Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2008-2009
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 (27)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Purchase orders account for the vast majority of county spending but are the most expensive method of acquisition. In 2008 nearly $28 million in purchases were processed via purchase orders at a cost of over $500,000.
F2:
Purchasing indicates that a standard industry goal is to maintain processing costs in the $60-$100 range above the cost of goods per purchase order. However, it appears, based on review of the County of Santa Cruz Cost Allocation Plan, that our County’s cost greatly exceeds that range. In 2003-2004, 2,620 purchase orders were processed at a cost of $184 per order. In 2004-2005, 2,570 purchase orders were processed at a cost of $196 per order.
F3:
Purchasing is aware of the standards for controlling the cost of processing purchase orders; however, the department says it is unable to determine whether they are meeting these standards due to limitations imposed by the archaic mainframe computer system on which Purchasing depends.
F4:
In making purchasing choices the County is subject to many limitations. These include those imposed externally such as provisions of California law (i.e. the Government Code and the Public Contracts Code), spending guidelines for various funds received from the federal and state governments, and restrictions imposed by the numerous grants and special programs. The County has many self-imposed For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 29 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F5:
All CAL-Cards issued to County employees have single purchase limits under $1,500 and total monthly purchase limits of less than $10,000. CAL-Card, like any Visa card, can be used for any purchase under these dollar limits unless the category of items is prohibited by CAL-Card or County policy. As these are simply a payment mechanism rather than a supplier, the cards can be used to buy virtually anything from handcuffs and inmate toiletries for the Sheriff’s Office to auto parts and gardening tools for Government Services. The County restricts CAL-Card use by policy, decreeing the cards cannot be used to pay for travel, conference registrations, subscriptions, books, computer hardware/software, office supplies or services of any kind. The dollar limits imposed by the County further restrict the usefulness of the cards.
F6:
Purchasing estimates that purchases using CAL-Card cost roughly 25 percent less to process than a county purchase order and CAL-Card provides cash-back rebates. California studies of CAL-Card use have estimated savings ranging from $25 to $90 per transaction. Other states and counties have documented savings resulting from implementation of such a purchase card system.
F7:
The County receives cash rebates up to two percent for purchases made using CAL- Cards. For fiscal year 2007-2008 the rebate amounted to $6,500. The rebates are awarded to purchasing, not the department whose CAL-Card usage generated the rebate.
F8:
The paper-intensive process required by the County for reconciling CAL-Card statements and invoices is prohibitively complex and burdensome. Users are individually required to resolve any questioned charges or items, and may be personally held financially responsible for unresolved charges.
F9:
The County implemented the CAL-Card program in 1996. Since its original implementation the usage of the CAL-Card has declined. CAL-Card Usage Statistics since 2001: Year Cards Issued Transactions Total Dollars 2001 293 7,148 $1,594,959 2002 298 7,610 $1,754,406 2003 281 6,366 $1,370,683 2004 285 4,839 $972,993 2005 275 4,424 $948,976 2006 251 4,719 $992,597 2007 308 3,861 $907,599 2008 308 2,937 $793,712 2009 283 649 $131,731 (1st Quarter)
F10:
The somewhat dramatic reduction in CAL-Card use in 2003 and 2004 was a result of the implementation of the single-vendor office supply contract and increased enforcement of its usage requirements.
F11:
There is no documented case of a county employee being prosecuted or having card privileges revoked for deliberate misuse or abuse of a CAL-Card.
F12:
U.S. Bank and Visa offer free CAL-Card optimization audits to examine ways the customer can achieve maximum cost savings using the CAL-Card program. The County has never made use of these optimization services.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County should encourage CAL-Card use by re-examining and reducing restrictions to eliminate as many obstacles to card use as is practical. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will re-examine current restrictions and determine if any change in those restrictions is warranted. Any benefits resulting from a change in those controls must be weighed against the risks associated with a lack of controls; fraud, waste and misuse of County funds. The results of this analysis and any proposed changes will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in December 2009 when the Board is next scheduled to hear updates to the County’s Policy and Procedure Manual.
R2:
The County should revise and increase card limits for higher-level personnel, with accompanying revisions to “Guidelines for Purchases” and related Purchasing Policy Manual sections.
R3:
The County should establish a list of pre-approved service vendors that meet Living Wage, Green Purchase, and other requirements and allow those services to be purchased via CAL-Card.
R4:
The County should simplify the processes of billing, reconciliation, and questioned item resolution for CAL-Card purchases to reduce paperwork and burden on individual users.
R5:
The County should automate CAL-Card billing and reconciliation to maximize rebates for on-time payments.
R6:
The County should create incentives, such as recognition and rewards, to encourage employees and departments to promote the use of CAL-Card. For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 35 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
R7:
The County should request an optimization audit from Visa and U.S. Bank to examine how the savings from use of CAL-Card could be maximized.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Send a hard copy of your response to: The Honorable Judge Paul Marigonda Santa Cruz Superior Court 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060
R2:
Send an electronic version of your response via email to the Grand Jury: grandjury@co.santa-cruz.ca.us. Please send all responses as either Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF files. Due Dates Elected officials or administrators are required to respond within sixty days of the Grand Jury Report’s publication; responses by the governing body of any public entity are required within ninety days. 74
R3:
However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department.
R4:
A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
R5:
During an investigation, the Grand Jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the Grand Jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
R6:
If responding to more than one report, respond to each in a separate document or on separate pages of one document.
R7:
For an example, see Response Report to the 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report: http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/grandjury. If you have questions about the response report, please contact the Grand Jury by calling (831) 454-2099 or by email: grandjury@co.santa-cruz.ca.us.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Central Stores charges other county departments for storage space used and delivery of stored supplies. Total charges to other departments should be equal to or greater than the cost to operate Stores. If total income is less than the cost, then money from 58 What’s in Store for Stores? 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses the county general fund must be used to supplement the Stores budget. The following graph details county cost to maintain the Stores facility over and above the revenue generated from billing individual departments for Stores services. Net County Cost for Central Stores Fiscal Year Net Cost 1999-2000 $ 42,854.74 2000-2001 $ 11,259.11 2001-2002 $ 50,202.18 2002-2003 $102,963.65 2003-2004 $ 76,881.37 2004-2005 $ 35,870.59 2005-2006 $ 63,996.81 2006-2007 $ 79,319.90
F2:
Purchasing orders large quantities of items the County needs, such as copy paper and canned and dry goods for the jails, to take advantage of volume price discounts. The items are stored until they are requested by and delivered to a department. Inventory items are done by hand and cannot be viewed on computers within other county departments.
F3:
A single vender contractor sells the same supplies at a similar cost and delivers in an as needed time frame.
F4:
Many county departments and agencies have a need for more record file storage space. Without additional file storage racks at Stores they cannot be properly accommodated.
F5:
Because of the security needed to safeguard ballots and sophisticated voting machines, the County Clerk Elections Department decided to relocate them from Stores and lease outside commercial space rather than improve the county facility. The leased space is secured with building locks, chain link fence, internal room with key pad locks and monitored security cameras and also has a temperature controlled environment to protect ballots and computer voting machines.
F6:
In May 2006, the County signed a ten-year lease for 6,500 sq. ft. of commercial storage space. The lease was amended in March 2008 for an additional 2,600 sq. ft. Total rent is $6,765 per month, or $81,180 per year for the next 3 years. The lease includes annual increases in monthly rent beginning in July 2011. The cost of tenant improvements on the leased space totaled about $107,200 of which $100,000 was recuperated from the Help America Vote Act which is a federal law passed in 2002. One section of the law established a grant program for payments to states to improve election administration.
F7:
Warehouse space is currently being used to store outdated equipment, 20 year-old wall partitions, and ruined 100-year-old County Recorder books.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
General Services should do an in-depth, detailed study on the efficiency and cost- effectiveness of Central Stores.
R2:
General Services should research options to purchase food and supplies on an “as needed” basis from private business.
R3:
General Services should divest some stored items that are unlikely to be used again and invest in file box racks; or discontinue the Central Stores operation altogether and contract with the private sector instead.
R4:
The County should consider moving items stored in the warehouse to smaller leased space or other available space and using the building as a Sheriff’s Office law enforcement training facility or for another needed county function.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The 2002-2003 Grand Jury made several findings regarding the expense, practicality, and obsolescence of the county’s mainframe system. The County agreed in substance with this assessment. These findings from 2002-2003 included: • ISD uses mainframe computer hardware first introduced in the 1990s, which was an upgrade from an earlier version. • Mainframe architectures are expensive to sustain and difficult to evolve to current industry best practices such as web access. • The County continues to use a mainframe internal billing structure to allocate ISD expenses across county operations. This requires administrative personnel involved in determining and allocating costs of mainframe usage for the purpose of interdepartmental billing. • ISD understands the ultimate need to eliminate the mainframe computer operations by migrating to less expensive current technology, but does not have a formal plan or time line for accomplishing this. No Response Required
F2:
On more than one occasion prior Grand Juries have found that outdated software applications are impacting the performance of county departments, such as the Sheriff’s Office and Planning. The County has agreed that the systems need updating.
F3:
In 2009 the County relies on substantially the same hardware, although software upgrades and revisions have been implemented in the intervening years.
F4:
Currently only two ISD employees are thoroughly trained and familiar with operating and supporting the mainframe. Both employees are eligible for retirement.
F5:
On April 1, 2007, IBM stopped offering support for mainframes such as the County’s 7060-H50.
F6:
In the fiscal 2008 year-end report submitted to the Board of Supervisors, the county’s independent auditors, Caporicci & Larson, noted that: “The County’s Disaster Recovery Plan was developed 25 years ago and was not updated to address the new technologies. The Disaster Recovery Plan details the actions required should a disaster occur that affects the computer operations of the County.”
F7:
In 2002, ISD began a project to transition the Planning Department’s code enforcement system from the mainframe-based Automated Land Use System (ALUS) to a non-mainframe Hansen® system. As of today Planning is still relying on ALUS for permits and land use planning, while running certain code enforcement processes on a dual-entry basis (entering information into both ALUS and Hansen®).
F8:
In 2009 the following county departments still rely on applications running on the mainframe: County Administrative Office, Treasurer/Tax Collector, Assessors Office, Auditor Controller, Purchasing, Payroll/Personnel, Planning Department, Probation Department, Recorder’s Office, Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office.
F9:
Within the last year, the County has approved projects that will move the following operations off the mainframe: • Tax system ($2,530,000 contract awarded August 5, 2008) 42 Information Services Department – Stagnation or Migration? 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses • Sheriff’s records management system and jail management system ($475,505 jail management and $478,370 record’s management contracts awarded January 13, 2009) • Probation case management system ($474,988 contract awarded January 13, 2009) • Recorder’s system ($246,843 contract awarded March 3, 2009)
F10:
As applications are shifted off, the cost of maintaining the mainframe has been allocated among departments still using it. The number of users has decreased, so charges to each remaining department have increased, although in the 2009-2010 department budget enough cost reduction has been achieved so that there is no need to increase charges to users.
F11:
ISD is working toward being mainframe-independent within four years.
F12:
A new ISD Director was appointed in 2007. Prior to his appointment, the department operated with a mindset of internally developing and supporting custom applications based on the mainframe architecture. No Response Required
F13:
All the county employees this Grand Jury met with thought that ISD communication and responsiveness had improved over the last couple of years.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should provide the resources necessary to allow Information Services Department to complete migration off the mainframe on schedule.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should monitor ISD progress to ensure adherence to the migration schedule.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The implementation of Recommendation 5 to reinstate the School Resource Officer was delayed due to staffing and budgetary restrictions but no timeframe was provided for the reinstatement.
F2:
The responses to Recommendations 9 and 12 indicated the District would conduct further analyses of the suggestions in the recommendations but there were no explanations, no descriptions of the scope and parameters of the analyses or studies, and no timeframes. Continuity…The Beginning of the Never-Ending Report ∫ 169 2008-2009 Recommendation Respondent 2008-2009 Response 5 SVUSD should work with the Scotts SVUSD SVPD Has not been Valley Police Department (SVPD) to implemented but will be reinstate the School Resource Officer to implemented in the future the high school campus when budgetary restrictions allow. All staff members who teach or counsel SVUSD Requires further analysis students regarding alcohol prevention should be part of the planning team that addresses prevention and intervention solutions. The many resources provided through county agencies should be available for use by staff. SVUSD should involve students in self- SVUSD Requires further analysis help strategies such as peer counseling and conflict resolution, as well as county-wide programs such as Friday Night Live and the Together for Youth collaborative. Current Recommendations
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
SVUSD and SVPD should provide the Grand Jury with an update on the status of reinstating a School Resource Officer to the high school campus.
