on payments to DDA Storton. These matters are reviewed by DDA Storton, a court date is selected, DOR sends the paperwork to the court and the court then notifies the defendant of the court date. The court then sets a payment plan and starts to monitor payments. If the defendant fails to appear in court, a bench warrant is issued. We are the only County in the State of California with this program. It has become clear that if a defendant has to make regular court appearances, the incentive to pay victim restitution increases dramatically. In other words, court monitoring of victim restitution payments increases victim restitution payments. Felony Cases Determination of Amount Owed Α. There are many non-violent felony matters where the victim's financial loss is at the crux of the case [i.e., embezzlement, grand theft]. Depending on the totality of circumstances [including the defendant's criminal history], payment of full restitution prior to plea or sentencing will likely effect the negotiated disposition and/or sentence. In these cases, it is common for the prosecutor to actively work with the victim to ensure that the victim "is made whole." Violent crimes often involve restitution [i.e., medical bills, counseling costs], but it is the violence and concern for community safety that takes priority in negotiating a disposition or advocating for a particular sentence. In other words, a convicted rapist will be responsible to pay for the victim's medical bills stemming from the attack. However, it is fair to state that payment of full restitution in a rape case will likely never result in a reduced sentence. As noted above, felony cases generally involve a post-plea referral to the Probation Department. It is the practice of the Probation Department to contact the victim and inquire about victim losses. Historically, prosecutors have relied upon the Probation Department's pre-sentence report for determination of the restitution amount. However, we recognize that by the time the case is referred to Probation, a significant amount of time may have passed since the offense [perhaps one to two years], and the victim contact information may have changed. Therefore, it is beneficial to contact victims earlier in the procedural process specifically to determine financial losses. When a felony case is filed, the victim receives written notification of the criminal charges and a copy of "Marsy's Law." Although Marsy's Law provides information on a victim's right to restitution, our standard letter does not specifically address restitution. To better serve our victims, we are drafting a new initial notification that will specifically advise the victim of his/her right to restitution. We will also include a "Statement of Loss Questionnaire" for the victim to fill out and return to our Office; thereby providing us with the necessary information much earlier in the case than is currently the practice. Additionally, we are discussing the ways to augment our website to better facilitate the reporting of losses. Follow-up phone calls to victims to clarify information provided or to obtain updated address information to send the letter will require adjustment in our staffing. To that end, we have discussed establishing a Senior Volunteer program similar to the one we currently have in Consumer Mediation. For many years, we have benefitted from senior volunteers who mediate consumer complaints. The volunteers work a three (3) hour shift on different days of the week and were required to pass a background check and attend three (3) training sessions to be considered for a volunteer position. It must be noted that some of our volunteers have been here over 20 years, which underscores the successfulness of this program. We are exploring the practicality of asking our current senior volunteers to assist in contacting victims for purposes of determining restitution amounts. Initial discussions with DA employees who oversee this program have been encouraging. Our goal, however, is to establish a new Senior Volunteer program devoted exclusively to restitution. Payment Review Calendars C. From 2007 to late 2013, a felony restitution payment review calendar operated in this County. However, that calendar has been disbanded by the Superior Court. During the operation of the calendar we noted that requiring the defendant to make regular court appearances increased the incentive to pay victim restitution. Re-instituting a felony restitution payment calendar is encouraged.
F2:
The 2011 escheated victim restitution funds were sent by the Department of Revenue to the District Attorney's Office and were not deposited into a designated victim services account.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The District Attorney should deposit escheated victim restitution funds into an account designated for victim services. The District Attorney deposits escheated victim restitution funds into a separate Trust Fund, the Escheated Victims Restitution Fund. These funds are then transferred to the General Fund in order to cover the costs of a Senior Paralegal assigned to victim restitution responsibilities. This process complies in full with California Government Code sections (50050-50057) that govern the use of escheated victim restitution funds, as well as with the Grand Jury's recommendation.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F10:
"The Department of Correction has not implemented a system to deduct a portion of money deposited into an Inmate Personal Fund account of every inmate ordered to pay victim restitution to be applied to victim restitution."