R2:
SVUSD should provide the Grand Jury with status reports on the analyses associated with Recommendations 9 and 12. Section 2: For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card Synopsis Santa Cruz County departments rely on a centralized purchasing system to acquire almost $30 million in goods and services to sustain County functions. The processing of purchases costs the County in excess of $500,000 annually in administrative costs. These costs are allocated to individual departments based on the number of purchase orders processed for that department. Other purchasing options are available, including CAL-Card, a Visa card offered by U.S. Bank through a contract with the State of California. The Grand Jury investigated the benefits and drawbacks to using the CAL-Card system to encourage and maximize savings. Current Findings
R8:
were inconsistent, with PVUSD responding that the recommendation “Has Been Implemented” but without a description of the implementation, and the SCCOE responding that the recommendation “Has Not Yet Been Implemented But Will Be Implemented in the Future” without providing a timeframe for the implementation. 2008-2009 Recommendation Respondent 2008-2009 Response 8 PVUSD and the SCCOE should discuss PVUSD Has been implemented the SERP process and clarify the roles of SCCOE Has not yet been each agency prior to, during, and after implemented but will be implementation. implemented in the future Current Recommendation
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Central Stores charges other county departments for storage space used and delivery of stored supplies. Total charges to other departments should be equal to or greater than the cost to operate Stores. If total income is less than the cost, then money from 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses the county general fund must be used to supplement the Stores budget. The following graph details county cost to maintain the Stores facility over and above the revenue generated from billing individual departments for Stores services. Net County Cost for Central Stores Fiscal Year Net Cost 1999-2000 $ 42,854.74 2000-2001 $ 11,259.11 2001-2002 $ 50,202.18 2002-2003 $102,963.65 $ 76,881.37 2003-2004 2004-2005 $ 35,870.59 2005-2006 $ 63,996.81 2006-2007 $ 79,319.90 Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DISAGREES Net cost shown in the above table is reversed. There is no net county cost for Central Stores. Salaries and benefits as well as services and supplies are less than revenues produced. Total charges to other departments are greater than the cost to operate Stores and result in annual Net County cost savings.
F2:
Purchasing orders large quantities of items the County needs, such as copy paper and canned and dry goods for the jails, to take advantage of volume price discounts. The items are stored until they are requested by and delivered to a department. Inventory items are done by hand and cannot be viewed on computers within other county departments. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES
F3:
A single vender contractor sells the same supplies at a similar cost and delivers in an as needed time frame. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DISAGREES Periodic checking on bids for stored products show that it costs more for a supplier to drop ship products on an as needed basis. This is due primarily to the increase in storage and shipping costs, and does not result in cost savings for the County. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
General Services should research options to purchase food and supplies on an "as needed" basis from private business. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS Purchasing will continue to monitor commodity pricing with options for storage and/or drop shipping, which will be considered in future bids for restocking. An element of any consideration of such awards will be an analysis to determine the actual cost advantage to the County to have product drop-shipped on an as needed basis.
F4:
Many county departments and agencies have a need for more record file storage space. Without additional file storage racks at Stores they cannot be properly accommodated. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES Additional storage racks are planned for a future budget cycle, resources permitting.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
General Services should divest some stored items that are unlikely to be used again and invest in file box racks; or discontinue the Central Stores operation altogether and contract with the private sector instead. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors - REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS Due to the financial situation facing the County, it is not feasible at this time to conduct the necessary study and purchase required equipment for the expansion of the records retention area. In the future, modernizing the Records Retention Program will be a priority when funding becomes available. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F5:
Because of the security needed to safeguard ballots and sophisticated voting machines, the County Clerk Elections Department decided to relocate them from Stores and lease outside commercial space rather than improve the county facility. The leased space is secured with building locks, chain link fence, internal room with key pad locks and monitored security cameras and also has a temperature controlled environment to protect ballots and computer voting machines. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES The County Clerk notes that the facility itself stays sufficiently cool for the storage of the voting equipment and therefore did not require additional temperature controls.
F6:
In May 2006, the County signed a ten-year lease for 6,500 sq. ft. of commercial storage space. The lease was amended in March 2008 for an additional 2,600 sq. ft. Total rent is $6,765 per month, or $81,180 per year for the next 3 years. The lease includes annual increases in monthly rent beginning in July 2011. The cost of tenant improvements on the leased space totaled about $107,200 of which $100,000 was recuperated from the Help America Vote Act which is a federal law passed in 2002. One section of the law established a grant program for payments to states to improve election administration. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES
F7:
Warehouse space is currently being used to store outdated equipment, 20 year-old wall partitions, and ruined 100-year-old County Recorder books. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES Departments purchased reusable partitions in order to have reconfigurable workspace to meet current and future needs within their changing environments. Departments utilize these parts in order to make changes with minimal cost; disposal of the extra parts or outsourcing their storage would only increase costs. The damaged Recorder Books may not be destroyed by law and must be retained and restored as funds allow. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should consider moving items stored in the warehouse to smaller leased space or other available space and using the building as a Sheriff's Office law enforcement training facility or for another needed county function. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Based on the cost savings obtained by buying in bulk and the convenience of storing confidential items on site, the warehouse operation is currently cost effective. However, improvements, such as increasing on site records retention area and implementing computerized inventory control, will be considered as the County's financial situation improves. Responses Required Note: The County of Santa Cruz General Services responses were included in the responses from the Board of Supervisors and are identified as responses from the Board. Respond Within Respondent
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Central Stores charges other county departments for storage space used and delivery of stored supplies. Total charges to other departments should be equal to or greater than the cost to operate Stores. If total income is less than the cost, then money from 36 What’s in Stores for Stores? the county general fund must be used to supplement the Stores budget. The following graph details county cost to maintain the Stores facility over and above the revenue generated from billing individual departments for Stores services. Net County Cost for Central Stores Fiscal Year Net Cost 1999-2000 $ 42,854.74 2000-2001 $ 11,259.11 2001-2002 $ 50,202.18 2002-2003 $102,963.65 2003-2004 $ 76,881.37 2004-2005 $ 35,870.59 2005-2006 $ 63,996.81 2006-2007 $ 79,319.90
F2:
Purchasing orders large quantities of items the County needs, such as copy paper and canned and dry goods for the jails, to take advantage of volume price discounts. The items are stored until they are requested by and delivered to a department. Inventory items are done by hand and cannot be viewed on computers within other county departments.
F3:
A single vender contractor sells the same supplies at a similar cost and delivers in an as needed time frame.
F4:
Many county departments and agencies have a need for more record file storage space. Without additional file storage racks at Stores they cannot be properly accommodated.
F5:
Because of the security needed to safeguard ballots and sophisticated voting machines, the County Clerk Elections Department decided to relocate them from Stores and lease outside commercial space rather than improve the county facility. The leased space is secured with building locks, chain link fence, internal room with key pad locks and monitored security cameras and also has a temperature controlled environment to protect ballots and computer voting machines.
F6:
In May 2006, the County signed a ten-year lease for 6,500 sq. ft. of commercial storage space. The lease was amended in March 2008 for an additional 2,600 sq. ft. Total rent is $6,765 per month, or $81,180 per year for the next 3 years. The lease includes annual increases in monthly rent beginning in July 2011. The cost of tenant improvements on the leased space totaled about $107,200 of which $100,000 was recuperated from the Help America Vote Act which is a federal law passed in 2002. One section of the law established a grant program for payments to states to improve election administration.
F7:
Warehouse space is currently being used to store outdated equipment, 20 year-old wall partitions, and ruined 100-year-old County Recorder books. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
General Services should do an in-depth, detailed study on the efficiency and cost- effectiveness of Central Stores.
R2:
General Services should research options to purchase food and supplies on an “as needed” basis from private business.
R3:
General Services should divest some stored items that are unlikely to be used again and invest in file box racks; or discontinue the Central Stores operation altogether and contract with the private sector instead.
R4:
The County should consider moving items stored in the warehouse to smaller leased space or other available space and using the building as a Sheriff’s Office law enforcement training facility or for another needed county function.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
“County Fire” is a generic term used to describe fire protection services provided in the rural parts of the county but has two different meanings depending upon the agency using it: • Includes both CSA 48 and CSA 4 5, 6 • Includes only CSA 48 7, 8, 9 Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The label “County Fire” should be applied only to County Service Area 48 and not CSA 4. The Pajaro Dunes Schedule A service agreement should be removed from future County Fire contracts. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. County Fire is contained within the geographical boundaries of both areas represented by the two CSAs. CAL FIRE manages them under contract to Santa Cruz County. Other fire agencies within the County unincorporated area are organized as special districts with independent boards of directors. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The recommendation is not warranted. County Fire is contained within the geographical boundaries of both areas represented by the two CSAs. CAL FIRE manages them under contract to Santa Cruz County. Other fire agencies within the County unincorporated area are organized as special districts with independent boards of directors.
F2:
The County Fire contract provides fire and rescue services for two separate county service areas: CSA 48 (286 sq. mi.) and CSA 4 (Pajaro Dunes, 0.2 sq. mi.). Pajaro Dunes is a beachfront development located on the southern tip of the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Cal Fire contract should clearly present the services paid by the County so that FDAC, General Services Dept/OES and Board of Supervisors may properly review and understand the services provided in the contract. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. CAL FIRE uses a standard contract instrument statewide which only lists those personnel and services provided by the State to the County. The County also provides services and personnel which are identified in the County Budget and are sometimes referred to as Schedule “C” of the State contract. Clarification regarding provision of services will continue to be handled separately on an as needed basis by staff. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The recommendation is unreasonable in that CAL FIRE uses a standard contract instrument statewide. The CAL FIRE contract only lists those personnel and services provided by the State to the County. The County also provides services and personnel and those are listed in the County Budget and are sometimes referred to as Schedule “C” of the State contract. Clarification regarding provision of services will continue to be handled separately on an as needed basis by staff.
F3:
All of CSA 48 is a State Responsibility Area except for the farmlands on the county’s North Coast and the farmlands that surround Pajaro Dunes. Cal Fire is, therefore, responsible for preventing and suppressing fires in this CSA. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. The geographical description of State Responsibility Area (SRA) is accurate except that, in general, the beach and agricultural areas of the north county are not SRA. CAL FIRE’s responsibility in SRA is for “fires” and pursuant to Public Resources Code 4114(b), the Department may provide rescue, first aid, and other emergency services only when available and when no additional costs to the State are associated. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The geographical description of State Responsibility Area (SRA) is accurate except that, in general, the beach and agricultural areas of the north county are not SRA. CAL FIRE’s responsibility in SRA is for “fires” and pursuant to PRC 4114(b), the Department may provide rescue, first aid, and other emergency services only when available and when no additional costs to the State are associated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should carefully scrutinize FDAC recommendations for Cal Fire services with the knowledge that these recommendations are heavily influenced and prioritized by Cal Fire officers who also manage County Fire. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The membership of the Fire Department Advisory Commission includes one person nominated by each member of the Board of Supervisors, and representatives of the Planning Department, the Office of Emergency Services, County Fire/CAL FIRE, the volunteer company officers organization, and the CAL FIRE firefighters. This membership is designed to ensure that the interests of the county fire department, career and volunteer fire companies and the citizens residing within county fire department jurisdiction are protected and promoted. All recommendations by the FDAC are the result of a democratic process with open, noticed meetings. The Board relies upon and is confident that the recommendations submitted by the FDAC are based upon the knowledge and expertise of all the members. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The recommendation is not warranted. By County ordinance, the Chief of County Fire or his designee is a voting member of the FDAC as are representatives from each supervisorial district. All recommendations by the FDAC are the result of a democratic process. 0
F4:
County Fire does not include all the state responsibility areas in Santa Cruz County. Notably excluded is the area within the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District. Coastal Incident Response Plan, August 2005 http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/oes/Coastal%20Incident%20Response%20Plan%202005v1.5.pdf ( ). County Fire Contract for FY 2007-2008 as signed by the Director of General Services, http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/Minutes/2008/20080212/PDF/069.pdf 7 County Service Area (CSA) 48 contains all areas served by the County Fire Department, except the Pajaro Dunes development, which constitutes County Service Area 4” – . Santa Cruz County Volunteer Firefighter Handbook [Revised: November 2003]. LAFCO – Countywide Service Review 2005: CSA 48 is County Fire and CSA 4 is Pajaro Dunes. 9 2007-2008 Secured Property Tax Bill special assessments for parcels in CSA 48 labeled County Fire and CSA 4 labeled Pajaro Dunes. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. The State Responsibility Area also exists within the following Fire Districts: Boulder Creek, Ben Lomond, Scotts Valley, Aptos-La Selva, Central, Branciforte, Zayante, and Felton. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. SRA also exists within the following Fire Protection Districts: Boulder Creek, Ben Lomond, Scotts Valley, Aptos-La Selva, Central, Branciforte, Zayante, and Felton
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
A County Fire web page should be created, with a link available on the Santa Cruz County Government home page. The County Fire web page could include the Cal Fire cooperative agreements that make up the contract and links to the Cal Fire and participating volunteer company web sites. Response from the County: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. The FDAC has established a task group to develop appropriate models and anticipates making recommendations for implementation of a web site by the end of the calendar year. The implementation schedule is dependent upon the determination of necessary resources and funding. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. The FDAC has established task group to develop appropriate models and anticipates making recommendations for implementation of a web site by the end of the calendar year. The implementation schedule is dependent upon the determination of necessary resources and funding.
F5:
CSA 4 is a Local Responsibility Area. The County is required to provide fire protection services in this CSA. Response from the County: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. There is no State requirement that a County provide fire services anywhere. The obligation for fire protection in CSA 4 was established through the development agreement that permitted the Pajaro Dunes community. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. There is no State requirement that a County provide fire services anywhere. The obligation for fire protection in CSA 4 was caused by the development agreement which permitted the Pajaro Dune community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
All fire company volunteers should receive recognition from the Board of Supervisors, with particular commendations to long-time volunteers. Response from the County: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. County Fire management will work with County staff to formulate an action plan for consideration by the County Administrative Office and Board of Supervisors. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. County Fire management will work with County staff to formulate an action plan for consideration by the County Administrative Office and Board of Supervisors.
F6:
By county ordinance, the Fire Department Advisory Commission (FDAC) was established to advise the Board of Supervisors and County Fire Chief on budgeting, personnel, and other concerns relating to CSA 48 fire protection, rescue and emergency services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
County Fire management needs to explain the parameters that shape its incident reporting to the Board of Supervisors, and the supervisors should understand the elements involved in tracking incident responses. This knowledge is required to understand properly what is being reported. Response from the County: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. For all statistical reports involving County Fire call data, the methodology and data sources will be explained fully to ensure the Board’s understanding of the information. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. For all statistical reports involving County Fire call data, the methodology and data sources will be explained fully to ensure the Board’s understanding of the information.
F7:
The County Fire contract consists of three different cooperative agreements. Two are related to CSA 48, and a separate agreement is for CSA 4. • The two agreements for CSA 48 are (cid:190) Amador Plan, wherein the county government pays Cal Fire for fire and rescue service during the winter/non-fire season. There are four Cal Fire stations in this agreement. (cid:190) Schedule A, which provides a year-round Fire Marshal,10 ECC, volunteer training, vehicle maintenance and administrative support services. • CSA 4 consists of a single Schedule A agreement, which provides Pajaro Dunes with year-round two-operator engine staffing. Response from the County: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The firefighters associated with the CAL FIRE engines staffed during non-fire season are identified in the Public Resources Code (PRC) as Schedule A. The Battalion Chiefs, company Officers, use of the fire stations and equipment are identified as Amador.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
County Fire management should include the responses of volunteer companies and other mutual aid when evaluating the effects of reduced staffing. Response from the County: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. Depending upon direction from the Board of Supervisors and/or the specific assignment at hand, any evaluation of reduction in staffing will include both career and volunteer responders. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. Depending upon direction from the Board of Supervisors and/or the specific assignment at hand, any evaluation of reduction in staffing will include both career and volunteer responders.
F8:
In CSA 48, Cal Fire retains full control of state resources (personnel, vehicles, equipment) and can reassign these to meet emergency needs elsewhere in the state. In 10 The Fire Marshal duties include fire code enforcement, plan review, inspection and addressing services. contrast, the Pajaro Dunes Schedule A year-round agreement requires Cal Fire to always staff and maintain a fire station in CSA 4. Response from the County: AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The FDAC should include a representative of the Health Services Agency to add perspective to medical response issues. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. Health Services Agency staff already coordinate closely with the fire agencies on medical response issues through various other groups and committees. The FDAC has been in the process of evaluating its current membership complement. At their July 2008 meeting reconsideration of adding an HSA representative was discussed; FDAC members voted not to include HSA as a voting member. FDAC members agreed that HSA staff might be invited to FDAC meetings if particular topics are related to their areas of expertise. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The recommendation is not warranted. The FDAC has been in the process of evaluating its current membership complement. At their July 2008 meeting reconsideration of adding an HSA representative was discussed; FDAC members voted not to include HSA as a voting member. FADCA members agreed that HSA staff may be invited to FDAC meetings if particular topics are related to their areas of expertise.
F9:
There are four Cal Fire Amador Plan stations and five volunteer companies in CSA 48: Cal Fire Amador Stations Volunteer Company Stations Big Creek Bonny Doon – Martin Rd. Burrell Bonny Doon – McDermott Corralitos* Corralitos* Saratoga Summit Davenport Las Cumbres Loma Prieta *Cal Fire and volunteers co-located (See Map, Appendix A, and Sources/Websites: Santa Cruz County Fire Interactive Map11.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
County Fire should be made a member of the Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA). Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA) is a joint powers association of Fire Agencies. At the time that the EMSIA was formed, the County decided not to become member due to possibility for future, unidentified fiscal obligations as set forth in the EMSIA membership agreement. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The recommendation is not warranted. County Fire does not have paramedic services at present.
F10:
Cal Fire prepares the annual operating budget for County Fire. In 2007-2008 this budget is $2,870,629 including $2,030,354 for CSA 48 and $840,275 for CSA 4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Paradise Park should be detached from CSA 48. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. Detachment is only viable if another agency assumes full responsibility for service delivery in Paradise Park. County Fire will continue to evaluate possibilities for ensuring appropriate level of protection for Paradise Park. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. Detachment is only viable if another agency assumes full responsibility for service delivery in Paradise Park. Response from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. The principal alternatives to provide fire and emergency services to the Paradise Park area are: • For the Paradise Park area to remain in County Service Area 48, and for the Board of Supervisors to form a Paradise Park Zone of County Service Area 48 to separately pay for the fire and emergency response services in the Paradise Park area. • Detach the Paradise Park area from the County Service Area 48 and form a new Paradise Park Service Area to pay for fire and emergency response costs in the Paradise Park area. • Detach the Paradise Park area from County Service Area 48 and annex it to the City of Santa Cruz. Any analysis should include one-time process costs (such as LAFCO fees, State Board of Equalization fees, preparation of legal map and description, and the initial Proposition 218 elections to establish a special tax or fire suppression assessment). In the third alternative of annexing to the City of Santa Cruz, additional analysis should be done to look at the entire range of services (police, land use regulation, public works costs and liabilities, etc). Paradise Park is currently located outside the City of Santa Cruz sphere of influence. Concerning implementation of this Grand Jury recommendation, LAFCO believes that the lead agency for the analysis should be the County of Santa Cruz. The County has expressed interest in establishing Zones within County Service Area 48, and that may be the simplest alternative to simply account for the cost of fire and emergency services in the Paradise Park area. Under state law, establishing such Zones does not require a LAFCO hearing and authorization. LAFCO staff is available to assist the Paradise Park area property owners, the Paradise Park area residents, the County of Santa Cruz, and other interested parties in evaluating the alternatives.
F11:
The primary funding sources for County Fire are property taxes and special assessments. The majority of CSA 48 property owners in 2007-2008 were assessed $117 per parcel and CSA 4 property owners $669.80. Secondary funding sources come from Proposition 172 funds and grants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
All agencies using addressing clerk services should share in the cost. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Effective FY 08/09, the cost of this position is allocated to either County Fire (a Fire Fund expense) or the Office of Emergency Services (a General Fund expense), based on the jurisdiction of the address being assigned. As a General Fund expenditure, the allocation of costs to the Office of Emergency Services essentially includes County agencies such as the Sheriff’s Department and the Department of Public Works. Allocation of costs to individual County departments would be a cumbersome process with no programmatic or fiscal benefit. Assigning costs to either the General Fund of the Fire Fund will appropriately allocate costs of the program. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES. The recommendation is reasonable. The cost of the work of the position should be allocated to all County jurisdictions/operations receiving the actual benefit including the Sheriff’s Office and Public Works.
F12:
A special election was held in fall 2007 that would have nearly doubled the CSA 48 special assessment in order to offset the increasing cost of the Amador Plan staffing and equipment replacement. This ballot measure failed and, as a result, budget reductions were required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Board of Supervisors should review the allocation of Proposition 172 funds. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The policy for the distribution of funds to unincorporated area fire services was developed jointly by representatives of County public safety agencies (the Sheriff- Coroner, District Attorney, the Chief Probation Officer, and representatives of the unincorporated area fires services) and the County Administrative Officer and approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1998. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES. A more equitable distribution of funds to unincorporated area fire services should be considered. The fire share represents a percentage of benefit only in those years when an increase over the tax base amount occurs. For those years where no increase occurs, fire does not receive share. The development of the distribution formula was agreed to by all the above mentioned representatives and was intended to recognize the inclusion of the fire services in the definition of public safety under Proposition 172 as well as to respond to the fire services request for a fair share of the public safety funding. The fire share represents a percentage of benefit in those years when an increase over the tax base amount occurs. For those years where no increase occurs, fire agencies do not receive a share, nor is there any reduction to the fire agencies allocation when Proposition 172 funds decrease from the prior year.
F13:
The County Fire contract prepared by Cal Fire has been inconsistent from year to year: • The 2007-2008 Amador agreement showed three stations, but the 2006-2007 agreement showed four stations. • The 2007-2008 Amador agreement totaled $53,267, but the 2005-2006 agreement totaled $711,590. The much lower cost in 2007-2008 was due to firefighter personnel, the most significant cost component, being listed on the Schedule A agreement instead of on the Amador agreement. Response from the County: DISAGREES. The contract reflects changing needs and available resources. The three stations were identified in an initial budget reduction recommendation that was changed by the Board of Supervisors. A correction to the agreement was not processed. 11 http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=105229572859786697499.00044308a6fb925404fc3&hl=e n&ie=UTF8&z=10 The shift in the contract costs for the identified years reflects a change in planned overtime to be covered by the State due to the CAL FIRE firefighters’ labor contract negotiations. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY AGREES. The reference to the three stations was an initial budget reduction recommendation that was changed by the Board of Supervisors after the document was prepared. The corresponding correction was not made. The shift in the contract costs for the identified years is due to the CAL FIRE firefighters labor contract negotiations and reflects a change in placement of planned overtime to be covered by the state. Santa Cruz County Office of Emergency Services (OES) under the General Services Department administers the County Fire contract and Cal Fire manages County Fire on a day-to-day basis. The cost of the Amador Plan is dependent on the length of the state-declared fire season. The longer the fire season, the longer the state rather than the county is obligated to fund staffing for state-run fire stations. The final 2007-2008 Amador Plan included 29 Cal Fire firefighters. Of these, 12 officers were paid by the state, and 17 seasonal firefighters were fully funded by the county. The majority of firefighters were not paid, with approximately 74 active volunteers in CSA 48. During the last four months of the 2007-2008 Amador Plan, firefighter staffing was reduced. On a rotating schedule, instead of assigning three engine operators to all four stations, one station was reduced to two engine operators each week. Cal Fire assigned other state-paid personnel to the fire stations based on anticipated need. A significant portion of the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District is classified as State Responsibility Area but in contrast to CSA 48 has a single fire station with a year- round Cal Fire contract for two engine operators. Only 0.4 percent of approximately $16 million in Proposition 172 funds are designated to the 2007-2008 County Fire budget with the remainder going to county law enforcement. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. 0.4% of approximately $16 million in Proposition 172 funds were designated to the 2007- 08 County Fire budget pursuant to the revenue sharing policy developed in conjunction with the Fire Chiefs Association and adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 27, 1998. This amount represents 12% of the actual annual fiscal year change in Proposition 172 revenues. Funds are distributed to the fire agencies in the County’s unincorporated area following an annual decision process by the Fire Chiefs Association. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. 0.4% of approximately 16 million dollars in Proposition 172 funds were designated to the 2007-08 County Fire budget. The amount allocated was pursuant to the formula for distribution of Prop. 172 revenue that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 27, 1998, and represents 12% of the actual annual fiscal year change in Prop. 172 revenues. Funds are distributed to the fire agencies in the County’s unincorporated area following an annual decision process by the Fire Chiefs Association. The average age of fire engines ready to respond is 15 years, but County Fire recommends maintaining an average age of less than ten years. The replacement cost of an engine is approximately $350,000.12 The community of Paradise Park is located within the boundaries of CSA 48. (See Map, Appendix A.) Because of the distance to the nearest County Fire station, it is impractical for them to service this community, so Paradise Park’s fire protection services are contracted out to the City of Santa Cruz. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): AGREES. LAFCO also note that the CSA 48 “island” along Highway 9/the San Lorenzo River comprises more than Paradise Park. It includes parts of Cowell Redwoods State Park, residences on the west side of Highway 9 across the road from Paradise Park, and Ocean Street Extension. Fees collected for fire marshal services do not cover the cost of operations. FDAC recommended recently that fire marshal staffing be reduced in an effort to match spending with revenues.13 Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. The two options would be to reduce costs or increase fees to cover the cost of services provided by the fire marshal. CSA 48 fully funds the position of addressing clerk in the General Services Department. The addressing clerk updates and maintains the database of street names and locations. All emergency personnel in the county have access to this updated information to accurately locate addresses. FDAC recommended recently that the County Office of Emergency Services assume the funding for this position.12 Response from the County: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Beginning in FY 07/08, the Clerk position’s time and associated cost has been distributed between the County Fire and Office of Emergency Services based on the jurisdiction receiving the benefit. Although the position itself is in the Fire budget unit, the actual costs are distributed based on the work and derived benefit. Cal Fire enters dispatch information into and draws statistics from the California All Incident Response System (CAIRS) database. CAIRS data was used to prepare the County Fire call reports presented to the Board of Supervisors. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection/Santa Cruz County Fire Department. Five-Year Mobile Equipment Replacement Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2011. County of Santa Cruz Fire Department Advisory Commission, draft minutes for the March 19, 2008, meeting. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. Additional data for the report on CAL FIRE firefighter deployment during non-fire season was obtained using the CAL FIRE computer aided dispatch system. A type of CAIRS report, Resources Activity, shows dispatch data for four different time points: dispatch, enroute, on-scene, return to quarter. Each incident is identified using the following fields: incident type, location, area and unit. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES. The majority of emergency incidents are not fire related yet fire personnel and heavy equipment are dispatched routinely. (See Appendix B.) The Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA) was established to administer a program to integrate fire agency emergency medical services into a countywide system. In the rural areas of the county, firefighters are normally the first medically trained responders to arrive on the scene of an emergency. Response from the County: AGREES. Cal Fire and volunteer firefighters are trained and certified to provide basic life support services. Response from the County: AGREES. The County contracts with American Medical Response to provide medically necessary ambulance transport staffed with advanced life support paramedics Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. Response plans indicate more than one resource (engine, company officer) respond to each incident and this varies by type of incident. The fact that volunteer companies, adjoining district resources, or ambulances respond does not create a separate incident or CAIRS report. Individual resource or agency responses can be tracked by CAD data review. If engines are cancelled prior to arrival (e.g. false alarm or cancellation by law enforcement or other agency), it still qualifies as a response. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY AGREES. Response plans indicate more than one resource (engine, company officer) respond to each incident, which varies by type of incident. The fact that volunteer companies, adjoining district resources, or ambulances respond does not create a separate incident or CAIRS report. Individual resource or agency responses can be and are tracked by CAD data review. If engines are cancelled prior to arrival (e.g. false alarm or cancellation by law enforcement or other agency), the initial dispatch still qualifies as a response. The Board of Supervisors asked County Fire management to provide monthly incident reports to evaluate the effects of reduced staffing approved in February 2008. Matching a 10-day period of ECC audio dispatches 14 to corresponding CAIRS Resource Activity reports revealed • A single incident can have multiple responses. • Every dispatch is reported as an incident response regardless of actual on-scene arrival. Volunteer company responses are not included. • Adjoining fire district responses are not included. • Ambulance responses are not included. Response from the County: AGREES. Emergency calls from County Fire are first routed to the Santa Cruz Consolidated Emergency Communications Center (Netcom). Since the State requires Cal Fire to command its resources, Netcom must relay the initial call and pass control of the dispatch to the Cal Fire ECC. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES. County Fire responds to medical emergency calls but is not a member of the Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA).15 The Cal Fire Chief is on the EMSIA Board of Directors only on behalf of the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. Although it is difficult to quantify and varies throughout the year, the CAL FIRE Chief estimates that 33% of his time is expended on Santa Cruz County issues. Additional administrative and operations management is provided through two Deputy Chiefs. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Although difficult to quantify, with variations throughout the year, the CAL FIRE Chief estimates that 33% of his time is expended on Santa Cruz County work and issues. The Cal Fire Unit Chief for both San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties is designated as the Chief of County Fire and the Santa Cruz County Fire Department. Approximately 20 percent of his time is spent on Santa Cruz County support. Response from the County: DISAGREES. The role of the FDAC is not related to the authority granted under the establishment of CSA 48. Rather the FDAC was established under the County Code to exercise responsibilities to ensure that the interests of the county fire department, career and volunteer fire companies and the citizens residing within county fire department jurisdiction are protected and promoted by monitoring, studying, and advising the County Fire Chief and the Board of Supervisors. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: DISAGREES. Firescan.net, http://www.firescan.net/ 15 “Surviving Sudden Cardiac Arrest: Improving the Odds with Automated External Defibrillators, -5. The role of the FDAC is not related to the authority granted under the establishment of CSA 48. Rather the FDAC was established under the County Code to exercise responsibilities to ensure that the interests of the county fire department, career and volunteer fire companies and the citizens residing within county fire department jurisdiction are protected and promoted by monitoring, studying, and advising the county fire chief and the board of supervisors. The FDAC represents CSA 48 and its role is to advise the County Fire Chief and the County Board of Supervisors. FDAC does not represent CSA 4. Response from the County: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The membership of the Fire Department Advisory Commission was amended to reduce membership because the subject matter under consideration at most meetings was outside the scope of some then member representatives. As a result, those representatives did not attend every meeting. Representatives of these agencies are always available to attend any meetings where their participation would be helpful. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. As stated in the Board of Supervisors report in 2005, other issues besides attendance were considered in revising the membership of the FDAC. The county code for FDAC membership was amended in 2005 to reduce membership from 13 seats to 10 seats, eliminating two representatives from the Health Services Agency (one each from Emergency Medical Services and Environmental Health) and one from Public Works, due to their poor attendance records. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES. Although several volunteer fire companies and Cal Fire maintain websites, there is no County Fire website. Conclusions 1. “County Fire” is a confusing term, implying the existence of a single department responsible for fire protection in the rural areas of the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The Board of Supervisors should examine fire marshal services for ways to reduce County Fire cost. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The County continually monitors the activities of the Fire Marshall’s office and adjusts operations according to the desired level of service within available resources. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. County continually monitors the activities of the Fire Marshall’s office. County Fire adjusts operations according to the desired level of service.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
A single list that included every dependent, independent and autonomous special district within Santa Cruz County did not exist.
F2:
In the 2005 Countywide Service Review published by LAFCO, 84 special districts are listed as being within LAFCO’s jurisdiction.
F3:
Not all special districts in the county are within LAFCO’s jurisdiction. Some may be operated directly by the County Board of Supervisors or their own board.
F4:
There are a total of 92 special districts in Santa Cruz County: 63 dependent, eight independent, and 21 autonomous (see Table). Table. Santa Cruz County Special Districts 2007-2008 Type of Special District D = Dependent I = Independent A = Autonomous * Not regulated by LAFCO TYPE NAME ACTIVITY FUNCTION D CSA 2 Place DeMer Subdivision Maintenance Health Sanitation D CSA 3 Aptos Seascape Maintain Area Roads D CSA 4 Pajaro Dunes Fire Protection Public Protection D CSA 5 Sand Dollar Beach Sewer Services Health Sanitation D CSA 7 Boulder Creek Sewer Collection & Treatment Health Sanitation D CSA 9 Hwy Safety & Lighting Capital Improvements Roads D* CSA 9A Residential Lighting Unincorporated Roads D* CSA 9B School Crossing Guard Live Oak School District Roads D* CSA 9C Refuse Disposal Transfer Stations Health Sanitation D* CSA 9D1 Road Maintenance Subzone 1 Roads D* CSA 9D2 Road Maintenance Subzone 2 Roads D* CSA 9D3 Road Maintenance Subzone 3 Roads D* CSA 9E Streetscape (Redevelopment) Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 10 Rolling Woods Sewer Collection & Treatment Health Sanitation D CSA 11 Parks & Recreation Recreation Parks Recreation D CSA 12 All Unsewered Areas Waste Disposal Enterprise Health Sanitation D* CSA 12-Capital Improvement Low Interest Loan Health Sanitation D* CSA 12A SLV Wastewater Mgmt San Lorenzo Wastewater Health Sanitation D CSA 13 Hutchinson Road Road Maintenance Roads D* CSA 13A Oak Flat Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 15 Huckleberry Woods Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 16 Robak Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 17 Empire Acres Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 18 Whitehouse Canyon Dr Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 20 Trestle Beach Sewer Collection & Treatment Health Sanitation D CSA 21 Westdale Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 22 Kelly Hill Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 23 Old Ranch Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 24 Pineridge Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 25 Viewpoint Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 26 Hidden Valley Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 28 Lomond Terrace Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 30 Glenwood Acres Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 32 View Circle Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 33 Redwood Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 34 Larson Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 35 Country Estates Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 36 Forest Glen Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 37 Roberts Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 38 Sheriff Unincorporated Financing Public Protection D CSA 39 Reed Street Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 40 Ralston Way Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 41 Loma Prieta Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 42 Sunlit Lane Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 43 Bonita-Encino Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 44 Sunbeam Woods Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 46 Pinecrest Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 47 Braemoor Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 48 County Fire Fire Protection Public Protection D CSA 50 Vineyard Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 51 Hopkins Gulch Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 52 Upper Pleasant Valley Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 53 Mosquito Abatement Pest Control Health Sanitation D* CSA 53-North Mosquito Abatement Pest Control Health Sanitation D CSA 54 Summit West Water Enterprise Health Sanitation D CSA 55 Riverdale Park Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 56 Felton Grove Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 57 Graham Hill Drainage & Sewer Health Sanitation D CSA 58 Ridge Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 59 McGaffigan Mill Road Road & Bridge Maintenance Roads A Alba Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park Parks recreation A Aptos-La Selva Fire Protection Services Fire Protection Public Protection A Ben Lomond Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection A Boulder Creek Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection A Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park Parks recreation A Branciforte Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection A Central Fire Protection District (Santa Cruz) Fire Protection Public Protection A Central Water District Santa Cruz Water Enterprise Water D Davenport Sanitation Collection, Treatment & Disposal Health Sanitation A Felton Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection D Freedom Sanitation District Sewage Collection & Disposal Health Sanitation A La Selva Beach Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park Parks recreation A Lompico County Water District Water Enterprise Water A Opal Cliffs Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park Parks recreation A Pajaro Valley Fire Protection Service Fire Protection Public Protection I Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency Flood Control and Water Conservation Public Protection I Pajaro Storm Drain Maintenance District Drainage & Drainage Maintenance Public Protection A Pajaro Valley Cemetery District Cemetery Health Sanitation D Pasatiempo-Rolling Woods Sewer District Sewage Construction Health Sanitation A Reclamation District No. 2049 Land Reclamation and Levee Maintenance Public Protection I* Santa Cruz County Flood Control District Flood Control and Water Conservation Public Protection A Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation Dist. Resource Conservation Public Protection I* Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Transit Enterprise Transit I Santa Cruz Port District Harbor Port Enterprise Harbor A Santa Cruz County Sanitation Dist. (Santa Cruz) Waste Disposal Enterprise Health Sanitation A Salsipuedes Sanitary District Waste Disposal Enterprise Health Sanitation I San Lorenzo Valley County Water Water Enterprise Water A Scotts Valley Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection A* Scotts Valley Fire Protection Zone A Fire Protection Public Protection I Scotts Valley Water District Water Enterprise Water I Soquel Creek Water District Water Enterprise Water A Zayante Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection Sources County of Santa Cruz Autonomous Special Districts Final Budget 2007-2008 Countywide Service Review, LAFCO June 2005 Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller’s Office Santa Cruz County Fiscal Year 2007-08 Budget Santa Cruz LAFCO office Santa Cruz LAFCO website, http://www.santacruzlafco.org/
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
42 findings
F1:
Conclusions 2. Since the most pressing concern today is from where the money will come to maintain Medicare and Medicaid services for those who qualify under today’s system, extending it to include low-income families is not being discussed. 3. Santa Cruz County public, non-profit, and for-profit medical resources have worked together to make health care more accessible to low-income families. Commendation 1. The Human Services Department and the Health Services Agency are to be commended for ongoing focus on the delivery of adequate health care services to Santa Cruz County residents. Health Insurance Coverage 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 3: The Healthy Families Program should include parents in its coverage. Premiums should be set at more affordable levels in order to accelerate enrollment of families without insurance. Coverage should be maintained during short periods of seasonal unemployment. The Central Coast Alliance for Health should approach local employers to continue premium payments for families during short periods of seasonal unemployment to keep insurance coverage from lapsing. It should continue to expand the participation of specialists in its programs. County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. 2007-2008 Grand Jury Findings 12. The Healthy Families Program does not include parents in its coverage. Healthy Families insurance premiums vary depending on the health plan selected. Families receive a discounted premium if they select the local Community Provider Plan, which is the Central Coast Alliance for Health (the Alliance) in Santa Cruz County. The Alliance’s maximum monthly premium for a family with three or more children is $36 (or $108 per quarter). 13. Recent local funding contributions to the Healthy Kids program, which came primarily from Sutter Santa Cruz and Dominican Hospital, will allow the Alliance to move 295 children off the waiting list and into enrollment. 14. Seasonal unemployment only affects the eligibility of adults in a family receiving Medi-Cal. The Alliance reports that their Medi-Cal membership fluctuates by about five percent each year according to the growing season and migration of Medi-Cal recipients out of the area. Typically, a seasonal employee becomes eligible for Medi- Cal when the work season ends or slows down because the worker’s income decreases. When an individual’s work hours increase again, Medi-Cal eligibility could be lost due to the corresponding increase in income. Thus, an individual may qualify during periods of little work or unemployment but no longer qualify for Medi- Cal when working full-time. 15. Medi-Cal has no provision for continued eligibility if an adult no longer meets the criteria. However, children can maintain Medi-Cal eligibility for 12 months even if the adults in the family are terminated due to an increase in income or assets. 16. Although families pay no premiums for the Medi-Cal program, there are premiums associated with the Healthy Families and Healthy Kids programs. However, regardless of changes in family income, once a child is deemed eligible for Healthy Families or Healthy Kids, that child remains eligible for 12 months unless he or she becomes eligible for no-cost Medi-Cal, is covered by other health insurance, or turns 19. Children also lose Healthy Kids eligibility and coverage when they move out of Santa Cruz County. 17. In 2000, the Santa Cruz County population was 255,602. In 2007, the population increased slightly to an estimated 264,125 (3.3 percent). But the supply of health care specialists for Alliance programs has increased by almost 30 percent since that year. In 2000, the Alliance had an average of 499 specialists available to serve Santa Cruz County residents. As of March 2008, 697 specialists are available. 18. The Alliance collaborates with over 60 community coalitions and organizations to promote its programs, including the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department. It also promotes health care resources to the public at events, such as farmers’ markets, health fairs, community block parties, and other festivals. In addition, the Alliance publishes a provider bulletin in which providers are urged to encourage their Healthy Families and Healthy Kids patients to stay enrolled and thereby continue their health care coverage. 19. In March 2008, at California’s annual Medi-Cal Quality Conference, Central Coast Alliance for Health tied for first place with Health Plan of San Francisco, winning the Gold Award for the highest rate of preventive care services among all 39 Medi-Cal health plans in California. The Alliance also won a second place Silver Award for member satisfaction. Conclusions 4. Because Healthy Families is a state and federally funded health plan, Santa Cruz County cannot change the eligibility requirements for the program. 5. The 2000-2001 report recommended, “Coverage should be maintained during short periods of seasonal unemployment.” But, in fact, qualifying seasonal workers are covered while unemployed. They risk losing coverage when employed because their income may exceed guidelines. That issue has not been addressed by Medi-Cal or any county agency. 6. A public/private partnership exists in the county to provide affordable access to health care for low-income individuals and families.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency should continue to partner closely with the Central Coast Alliance for Health. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The Health Services Agency has a very close partnership with the Central Coast Alliance for Health and will continue working closely together.