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
"The County should direct to the Department of Correction to implement a system to deduct a percent of the money deposited into an Inmate Personal Fund account of every inmate ordered to pay victim restitution." DOC Response The DOC does not concur with this recommendation for several reasons. Deposits May Decrease Significantly The funds sent to inmates while incarcerated can be used for commissary purchases and telephone calls, and is provided by family members and friends with the intent to provide Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian, Cindy Chavez County Executive: Jeffrey Smith comfort to their loved ones. While inmates are awaiting adjudication or serving their sentences, by law they are supplied 3 dietary regulated meals each day and basic toiletries. Having a positive balance in their accounts affords inmates the opportunity to purchase comfort food and additional toiletries. The availability of commissary and telephone calls greatly reduces tension among the inmate population and eases the time spent incarcerated. These deposits from family and friends for commissary and telephone calls may discontinue if DOC adopts Recommendation 10 and deducts a percentage of funds deposited from those inmates who are ordered to pay restitution. Additionally, the friends and family members are the ones who will suffer and be penalized if their monetary deposits are used to satisfy the inmates' restitution orders. There is no doubt that once they discover their money is not being used for its intended purpose, they will stop depositing money into the inmate's account. Public policy favors imposing restitution as part of a sentence to force the inmate to answer directly for the consequences of the crime, if the Grand Jury's recommendation is adopted the inmate's family and friends and not the inmate would be answering for the consequences of the inmate's crime. Clearly, this is not the intent or purpose of restitution. The resulting burden on the family and friends and the creative "work arounds" that would most certainly emerge, would result in far more serious consequences than delayed restitution. Circumventing the Process Inmates would perceive this new process as burdensome, and will find a way to circumvent the process. When this process is applied to inmates with ordered restitution, the impacted inmate may then locate another inmate without ordered restitution and have their family and friends deposit funds into this individual account instead. This would create several new problems for the DOC. Recipients of the monies may attempt to extort the intended recipient for all or some of the money. This would only result in increased violence and jeopardize public and staff safety. Revenue Impact If adopted, the new policy could significantly impact revenue to the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF), which provides services and equipment to benefit the inmates. If telephone and commissary receipts drop due to the negative perception from friends and family, then current programs or other benefits to the inmate, such as sport equipment and hot water pots, may have to be discontinued. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian, Cindy Chavez County Executive: Jeffrey Smith Staffing Impact The existing Fiscal staff would need to track, monitor, and collect these funds. The staff time needed to conduct this process far outstrips any value to the victims resulting from the process. On average, 65% of the inmates receive $50.00 or less from each deposit. The median amount on an inmate's account is approximately $24.00, and half of the inmates in custody are considered indigent ($2.00 or less in their accounts.) Sheriff Laurie Smith CC: Skip Shervington, Assistant Sheriff Martha Wapenski, Director of Administrative Services Captain Troy Beliveau . Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian, Cindy Chavez County Executive: Jeffrey Smith
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F3:
- "The Probation Department does not regularly review victim restitution obligations for criminals who are in banked probation."
F4:
– "The Probation Department rarely seeks to revoke probation for a criminal whose only probation violation is failure to pay court-ordered victim restitution."