F2:
While the County has pursued a goal of consolidating categorical health plans and simplifying eligibility requirements, there is no published plan or public commission in place to oversee it. Response from the County: DISAGREES. The Public Health Commission is charged with overseeing the operation of preventative health programs, medical clinics and medical programs, which includes review of eligibility requirements and categorical health plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency should continue to expand local outreach and enrollment resources for low-income persons in the county by continuing to partner with local agencies, both public and private. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The Health Services Agency will continue to expand outreach and enrollment resources throughout the County.
F3:
Eligibility requirements for health plans have not been simplified in any significant way, but the County has structured resources to guide applicants through the maze of health services and health insurance programs that are offered by non-profits and various government agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency should consider expanding contracts with the Alliance for other categorical health program administration, where and when appropriate. Response from the County: WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. The Health Services Agency will continue to work with the Alliance in considering future expansion.
F4:
Santa Cruz County now uses One-e-App, a web-based system for connecting families with a range of publicly funded health and social service programs. Applicants, usually with the help of Certified Application Assistants or county eligibility workers, enter their personal information to learn about and apply for programs that best meet their family's needs. System administrators, supervisors, and case management staff, can run reports and determine eligibility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
If the Health Services Agency is unable to transfer other appropriate categorical health program administration to the Alliance, the agency should adopt the Alliance’s principles of practice for categorical health program administration. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Although the meaning of “categorical health program administration” is unclear, the agency will continue to work closely with the Alliance on all programs allowed within the law. Commendation
F5:
Santa Cruz County Health Care Outreach Coalition expands access to health care coverage for uninsured county residents, promotes awareness of government- funded health insurance programs and conducts outreach to schools, community-based organizations, businesses, faith-based organizations, childcare providers, and the general community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
If First 5 no longer supports it, the Coalition for Health Care Outreach should be supported in the budget of the Health Services Agency. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. Although the Coalition for Health Care Outreach is very important, unless funding is identified to replace the $300,000 First Five contribution, such support cannot be guaranteed due to other competing high priority needs. Clinic Hours 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 6: Additional sessions in the evening and through the lunch hour would be a great advantage for family members who now must lose time at work to attend the clinics. Response from the County: This recommendation requires further analysis. 2007-2008 Grand Jury Findings 31. Three community clinics were visited in 2000, Salud Para La Gente in Watsonville, Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center, and Dientes Community Dental Clinic in Santa Cruz. The current Grand Jury has confirmed the following hours with employees at each clinic. All three clinics are closed Sundays and specified holidays. • Salud Para La Gente: • Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. • Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center: • Monday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8:20 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Wednesday, 12:20 to 5:00 p.m. • Friday, 8:20 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to noon • Dientes Community Dental Care: • Monday though Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (closed 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.) • Friday, 7:30 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. (closed noon to 1:00 p.m.) • Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. 32. Some discrepancies exist between the clinic hours posted on websites and the hours provided in email and telephone communication.
F6:
The Benefits Call Center was established in 2000 to provide an easily accessible source of information for Medi-Cal recipients and to ensure that recipients complete all program requirements to maintain their coverage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Health Services Agency should encourage community clinics to accurately communicate clinic hours to the public. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED and will continue to be coordinated with the Safety Net Clinic Coalition. Dental Health Programs 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 7: Full-service dental health programs should be launched in county and community clinics. County Response: This recommendation has been and will continue to be implemented through the county’s community partners.
F7:
There is no new program, or expansion of an existing program, to extend health care to entire families instead of just individual members. California’s Medicare system, Medi-Cal, is governed by federal rules because it is mainly funded by the federal government. Medi-Cal has not acted to extend health care coverage to low-income families.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
While low reimbursement rates for medical providers inhibit the delivery of adequate health care to Medi-Cal and Healthy Families beneficiaries, county residents must depend on state and federal entities to resolve the problem. Coalition for Health Care Outreach 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 5: The Coalition for Health Care Outreach should be supported in the budget of the Health Services Agency upon expiration of the Packard Foundation grant. County Response: This recommendation is being implemented. 2007-2008 Grand Jury Findings
F8:
In 2008, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (HI) is scheduled to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Since the Packard Foundation grant expired, the Coalition for Health Care Outreach has secured funds to continue successful operation in Santa Cruz County. Recommendation
F9:
Private health care providers, both physicians and dentists, have been recruited to treat patients who can’t afford to pay. They do this without remuneration as a community service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Clinic operations are no longer confined to daytime hours. The three clinics each offer some lunchtime and/or evening hours. All offer Saturday appointments as well.
F10:
In order to simplify access to categorical health programs, the 2000-2001 Grand Jury recommended using the Central Coast Alliance for Health as a model for administering them. Health Services Agency determined it would accomplish the same goal to make those programs part of the Alliance where possible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The inconsistencies of the posted clinic hours confuse and possibly inconvenience patients. Recommendation
F11:
Some Grand Jury recommendations hinged on the county becoming a demonstration site for the integrated provision of local health services subsidized by state and federal governments. This did not happen as explained in Demonstration Site Finding 1. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Health Services Agency continue to build the network of mental health services countywide. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
F12:
The Healthy Families Program does not include parents in its coverage. Healthy Families insurance premiums vary depending on the health plan selected. Families receive a discounted premium if they select the local Community Provider Plan, which is the Central Coast Alliance for Health (the Alliance) in Santa Cruz County. The Alliance’s maximum monthly premium for a family with three or more children is $36 (or $108 per quarter).
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Staff development, including improved training and new methods for reviewing program results, would increase the effectiveness of the Health Services Agency. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. HSA will further expand staff development as additional funding becomes available.
F13:
Recent local funding contributions to the Healthy Kids program, which came primarily from Sutter Santa Cruz and Dominican Hospital, will allow the Alliance to move 295 children off the waiting list and into enrollment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors support coordination of the various funding streams by the Health Services Agency so that available funds can be used to match the diverse needs of the clients. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. HSA will continue efforts to coordinate and increase various funding streams to meet the needs of our clients.
F14:
Seasonal unemployment only affects the eligibility of adults in a family receiving Medi-Cal. The Alliance reports that their Medi-Cal membership fluctuates by about five percent each year according to the growing season and migration of Medi-Cal recipients out of the area. Typically, a seasonal employee becomes eligible for Medi- Cal when the work season ends or slows down because the worker’s income decreases. When an individual’s work hours increase again, Medi-Cal eligibility could be lost due to the corresponding increase in income. Thus, an individual may qualify during periods of little work or unemployment but no longer qualify for Medi- Cal when working full-time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure adequate funding for patients’ employment services, which play an important part in mental health treatment. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The Board of Supervisors restored $50,000 for employment services in the 2008-09 budget.
F15:
Medi-Cal has no provision for continued eligibility if an adult no longer meets the criteria. However, children can maintain Medi-Cal eligibility for 12 months even if the adults in the family are terminated due to an increase in income or assets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
It would be beneficial for the Health Services Agency to continue developing mental health outreach and education programs to provide even more community social support for recovering patients, so they can feel welcome in their communities. Support resources can include churches and neighborhood organizations. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. HSA will continue developing outreach and educational programs as funding becomes available. Commendation
F16:
Although families pay no premiums for the Medi-Cal program, there are premiums associated with the Healthy Families and Healthy Kids programs. However, regardless of changes in family income, once a child is deemed eligible for Healthy Families or Healthy Kids, that child remains eligible for 12 months unless he or she becomes eligible for no-cost Medi-Cal, is covered by other health insurance, or turns
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
The Grand Jury urges the Health Services Agency to continue to seek grants and other alternative sources for funds to pay competitive salaries to health professionals. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED and will continue to be a high priority for the Health Services Department.
F17:
In 2000, the Santa Cruz County population was 255,602. In 2007, the population increased slightly to an estimated 264,125 (3.3 percent). But the supply of health care specialists for Alliance programs has increased by almost 30 percent since that year. In 2000, the Alliance had an average of 499 specialists available to serve Santa Cruz County residents. As of March 2008, 697 specialists are available.
F18:
The Alliance collaborates with over 60 community coalitions and organizations to promote its programs, including the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department. It also promotes health care resources to the public at events, such as farmers’ markets, health fairs, community block parties, and other festivals. In addition, the Alliance publishes a provider bulletin in which providers are urged to encourage their Healthy Families and Healthy Kids patients to stay enrolled and thereby continue their health care coverage.
F19:
Children also lose Healthy Kids eligibility and coverage when they move out of Santa Cruz County.
F20:
A comprehensive approach is the most pressing need in the system. Along with counseling and medication, affordable housing, tenured living spaces, and job development are all necessary for proper treatment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
Since Medi-Cal and Healthy Families reimbursement rates are set by state and federal government agencies, the County of Santa Cruz has no authority to revise them.
F21:
While all “safety net clinics” are not geared toward families, they are putting forth their best efforts to meet the various needs of the uninsured and Medi-Cal patients in Santa Cruz County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
Congressman Sam Farr, the California Medical Association (CMA), and others have called the reimbursement fee schedules for county doctors inequitable and continue to work to require that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services fix a system viewed as unfair to local qualified participants. Conclusion
F22:
In June of 2001 the Packard Foundation grant expired. In 2007-2008, funding for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach (Coalition) came from two sources, First 5 California (First 5) and Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
In June of 2001 the Packard Foundation grant expired. In 2007-2008, funding for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach (Coalition) came from two sources, First 5 California (First 5) and Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
F23:
The budget for fiscal year was $403,000. First 5 funded $300,000, and the Coalition hopes to receive the additional $103,000 from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
The budget for fiscal year was $403,000. First 5 funded $300,000, and the Coalition hopes to receive the additional $103,000 from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
F24:
The County works as a middleman for both sources of Coalition funding. Medi-Cal Administrative Activities
Related Recommendations (1)
R24:
The County works as a middleman for both sources of Coalition funding. Medi-Cal Administrative Activities
F25:
During the month of September, the Coalition completes a “time survey” to establish the annual cost of outreach activities in excess of what First 5 already pays. The federal government agency Medi-Cal Administrative Activities is billed that excess cost. The turnaround for payment is generally about three years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R25:
During the month of September, the Coalition completes a “time survey” to establish the annual cost of outreach activities in excess of what First 5 already pays. The federal government agency Medi-Cal Administrative Activities is billed that excess cost. The turnaround for payment is generally about three years.
F26:
The County supports various organizations associated with the Coalition throughout the year and receives the money from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. Many variables determine what work is being done and how it is being claimed. On average, the Coalition received approximately 75 percent of what they predicted in their budget from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. The County then funds the remaining budget. First 5 California
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
The County supports various organizations associated with the Coalition throughout the year and receives the money from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. Many variables determine what work is being done and how it is being claimed. On average, the Coalition received approximately 75 percent of what they predicted in their budget from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. The County then funds the remaining budget. First 5 California
F27:
The State of California retains 20 percent of the money First 5 receives, and 80 percent is distributed to the 58 counties throughout California based on the number of children born in the county. Santa Cruz receives approximately $2,700,000 annually.
Related Recommendations (1)
R27:
The State of California retains 20 percent of the money First 5 receives, and 80 percent is distributed to the 58 counties throughout California based on the number of children born in the county. Santa Cruz receives approximately $2,700,000 annually.
F28:
First 5 has three established goals: healthy children, children learning and ready for school, and healthy families. Allowing for local decision-making, the First 5 Santa Cruz County Commission determines how to distribute funds based on a three-year strategic plan and annual contracts. Money provided to the Coalition by First Five has been designated as outreach funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R28:
First 5 has three established goals: healthy children, children learning and ready for school, and healthy families. Allowing for local decision-making, the First 5 Santa Cruz County Commission determines how to distribute funds based on a three-year strategic plan and annual contracts. Money provided to the Coalition by First Five has been designated as outreach funds.
F29:
First 5 reimburses the County for payments made to community agencies for contracted services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R29:
First 5 reimburses the County for payments made to community agencies for contracted services.
F30:
In the fall of 2008, First 5 will create a new three-year strategic plan. This may or may not result in continued funds for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach. Conclusion
Related Recommendations (1)
R30:
In the fall of 2008, First 5 will create a new three-year strategic plan. This may or may not result in continued funds for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach. Conclusion
F44:
The Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (Division), a division of the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency, works with and through many groups to offer a wide range of mental health care services including emergency shelter, transitional housing, supported housing, dual diagnosis treatment, crisis intervention, case management, and peer support. Other services available to clients are assessment, counseling, medication support, and referrals. Spanish translation is offered, as is an Appeal Resolution Process for anyone who is denied assistance. The following is a partial list of these resources. Adult residential treatment is offered at • Transition House, 10 beds • Paloma House, 12 beds • Pioneer House, eight beds • Opal Cliffs, 15 beds • El Dorado Center, 16 beds • Darwin House, 15 beds • Front St., Inc., 11 beds • River Street Shelter, 20 beds reserved for people referred by County Mental Health Outpatient treatment and/or social rehabilitation are available at • North County Mental Health Center • South County Clinic • Community Support Services • Dominican Hospital Behavioral Health • Pioneer House Dual Diagnosis Day Program • Community Connection Academy • Front Street Day Rehabilitation Program Self help resources include • Mental Health Client Action Network • Mariposa Activity Center • Community Connection Mental Health Resource Center and Career Services • Community Support Services Community Organizers Program Ongoing services for the protection of low-income mentally ill residents include • Advocacy, Inc. (Patient Rights) • Public Guardian’s Office
F45:
It is hard to retain staff; therefore, continual training programs are necessary. Many new employees come from the Cabrillo College Health Science/Community Health programs.
F46:
Various federal, state, county and private agencies fund mental health treatment in our county. Mental health has made effective use of these grants and programs. Some of these sources (known as funding streams) are designated for specific and limited uses. Clients often present with a variety of issues and staff sometimes has difficulty matching funds to the specific needs of the client. Services offered to individuals and families will be further restricted by potential state and county budget cuts in the coming year.
F47:
Training in cultural sensitivity is emphasized and employees are trained within their department as well as by outside resources.
F48:
Some families have difficulty acknowledging the existence of a mental health problem. This can be a cultural issue or a matter of pride. Successful mental health outreach and education programs have worked as a part of the network of general health services.
F49:
Access to services is difficult for South County residents because most service sites are located in Santa Cruz. Public transit offers only a few routes and limited hours of operation. The Division is attempting to expand county services and to create more partnerships with community agencies in South County.
F50:
The Division works with Senior Network Services but does not yet have an early intervention program for seniors.
F51:
Among the ongoing concerns of the Division is the ever-present worry of patients exhibiting unexpected antisocial behavior. Conclusions
F60:
Currently Santa Cruz County uses eight nearby counties in salary surveys: Monterey, Santa Clara, Alameda, Napa, Sonoma, Marin, Solano and San Mateo. For the most part, these are more similar to Santa Cruz than the nine counties formerly used in that they are not strictly agricultural and have living costs comparable to Santa Cruz.
Related Recommendations (1)
R60:
Currently Santa Cruz County uses eight nearby counties in salary surveys: Monterey, Santa Clara, Alameda, Napa, Sonoma, Marin, Solano and San Mateo. For the most part, these are more similar to Santa Cruz than the nine counties formerly used in that they are not strictly agricultural and have living costs comparable to Santa Cruz.
F61:
Recruiting and retaining physicians and other medical professionals is uniquely difficult in Santa Cruz County because it is labeled by Medicare as a rural county. The Medicare reimbursement rate is the same as Butte, Imperial and other counties with a much lower cost of living.
Related Recommendations (1)
R61:
Recruiting and retaining physicians and other medical professionals is uniquely difficult in Santa Cruz County because it is labeled by Medicare as a rural county. The Medicare reimbursement rate is the same as Butte, Imperial and other counties with a much lower cost of living.
F62:
The county health programs must compete with Dominican and Sutter for physicians and other medical professionals. Hospitals are in a unique position to pay higher salaries as their Medicare reimbursements are based on actual costs. A national Medicare study released in 2007 shows hospitals in Santa Cruz County have the highest labor costs in the country, which local health officials say means higher medical costs and insurance premiums for patients. This situation creates a difficult challenge when it comes to recruiting medical professionals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R62:
The county health programs must compete with Dominican and Sutter for physicians and other medical professionals. Hospitals are in a unique position to pay higher salaries as their Medicare reimbursements are based on actual costs. A national Medicare study released in 2007 shows hospitals in Santa Cruz County have the highest labor costs in the country, which local health officials say means higher medical costs and insurance premiums for patients. This situation creates a difficult challenge when it comes to recruiting medical professionals.
F63:
Salaries and working conditions for physicians and other medical professionals employed by the County are negotiated with the respective unions. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R63:
Salaries and working conditions for physicians and other medical professionals employed by the County are negotiated with the respective unions. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R31:
Three community clinics were visited in 2000, Salud Para La Gente in Watsonville, Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center, and Dientes Community Dental Clinic in Santa Cruz. The current Grand Jury has confirmed the following hours with employees at each clinic. All three clinics are closed Sundays and specified holidays. • Salud Para La Gente: • Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. • Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center: • Monday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8:20 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Wednesday, 12:20 to 5:00 p.m. • Friday, 8:20 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to noon • Dientes Community Dental Care: • Monday though Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (closed 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.) • Friday, 7:30 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. (closed noon to 1:00 p.m.) • Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
R32:
Some discrepancies exist between the clinic hours posted on websites and the hours provided in email and telephone communication. Conclusions
R52:
In the County of Santa Cruz, “safety net clinics,” (i.e., county or nonprofit clinics), take patients that are uninsured regardless of their ability to pay.
R53:
Current public and non-profit clinics, as a whole, have not been reconfigured to family-oriented and preventative care, but rather each clinic has an area or multiple areas of concentration which are listed below. Santa Cruz Clinics Santa Cruz Women’s Health • Primary Care for Women and Children • Family Planning • Health Benefits Advocacy • Illness Prevention and Health Promotion • Gynecology and Prenatal Care • Pediatrics • Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Naturopathy Westside Health Center (Planned Parenthood) • Primary Care Services • Family Planning • Health Benefits Advocacy • Illness Prevention and Health Promotion • Obstetrics and Gynecology • Pediatrics • Abortion Services Emeline Clinic • Primary Care Services • Walk-in Immunizations • Health Benefits Advocacy • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • Orthopedics • Family Planning • Laboratory, Radiology, and Pharmacy Coral Street Clinic • Urgent Care and Primary Care • Integrated Case Management • Mental Health and Substance Abuse • Health Benefits Advocacy • Counseling Beach Flats Clinic • Primary Care Services • Women’s Health • Pediatrics • Family Planning • Dental Care • HIV Testing • Obstetrics and Gynecology Dientes Community Dental Care • Emergency Dental Care • Full Range of Dental Services • Oral Health Advocacy Dominican Pediatric Clinic • Pediatric Services Elderday Adult Day Health (Salud Para La Gente) • Adult Day Health Watsonville Clinics Salud Para La Gente • Primary Care Services • Family Planning • Dental Care • Eye Clinic / Optometry • Health Prevention and Promotion • Health Benefits Agency • Pediatrics • Obstetrics and Gynecology Diabetes Health Center • Diabetes Self-Management • Medical Nutrition Therapy • Group Classes • Insulin Training • Glucometer Training Clinica del Valle Del Pajaro • Primary Care Services • Dental Care • Family Planning • Women’s Health • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • Obstetrics and Gynecology South County Clinic • Primary Care Services • Immunizations • Health Benefits Advocacy • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • HIV Prevention • Laboratory • Radiology • Breast Cancer Early Detection Programs • Family Planning Clinic Mariposa (Planned Parenthood Mar Monte) • Primary Care Services • Family Planning • Health Benefits Advocacy • Pediatrics • Obstetrics and Gynecology • Illness Prevention and Health Promotion Children’s Resource Center • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • Dental Care Green Valley Clinic • Obstetrics and Gynecology • Women’s Health
R54:
Santa Cruz Women’s Health and Planned Parenthood specialize in women’s health, family care, and reproductive health.
R55:
Specialists are available when necessary, usually through Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center, which provides some free services to the community.
R56:
The County of Santa Cruz currently employs 20 full-time doctors: five primary care physicians (including two pediatricians), and 15 psychiatrists, four of which are bilingual.
R57:
The recruitment of allied health practitioners and full-time county physicians is often a challenge. Response from the County: AGREES. The Health Services Agency and the Personnel Department have developed a number of successful initiatives to increase the County’s ability to recruit for various classes of health practitioners and physicians.
R58:
The high cost of housing in Santa Cruz County makes recruiting primary care physicians difficult.
R59:
Psychiatry has only one vacant position, and nurse practitioner positions are filled through a “feeder program” from San Jose State University. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
On March 12, 2008, PVUSD Board Agenda item 13.4 reports that the district will not have the funding to meet the current budget. Due to the State’s financial crisis, A Tale of a SERP 47 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F2:
PVUSD hired Keenan and Associates, a financial planner, to conduct a Fiscal Cost Analysis to analyze the potential savings of offering a SERP. The report was prepared and submitted to the district on June 6, 2008. It established plan assumptions, benefit options, demographic analysis, SERP cost analysis, and benefit data sheets for three employee groups in the district. PVUSD staff stated that offering a SERP to management employees could generate a cost savings of approximately $159,000 depending upon the number of employees who took advantage of the opportunity. The proposal identified twelve managers as potential candidates for the incentive.
F3:
Three months before Keenan and Associates submitted the Fiscal Cost Analysis, PVUSD Board of Education approved Resolution 0708-22 on March 12, 2008, offering a SERP for management employees. The criteria set forth by the Board requires that the employee: • is a certificated or classified management employee • will be at least 55 years of age by June 30, 2008 • has at lease five years of continuous service with the district by date of retirement • submits a letter of resignation and SERP enrollment package by May 9, 2008 • is eligible to retire from State Teacher Retirement System (STRS) or Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) • retires from the district as of June 30, 2008 • will not be eligible for reemployment in the district other than as a substitute 48 A Tale of a SERP 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES The projections were brought to the board March 12, 2008 with the resolution to request permission to proceed with the offering. This criterion is the same for management and teachers.
F4:
The PVUSD SERP offered eligible employees 95% of current salary to be paid according to the option selected by the employee. The terms of payment varied from a monthly payment through the remainder of life or a five to ten year distribution.
F5:
The Associate Superintendent of Business and the Interim Superintendent prepared the SERP Resolution 0708-22 and the agenda item for the PVUSD Board. The resolution was approved in open session and the public had the opportunity to see the item on the agenda prior to the action taken by the board. Both the Interim Superintendent and the Secretary of the Board signed the resolution according to district procedures.
F6:
PVUSD Board Members did not have a copy of the Fiscal Cost Analysis prepared by Keenan and Associates and were not privy to the information in the document except what was reported to them by staff prior to approving the SERP.
F7:
The district SERP administrators were the Associate Superintendent of Business and Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources. Keenan Financial Services served as the contract administrator to assist in implementation of the plan.
F8:
Following the approval of the SERP by the PVUSD Board, an announcement flyer was prepared and distributed to all management employees in the district.
F9:
Twelve employees submitted the proper paperwork and met the established criteria to receive the retirement incentive.
F10:
Eleven of those employees, the Associate Superintendent of Business and the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources were subordinate to the superintendent and they reported directly to the superintendent.
F11:
One of the employees was directly evaluated by the PVUSD Board and had a specific written contract that stipulated all terms and conditions of employment including compensation and benefits. The contract did not provide authorization for a SERP. In addition, this employee had previously retired from the district and was serving in an interim capacity.
F12:
Keenan Financial Services estimated cost savings of $159,000 if all eligible management employees took advantage of the SERP. Interviews with the PVUSD officials revealed that the SERP savings was approximately $46,000, $113,000 less than projected.
F13:
A financial analysis of the projected savings compared to the actual savings was not shared with the Board of Education.
F14:
PVUSD stated that the County Office of Education was informed about the SERP. However officials at the county office stated they were not involved in the SERP offered by PVUSD and would only be involved if the SERP was part of a fiscal recovery plan or a payment agreement with employee bargaining units.
F15:
County Office of Education officials weren’t aware of a SERP being awarded to a retired employee serving as interim administrator for a district. County officials stated the practice of awarding a SERP in that situation was unusual and they had never heard of it happening before in the county.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
PVUSD administrators should provide the PVUSD Board with all documents related to projected cost savings prior to approving a SERP.