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
- "The County should ensure criminals in banked probation are regularly reviewed by the Department of Probation for victim restitution obligations." An established process for the review of victim restitution for all Probation cases has been in place for many years. The Department of Revenue provides a list of all defendants under Probation supervision who have outstanding balances for fines, fees and victim restitution 16 months prior to expiration. These lists are provided to the assigned deputy probation officers for review. At the 16 month timeline, the assigned deputy probation officer makes a decision based on the defendant's progress and ability to pay to begin the violation process or to modify monthly payments to ensure the debts are satisfied prior to the expiration of probation. Another list is provided by the Department of Revenue of all defendants under supervision who have outstanding balances 6 months prior to expiration. Additionally, deputy probation officers have access to the Department of Revenue database to monitor payment progress at their desktops. This is done routinely in conjunction with requiring defendants to provide proof of payments and check stubs to verify employment and wages. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Response to Civil Grand Jury Report: Victim Restitution – Unfilled Promises August 5, 2014
R4:
– "The County should direct the Probation Department to aggressively ascertain the criminal's ability to pay and then calendar a violation of probation hearing when a criminal fails to pay court-ordered victim restitution." Regardless of the number of alleged circumstances of violation, if a deputy probation officer can document a willful failure to pay, the matter is calendared for a violation of probation. If a willful failure to pay does not exist and it is determined that the defendant will be unable to satisfy the payment of victim restitution prior to the expiration of probation, the matter is calendared for a hearing to review the defendant's progress. At this time the Court considers the facts and may modify the Court ordered monthly payment plan and/or extend probation to allow additional time to satisfy the victim restitution while under supervision. Role of the Probation Department: – "The Grand Jury was told that every person on formal probation who did not violate the terms of his/her probation for one year, other than payment of victim restitution, is transferred to "banked" probation." This is not accurate. The decision to transfer a case to the banked caseload is not contingent upon time on probation and/or violations of probation. The decision to transfer a case to the banked caseload depends on several factors, including an individual assessment of risk/needs, progress on probation, progress toward compliance with all Court orders (substance abuse treatment/mental health counseling/ domestic violence program/community service, etc.) and the payment toward financial obligations (fines/fees and victim restitution). The banked caseload criteria stipulates that only cases with less than $5,000 in victim restitution are eligible for the banked caseload. Additionally, the defendant must demonstrate a pattern of at least three consecutive payments prior to transfer. These payments must be realistic with respect to the outstanding debt and ability to pay. Response to Civil Grand Jury Report: Victim Restitution - Unfilled Promises August 5, 2014 This is not accurate. Current data reflects a total of 18,051 adult defendants under supervision by the Probation Department, with 1,916 assigned to the banked caseload. This reflects that only 10.6% of our clients are assigned to the banked caseload. In an effort to successfully monitor victim restitution, the Adult Services Division established a Second Level Bank caseload which supervises defendants who are in compliance with all conditions of supervision and have outstanding financial obligations totaling $5,000 to $15,000. These defendants are seen by a deputy probation officer at least once every three months. Currently, 237 offenders are assigned to this caseload. Additionally, the Adult Services Division has a High Victim Restitution caseload which monitors defendants owing in excess of $15,000 in victim restitution. These defendants are also seen by the deputy probation officer at least once every three months. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
From 1996 to 2005, the City of Palo Alto leased the Lee Gift Deed Property to an adjacent landowner for construction staging even though the property was required to be used for conservation, including parks and recreation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City of Palo Alto should adhere to use restrictions of all property donated to the City.
F2:
The City of Palo Alto leased the Lee Gift Deed Property without following its P&P 1-11/ASD regarding the Procedure for Leasing of City-Owned Real Property.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City of Palo Alto should follow its P&P 1-11/ASD regarding the Procedure for Leasing of City-Owned Real Property when leasing City-Owned Real Property.
F3:
On September 18, 2012, the City of Palo Alto held a closed session meeting, under the real-estate negotiation exception to the Brown Act, to discuss price and terms of the sale of the Lee Gift Deed Property. Prior to the meeting, the public was not aware that the City was considering the sale of the Lee Gift Deed Property and had no opportunity for public debate on the future use or sale of the property. 13
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City of Palo Alto should seek public input about the disposition of surplus City-owned land before the City Council meets to discuss that property.
F4a:
The City of Palo Alto had not complied with its own Policy and Procedure 1- 48/ASD regarding the sale/transfer of surplus City-owned property when it discussed, in closed session, the price and terms of an offer to purchase the Lee Gift Deed Property.