R2:
PVUSD administrators and the PVUSD Board should analyze the potential savings from a SERP and develop a calculation to verify the actual savings versus the projected savings.
R3:
PVUSD administrators and the PVUSD Board should thoroughly analyze the benefit options of a SERP such as dollar amount given and years of service to ensure the district is getting the most savings possible from the plan.
R4:
PVUSD Board should analyze the practice of awarding a SERP to a retired interim employee to determine if this practice is the best use of public funds.
R5:
PVUSD Board should develop a board policy regarding any future practices of awarding a SERP to a retired, interim employee.
R6:
PVUSD Board should include all benefits and compensation, including a SERP, as part of a contracted employee’s employment agreement.
R7:
PVUSD Board should eliminate the procedure that allows a subordinate employee to authorize a benefit for a supervisor.
R8:
PVUSD and the Santa Cruz County Office of Education should discuss the SERP process and clarify the roles of each agency prior to, during, and after implementation.
Findings & Recommendations
42 findings
F1:
A Promise Kept 23 Conclusions 2. Since the most pressing concern today is from where the money will come to maintain Medicare and Medicaid services for those who qualify under today’s system, extending it to include low-income families is not being discussed. 3. Santa Cruz County public, non-profit, and for-profit medical resources have worked together to make health care more accessible to low-income families. Commendation 1. The Human Services Department and the Health Services Agency are to be commended for ongoing focus on the delivery of adequate health care services to Santa Cruz County residents. Health Insurance Coverage 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 3: The Healthy Families Program should include parents in its coverage. Premiums should be set at more affordable levels in order to accelerate enrollment of families without insurance. Coverage should be maintained during short periods of seasonal unemployment. The Central Coast Alliance for Health should approach local employers to continue premium payments for families during short periods of seasonal unemployment to keep insurance coverage from lapsing. It should continue to expand the participation of specialists in its programs. County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. 2007-2008 Grand Jury Findings 12. The Healthy Families Program does not include parents in its coverage. Healthy Families insurance premiums vary depending on the health plan selected. Families receive a discounted premium if they select the local Community Provider Plan, which is the Central Coast Alliance for Health (the Alliance) in Santa Cruz County. The Alliance’s maximum monthly premium for a family with three or more children is $36 (or $108 per quarter). 13. Recent local funding contributions to the Healthy Kids program, which came primarily from Sutter Santa Cruz and Dominican Hospital, will allow the Alliance to move 295 children off the waiting list and into enrollment. 14. Seasonal unemployment only affects the eligibility of adults in a family receiving Medi-Cal. The Alliance reports that their Medi-Cal membership fluctuates by about five percent each year according to the growing season and migration of Medi-Cal recipients out of the area. Typically, a seasonal employee becomes eligible for Medi- Cal when the work season ends or slows down because the worker’s income decreases. When an individual’s work hours increase again, Medi-Cal eligibility could be lost due to the corresponding increase in income. Thus, an individual may 24 A Promise Kept qualify during periods of little work or unemployment but no longer qualify for Medi- Cal when working full-time. 15. Medi-Cal has no provision for continued eligibility if an adult no longer meets the criteria. However, children can maintain Medi-Cal eligibility for 12 months even if the adults in the family are terminated due to an increase in income or assets. 16. Although families pay no premiums for the Medi-Cal program, there are premiums associated with the Healthy Families and Healthy Kids programs. However, regardless of changes in family income, once a child is deemed eligible for Healthy Families or Healthy Kids, that child remains eligible for 12 months unless he or she becomes eligible for no-cost Medi-Cal, is covered by other health insurance, or turns 19. Children also lose Healthy Kids eligibility and coverage when they move out of Santa Cruz County. 17. In 2000, the Santa Cruz County population was 255,602. In 2007, the population increased slightly to an estimated 264,125 (3.3 percent). But the supply of health care specialists for Alliance programs has increased by almost 30 percent since that year. In 2000, the Alliance had an average of 499 specialists available to serve Santa Cruz County residents. As of March 2008, 697 specialists are available. 18. The Alliance collaborates with over 60 community coalitions and organizations to promote its programs, including the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department. It also promotes health care resources to the public at events, such as farmers’ markets, health fairs, community block parties, and other festivals. In addition, the Alliance publishes a provider bulletin in which providers are urged to encourage their Healthy Families and Healthy Kids patients to stay enrolled and thereby continue their health care coverage. 19. In March 2008, at California’s annual Medi-Cal Quality Conference, Central Coast Alliance for Health tied for first place with Health Plan of San Francisco, winning the Gold Award for the highest rate of preventive care services among all 39 Medi-Cal health plans in California. The Alliance also won a second place Silver Award for member satisfaction. Conclusions 4. Because Healthy Families is a state and federally funded health plan, Santa Cruz County cannot change the eligibility requirements for the program. 5. The 2000-2001 report recommended, “Coverage should be maintained during short periods of seasonal unemployment.” But, in fact, qualifying seasonal workers are covered while unemployed. They risk losing coverage when employed because their income may exceed guidelines. That issue has not been addressed by Medi-Cal or any county agency. 6. A public/private partnership exists in the county to provide affordable access to health care for low-income individuals and families. A Promise Kept 25
F2:
While the County has pursued a goal of consolidating categorical health plans and simplifying eligibility requirements, there is no published plan or public commission in place to oversee it.
F3:
Eligibility requirements for health plans have not been simplified in any significant 22 A Promise Kept way, but the County has structured resources to guide applicants through the maze of health services and health insurance programs that are offered by non-profits and various government agencies.
F4:
Santa Cruz County now uses One-e-App, a web-based system for connecting families with a range of publicly funded health and social service programs. Applicants, usually with the help of Certified Application Assistants or county eligibility workers, enter their personal information to learn about and apply for programs that best meet their family's needs. System administrators, supervisors, and case management staff, can run reports and determine eligibility.
F5:
Santa Cruz County Health Care Outreach Coalition expands access to health care coverage for uninsured county residents, promotes awareness of government- funded health insurance programs and conducts outreach to schools, community-based organizations, businesses, faith-based organizations, childcare providers, and the general community.
F6:
The Benefits Call Center was established in 2000 to provide an easily accessible source of information for Medi-Cal recipients and to ensure that recipients complete all program requirements to maintain their coverage.
F7:
There is no new program, or expansion of an existing program, to extend health care to entire families instead of just individual members. California’s Medicare system, Medi-Cal, is governed by federal rules because it is mainly funded by the federal government. Medi-Cal has not acted to extend health care coverage to low-income families.
F8:
In 2008, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (HI) is scheduled to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in
F9:
Private health care providers, both physicians and dentists, have been recruited to treat patients who can’t afford to pay. They do this without remuneration as a community service.
F10:
In order to simplify access to categorical health programs, the 2000-2001 Grand Jury recommended using the Central Coast Alliance for Health as a model for administering them. Health Services Agency determined it would accomplish the same goal to make those programs part of the Alliance where possible.
F11:
Some Grand Jury recommendations hinged on the county becoming a demonstration site for the integrated provision of local health services subsidized by state and federal governments. This did not happen as explained in Demonstration Site Finding 1. A Promise Kept 23 Conclusions
F12:
The Healthy Families Program does not include parents in its coverage. Healthy Families insurance premiums vary depending on the health plan selected. Families receive a discounted premium if they select the local Community Provider Plan, which is the Central Coast Alliance for Health (the Alliance) in Santa Cruz County. The Alliance’s maximum monthly premium for a family with three or more children is $36 (or $108 per quarter).
F13:
Recent local funding contributions to the Healthy Kids program, which came primarily from Sutter Santa Cruz and Dominican Hospital, will allow the Alliance to move 295 children off the waiting list and into enrollment.
F14:
Seasonal unemployment only affects the eligibility of adults in a family receiving Medi-Cal. The Alliance reports that their Medi-Cal membership fluctuates by about five percent each year according to the growing season and migration of Medi-Cal recipients out of the area. Typically, a seasonal employee becomes eligible for Medi- Cal when the work season ends or slows down because the worker’s income decreases. When an individual’s work hours increase again, Medi-Cal eligibility could be lost due to the corresponding increase in income. Thus, an individual may 24 A Promise Kept qualify during periods of little work or unemployment but no longer qualify for Medi- Cal when working full-time.
F15:
Medi-Cal has no provision for continued eligibility if an adult no longer meets the criteria. However, children can maintain Medi-Cal eligibility for 12 months even if the adults in the family are terminated due to an increase in income or assets.
F16:
Although families pay no premiums for the Medi-Cal program, there are premiums associated with the Healthy Families and Healthy Kids programs. However, regardless of changes in family income, once a child is deemed eligible for Healthy Families or Healthy Kids, that child remains eligible for 12 months unless he or she becomes eligible for no-cost Medi-Cal, is covered by other health insurance, or turns
F17:
In 2000, the Santa Cruz County population was 255,602. In 2007, the population increased slightly to an estimated 264,125 (3.3 percent). But the supply of health care specialists for Alliance programs has increased by almost 30 percent since that year. In 2000, the Alliance had an average of 499 specialists available to serve Santa Cruz County residents. As of March 2008, 697 specialists are available.
F18:
The Alliance collaborates with over 60 community coalitions and organizations to promote its programs, including the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department. It also promotes health care resources to the public at events, such as farmers’ markets, health fairs, community block parties, and other festivals. In addition, the Alliance publishes a provider bulletin in which providers are urged to encourage their Healthy Families and Healthy Kids patients to stay enrolled and thereby continue their health care coverage.
F19:
Children also lose Healthy Kids eligibility and coverage when they move out of Santa Cruz County.
F20:
A comprehensive approach is the most pressing need in the system. Along with counseling and medication, affordable housing, tenured living spaces, and job development are all necessary for proper treatment.
F21:
While all “safety net clinics” are not geared toward families, they are putting forth their best efforts to meet the various needs of the uninsured and Medi-Cal patients in Santa Cruz County.
F22:
In June of 2001 the Packard Foundation grant expired. In 2007-2008, funding for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach (Coalition) came from two sources, First 5 California (First 5) and Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
F23:
The budget for fiscal year was $403,000. First 5 funded $300,000, and the Coalition hopes to receive the additional $103,000 from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
F24:
The County works as a middleman for both sources of Coalition funding. Medi-Cal Administrative Activities
F25:
During the month of September, the Coalition completes a “time survey” to establish the annual cost of outreach activities in excess of what First 5 already pays. The federal government agency Medi-Cal Administrative Activities is billed that excess cost. The turnaround for payment is generally about three years.
F26:
The County supports various organizations associated with the Coalition throughout the year and receives the money from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. Many variables determine what work is being done and how it is being claimed. On average, the Coalition received approximately 75 percent of what they predicted in their budget from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. The County then funds the remaining budget. First 5 California
F27:
The State of California retains 20 percent of the money First 5 receives, and 80 percent is distributed to the 58 counties throughout California based on the number of children born in the county. Santa Cruz receives approximately $2,700,000 annually.
F28:
First 5 has three established goals: healthy children, children learning and ready for school, and healthy families. Allowing for local decision-making, the First 5 Santa Cruz County Commission determines how to distribute funds based on a three-year strategic plan and annual contracts. Money provided to the Coalition by First Five has been designated as outreach funds. A Promise Kept 27
F29:
First 5 reimburses the County for payments made to community agencies for contracted services.
F30:
In the fall of 2008, First 5 will create a new three-year strategic plan. This may or may not result in continued funds for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach. Conclusion
F44:
The Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (Division), a division of the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency, works with and through many groups to offer a wide range of mental health care services including emergency shelter, transitional A Promise Kept 31 housing, supported housing, dual diagnosis treatment, crisis intervention, case management, and peer support. Other services available to clients are assessment, counseling, medication support, and referrals. Spanish translation is offered, as is an Appeal Resolution Process for anyone who is denied assistance. The following is a partial list of these resources. Adult residential treatment is offered at • Transition House, 10 beds • Paloma House, 12 beds • Pioneer House, eight beds • Opal Cliffs, 15 beds • El Dorado Center, 16 beds • Darwin House, 15 beds • Front St., Inc., 11 beds • River Street Shelter, 20 beds reserved for people referred by County Mental Health Outpatient treatment and/or social rehabilitation are available at • North County Mental Health Center • South County Clinic • Community Support Services • Dominican Hospital Behavioral Health • Pioneer House Dual Diagnosis Day Program • Community Connection Academy • Front Street Day Rehabilitation Program Self help resources include • Mental Health Client Action Network • Mariposa Activity Center • Community Connection Mental Health Resource Center and Career Services • Community Support Services Community Organizers Program Ongoing services for the protection of low-income mentally ill residents include • Advocacy, Inc. (Patient Rights) • Public Guardian’s Office
F45:
It is hard to retain staff; therefore, continual training programs are necessary. Many new employees come from the Cabrillo College Health Science/Community Health programs.
F46:
Various federal, state, county and private agencies fund mental health treatment in our county. Mental health has made effective use of these grants and programs. Some of these sources (known as funding streams) are designated for specific and limited uses. Clients often present with a variety of issues and staff sometimes has difficulty matching funds to the specific needs of the client. Services offered to individuals and families will be further restricted by potential state and county budget cuts in the coming year.