F4b:
At the time of the closed session the Lee Gift Deed Property could not be sold because of the deed restriction and because it had not yet been declared surplus.
F5a:
The March 5, 2012, City Council meeting was the first time the public was made aware of a proposal to develop 27 University Avenue.
F5b:
The City of Palo Alto approved expenditure of Stanford University Medical Center funds for the 27 University Avenue proposal before the public had the opportunity for public debate on the proposal.
F6:
The City of Palo Alto does not consistently respond to requests for public records in a timely manner. 14
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City of Palo Alto should consistently respond to requests for public records in a timely manner.
F7:
The City of Palo Alto’s current system for tracking and documenting non-routine PRR and the City’s response to the request fails to capture all requests or responses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The City of Palo Alto should re-examine its system for handling non-routine PRR to ensure that it has a mechanism to evaluate compliance with the CPRA and its own P&P. 15
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The existing security at the RAIC is not sufficient to keep the children safe at all times.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should increase the number of hours a deputy sheriff is onsite at the RAIC to 24/7. Ibid 2 10
F2:
Lighting and visibility in the parking lot is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a:
The County should increase parking lot lighting.
R2b:
The County should ensure that security camera sight lines are not compromised.
F3:
The existing slats in the playground fence allow items to be passed through and permit people to observe the children.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should procure and install privacy screens to cover the fencing.
F4:
There is no procedure for the RAIC staff to inspect the playground prior to allowing the children to enter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should develop and implement a procedure that requires the RAIC staff to inspect the playground and remove any items/debris before the children enter.
F5:
There is not an updated, comprehensive ADA evacuation plan.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5a:
The County should develop a comprehensive ADA evacuation plan for the RAIC.
R5b:
The County should train RAIC staff in the implementation of the ADA evacuation plan. 11
F6:
RAIC counselors are not certified in CPR/First Aid/AED every two years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County should ensure that RAIC counselors are certified in CPR/First Aid/AED every two years.
F7:
Non-counselor RAIC staff members are not trained in First Aid and fire extinguisher use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The County should provide First Aid and fire extinguisher training to all non-counselor RAIC staff.
F8:
SSA does not regularly report RAIC safety and security issues during the Stakeholder Group meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The County should require that RAIC safety and security issues be reported during every Stakeholder Group meeting.
F9:
SSA does not document discussions regarding RAIC safety and security issues in the minutes of the Stakeholder Group meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The County should require that RAIC safety and security issues be included in the minutes of the Stakeholder Group meetings.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The District Attorney’s Office has an important role in collecting victim loss information prior to the time the defendant is sentenced, but attention to completion of victim loss information is not consistent within the Office.
F2:
The 2011 escheated victim restitution funds were sent by the Department of Revenue to the District Attorney’s Office and were not deposited into a designated victim services account. 16
F3:
The Probation Department does not regularly review victim restitution obligations for criminals who are in banked probation.
F4:
The Probation Department rarely seeks to revoke probation for a criminal whose only probation violation is failure to pay court-ordered victim restitution.
F5:
The Department of Revenue is primarily a billing agency that rarely enforces collection of victim restitution in the same way as a private sector collection agency.
F6:
The Department of Revenue rarely sends delinquent victim restitution accounts to a private collection agency. 17
F7:
Victims are not routinely made aware that they can use the Order for Victim Restitution and the Abstract of Judgment to pursue collection of restitution in the civil court, if they are not satisfied with the Department of Revenue’s collection and distribution of the restitution funds.
F8:
A portion of victim restitution funds collected is often not disbursed to victims because the Department of Revenue did not receive the victim’s change in contact information even though it was known by other county agencies.
F9:
The Victim Restitution Committee has been ineffective in realizing its original goal of improving performance and outcomes in the collection of victim restitution.
F10:
The Department of Correction has not implemented a system to deduct a portion of money deposited into an Inmate Personal Fund account of every inmate ordered to pay victim restitution to be applied to victim restitution.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The District Attorney should develop ways to improve the collection of victim loss information prior to the time the defendant is sentenced.
R2:
The District Attorney should deposit escheated victim restitution funds into an account designated for victim services.
R3:
The County should ensure criminals in banked probation are regularly reviewed by the Department of Probation for victim restitution obligations.
R4:
The County should direct the Probation Department to aggressively ascertain the criminal’s ability to pay and then calendar a violation of probation hearing when a criminal fails to pay court-ordered victim restitution.
R5:
The County should direct the Department of Revenue to develop and implement procedures that reflect the methodology used by private collection agencies in the collection of victim restitution in order to ensure that victim restitution is paid in full.
R6:
The County should direct the Department of Revenue increase the use of private collection agencies to increase the amount of victim restitution collected from delinquent criminals.
R7:
The County should direct the Department of Revenue to notify victims, who are not satisfied with the collection and distribution of restitution by the Department of Revenue, that they can pursue collection of restitution in the civil court with the Order for Restitution and the Abstract of Judgment.
R8:
The County should explore ways for the various agencies to improve the sharing of victim contact information in order to increase the rate of disbursement of restitution.
R9a:
The County should review the performance and effectiveness of the Victim Restitution Committee. 18
R9b:
The County should develop effective methods of improving performance and outcomes in the collection of victim restitution.
R10:
The County should direct to the Department of Correction to implement a system to deduct a percent of the money deposited into an Inmate Personal Fund account of every inmate ordered to pay victim restitution. 19
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
By not assigning account/case numbers immediately upon receipt of referrals, PAGC does not follow Procedure 709.1 updated January 21, 2014, “Screening of Referrals,” of the PAGC’s Policies and Procedures Manual.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should require PAGC to follow its new Procedure 709.2 dated May 20, 2014, “Probate Unit Referral Process,” in PAGC’s Policies and Procedures Manual.
F2:
Acceptance of referrals to PAGC for evaluation for conservatorship, which removes a person’s civil liberties, is decided by one person with the concurrence of upper management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County should implement the proposed pilot project of a three-person panel for evaluation of conservatorship referrals in accordance with the new Procedure 709.2 dated May 20, 2014.
F3:
Poor communication and incomplete information sharing from APS to PAGC in non-FAST cases result in inefficiencies and duplication of work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should require APS and the PAGC to develop efficient and effective methods of communication and information sharing. 13
F4:
In non-FAST cases, PAGC does not always inform APS about the status of the referral after acceptance of the referral for conservatorship investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should require PAGC to inform APS of any pertinent changes in the client’s status and when conservatorship is granted.
F5:
The Capacity Declaration, a mandatory Judicial Council of California form, is not always completed correctly by the attending physician, resulting in the delay of the conservatorship process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should devise a process to improve identification of errors and omissions on the Capacity Declaration prior to the acceptance of it.
F6:
As of March 1, 2014, there are no formalized written training programs for new and current PAGC staff.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6a:
The County should develop and implement a formal written case management training program for new and current PAGC staff.
R6b:
The County should develop and implement a formal written training program for the use of PANO for new and current PAGC staff.
F7:
The current PAGC Policies and Procedures Manual does not reflect current job titles and responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The County should require PAGC to correct its Policies and Procedures Manual to reflect current job titles and responsibilities. 14
F8:
Background checks of prospective APS personnel, prior to the time of hire into the department, do not include Live Scan screening.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The County should require all prospective personnel of APS to receive Live Scan screening prior to the time of hire into the department.
F9:
Background checks of prospective PAGC personnel, prior to the time of hire into the department, do not include Live Scan screening.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The County should require all prospective personnel of PAGC to receive Live Scan screening prior to the time of hire into the department.
F10:
PAGC case management statistics are often incomplete, limited in scope, and inaccurate, leading to SSA management’s inability to make effective management and budget decisions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The County should require PAGC to research, identify, and report complete, comprehensive, and accurate case management statistics.
* 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.