F47:
Training in cultural sensitivity is emphasized and employees are trained within their department as well as by outside resources. A Promise Kept
F48:
Some families have difficulty acknowledging the existence of a mental health problem. This can be a cultural issue or a matter of pride. Successful mental health outreach and education programs have worked as a part of the network of general health services.
F49:
Access to services is difficult for South County residents because most service sites are located in Santa Cruz. Public transit offers only a few routes and limited hours of operation. The Division is attempting to expand county services and to create more partnerships with community agencies in South County.
F50:
The Division works with Senior Network Services but does not yet have an early intervention program for seniors.
F51:
Among the ongoing concerns of the Division is the ever-present worry of patients exhibiting unexpected antisocial behavior. Conclusions
F60:
Currently Santa Cruz County uses eight nearby counties in salary surveys: Monterey, Santa Clara, Alameda, Napa, Sonoma, Marin, Solano and San Mateo. For the most part, these are more similar to Santa Cruz than the nine counties formerly used in that they are not strictly agricultural and have living costs comparable to Santa Cruz.
F61:
Recruiting and retaining physicians and other medical professionals is uniquely difficult in Santa Cruz County because it is labeled by Medicare as a rural county. The Medicare reimbursement rate is the same as Butte, Imperial and other counties with a much lower cost of living.
F62:
The county health programs must compete with Dominican and Sutter for physicians and other medical professionals. Hospitals are in a unique position to pay higher salaries as their Medicare reimbursements are based on actual costs. A national Medicare study released in 2007 shows hospitals in Santa Cruz County have the highest labor costs in the country, which local health officials say means higher medical costs and insurance premiums for patients. This situation creates a difficult challenge when it comes to recruiting medical professionals.
F63:
Salaries and working conditions for physicians and other medical professionals employed by the County are negotiated with the respective unions. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
41
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency should continue to partner closely with the Central Coast Alliance for Health.
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency should continue to expand local outreach and enrollment resources for low-income persons in the county by continuing to partner with local agencies, both public and private.
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency should consider expanding contracts with the Alliance for other categorical health program administration, where and when appropriate.
R4:
If the Health Services Agency is unable to transfer other appropriate categorical health program administration to the Alliance, the agency should adopt the Alliance’s principles of practice for categorical health program administration. Commendation
R5:
If First 5 no longer supports it, the Coalition for Health Care Outreach should be supported in the budget of the Health Services Agency. Clinic Hours 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 6: Additional sessions in the evening and through the lunch hour would be a great advantage for family members who now must lose time at work to attend the clinics. County Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. 2007-2008 Grand Jury Findings 31. Three community clinics were visited in 2000, Salud Para La Gente in Watsonville, Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center, and Dientes Community Dental Clinic in Santa Cruz. The current Grand Jury has confirmed the following hours with employees at each clinic. All three clinics are closed Sundays and specified holidays. • Salud Para La Gente: • Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. • Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center: • Monday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8:20 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Wednesday, 12:20 to 5:00 p.m. • Friday, 8:20 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to noon • Dientes Community Dental Care: • Monday though Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (closed 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.) • Friday, 7:30 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. (closed noon to 1:00 p.m.) • Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. 32. Some discrepancies exist between the clinic hours posted on websites and the hours provided in email and telephone communication. A Promise Kept
R6:
The Health Services Agency should encourage community clinics to accurately communicate clinic hours to the public. Dental Health Programs 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 7: Full-service dental health programs should be launched in county and community clinics. County Response: This recommendation has been and will continue to be implemented through the county’s community partners.
R7:
While low reimbursement rates for medical providers inhibit the delivery of adequate health care to Medi-Cal and Healthy Families beneficiaries, county residents must depend on state and federal entities to resolve the problem. Coalition for Health Care Outreach 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 5: The Coalition for Health Care Outreach should be supported in the budget of the Health Services Agency upon expiration of the Packard Foundation grant. County Response: This recommendation is being implemented. 2007-2008 Grand Jury Findings
R8:
Since the Packard Foundation grant expired, the Coalition for Health Care Outreach has secured funds to continue successful operation in Santa Cruz County. Recommendation
R9:
Clinic operations are no longer confined to daytime hours. The three clinics each offer some lunchtime and/or evening hours. All offer Saturday appointments as well.
R10:
The inconsistencies of the posted clinic hours confuse and possibly inconvenience patients. Recommendation
R11:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Health Services Agency continue to build the network of mental health services countywide.
R12:
Staff development, including improved training and new methods for reviewing program results, would increase the effectiveness of the Health Services Agency. A Promise Kept 33
R13:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors support coordination of the various funding streams by the Health Services Agency so that available funds can be used to match the diverse needs of the clients.
R14:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure adequate funding for patients’ employment services, which play an important part in mental health treatment.
R15:
It would be beneficial for the Health Services Agency to continue developing mental health outreach and education programs to provide even more community social support for recovering patients, so they can feel welcome in their communities. Support resources can include churches and neighborhood organizations. Commendation
R16:
The Grand Jury urges the Health Services Agency to continue to seek grants and other alternative sources for funds to pay competitive salaries to health professionals.
R20:
Since Medi-Cal and Healthy Families reimbursement rates are set by state and federal government agencies, the County of Santa Cruz has no authority to revise them.
R21:
Congressman Sam Farr, the California Medical Association (CMA), and others have called the reimbursement fee schedules for county doctors inequitable and continue to work to require that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services fix a system viewed as unfair to local qualified participants. A Promise Kept Conclusion
R22:
In June of 2001 the Packard Foundation grant expired. In 2007-2008, funding for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach (Coalition) came from two sources, First 5 California (First 5) and Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
R23:
The budget for fiscal year was $403,000. First 5 funded $300,000, and the Coalition hopes to receive the additional $103,000 from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
R24:
The County works as a middleman for both sources of Coalition funding. Medi-Cal Administrative Activities
R25:
During the month of September, the Coalition completes a “time survey” to establish the annual cost of outreach activities in excess of what First 5 already pays. The federal government agency Medi-Cal Administrative Activities is billed that excess cost. The turnaround for payment is generally about three years.
R26:
The County supports various organizations associated with the Coalition throughout the year and receives the money from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. Many variables determine what work is being done and how it is being claimed. On average, the Coalition received approximately 75 percent of what they predicted in their budget from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. The County then funds the remaining budget. First 5 California
R27:
The State of California retains 20 percent of the money First 5 receives, and 80 percent is distributed to the 58 counties throughout California based on the number of children born in the county. Santa Cruz receives approximately $2,700,000 annually.
R28:
First 5 has three established goals: healthy children, children learning and ready for school, and healthy families. Allowing for local decision-making, the First 5 Santa Cruz County Commission determines how to distribute funds based on a three-year strategic plan and annual contracts. Money provided to the Coalition by First Five has been designated as outreach funds. A Promise Kept 27
R29:
First 5 reimburses the County for payments made to community agencies for contracted services.
R30:
In the fall of 2008, First 5 will create a new three-year strategic plan. This may or may not result in continued funds for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach. Conclusion
R31:
Three community clinics were visited in 2000, Salud Para La Gente in Watsonville, Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center, and Dientes Community Dental Clinic in Santa Cruz. The current Grand Jury has confirmed the following hours with employees at each clinic. All three clinics are closed Sundays and specified holidays. • Salud Para La Gente: • Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. • Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center: • Monday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8:20 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Wednesday, 12:20 to 5:00 p.m. • Friday, 8:20 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to noon • Dientes Community Dental Care: • Monday though Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (closed 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.) • Friday, 7:30 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. (closed noon to 1:00 p.m.) • Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
R32:
Some discrepancies exist between the clinic hours posted on websites and the hours provided in email and telephone communication. A Promise Kept Conclusions
R52:
In the County of Santa Cruz, “safety net clinics,” (i.e., county or nonprofit clinics), take patients that are uninsured regardless of their ability to pay.
R53:
Current public and non-profit clinics, as a whole, have not been reconfigured to family-oriented and preventative care, but rather each clinic has an area or multiple areas of concentration which are listed below. Santa Cruz Clinics Santa Cruz Women’s Health • Primary Care for Women and Children • Family Planning • Health Benefits Advocacy • Illness Prevention and Health Promotion • Gynecology and Prenatal Care • Pediatrics • Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Naturopathy 34 A Promise Kept Westside Health Center (Planned Parenthood) • Primary Care Services • Family Planning • Health Benefits Advocacy • Illness Prevention and Health Promotion • Obstetrics and Gynecology • Pediatrics • Abortion Services Emeline Clinic • Primary Care Services • Walk-in Immunizations • Health Benefits Advocacy • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • Orthopedics • Family Planning • Laboratory, Radiology, and Pharmacy Coral Street Clinic • Urgent Care and Primary Care • Integrated Case Management • Mental Health and Substance Abuse • Health Benefits Advocacy • Counseling Beach Flats Clinic • Primary Care Services • Women’s Health • Pediatrics • Family Planning • Dental Care • HIV Testing • Obstetrics and Gynecology Dientes Community Dental Care • Emergency Dental Care • Full Range of Dental Services • Oral Health Advocacy Dominican Pediatric Clinic • Pediatric Services Elderday Adult Day Health (Salud Para La Gente) • Adult Day Health A Promise Kept 35 Watsonville Clinics Salud Para La Gente • Primary Care Services • Family Planning • Dental Care • Eye Clinic / Optometry • Health Prevention and Promotion • Health Benefits Agency • Pediatrics • Obstetrics and Gynecology Diabetes Health Center • Diabetes Self-Management • Medical Nutrition Therapy • Group Classes • Insulin Training • Glucometer Training Clinica del Valle Del Pajaro • Primary Care Services • Dental Care • Family Planning • Women’s Health • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • Obstetrics and Gynecology South County Clinic • Primary Care Services • Immunizations • Health Benefits Advocacy • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • HIV Prevention • Laboratory • Radiology • Breast Cancer Early Detection Programs • Family Planning Clinic Mariposa (Planned Parenthood Mar Monte) • Primary Care Services • Family Planning • Health Benefits Advocacy • Pediatrics • Obstetrics and Gynecology • Illness Prevention and Health Promotion 36 A Promise Kept Children’s Resource Center • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • Dental Care Green Valley Clinic • Obstetrics and Gynecology • Women’s Health
R54:
Santa Cruz Women’s Health and Planned Parenthood specialize in women’s health, family care, and reproductive health.
R55:
Specialists are available when necessary, usually through Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center, which provides some free services to the community.
R56:
The County of Santa Cruz currently employs 20 full-time doctors: five primary care physicians (including two pediatricians), and 15 psychiatrists, four of which are bilingual.
R57:
The recruitment of allied health practitioners and full-time county physicians is often a challenge.
R58:
The high cost of housing in Santa Cruz County makes recruiting primary care physicians difficult.
R59:
Psychiatry has only one vacant position, and nurse practitioner positions are filled through a “feeder program” from San Jose State University. Conclusions
R60:
Currently Santa Cruz County uses eight nearby counties in salary surveys: Monterey, Santa Clara, Alameda, Napa, Sonoma, Marin, Solano and San Mateo. For the most part, these are more similar to Santa Cruz than the nine counties formerly used in that they are not strictly agricultural and have living costs comparable to Santa Cruz.
R61:
Recruiting and retaining physicians and other medical professionals is uniquely difficult in Santa Cruz County because it is labeled by Medicare as a rural county. The Medicare reimbursement rate is the same as Butte, Imperial and other counties with a much lower cost of living.
R62:
The county health programs must compete with Dominican and Sutter for physicians and other medical professionals. Hospitals are in a unique position to pay higher salaries as their Medicare reimbursements are based on actual costs. A national Medicare study released in 2007 shows hospitals in Santa Cruz County have the highest labor costs in the country, which local health officials say means higher medical costs and insurance premiums for patients. This situation creates a difficult challenge when it comes to recruiting medical professionals.
R63:
Salaries and working conditions for physicians and other medical professionals employed by the County are negotiated with the respective unions. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
30 findings
F1:
All potential candidates for the conservation camps are screened by the Directors’ Review Board (DRB), the Institutional Classification Committee (ICC), the Unit Classification Committee (UCC), and the Camp Classification Committee (CCC) and classified according to a points system. The inmate’s age, marital status, number of children, and number and type of conviction are all taken into account.
F2:
Most inmates placed at this and other conservation camps have more than 12 months to serve.
F3:
On the day of the Grand Jury’s visit, there were 106 inmates.
F4:
The average age of the inmates is 35.
F5:
Inmates are assigned to camps at least two counties away from the counties in which they were convicted.
F6:
For every one day served at the camp, inmates are credited an additional two days off their sentences.
F7:
All Camp 45 inmates have undergone extensive fire safety training prior to being placed in the facility. They are trained at the fire academy for one week and then serve for six weeks on a crew at a correctional center. In addition, they receive eight hours of training once a week at Camp 45. When at a fire site, the Camp’s crews work collaboratively with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
F8:
Each inmate assigned to fire fighting duty must be certified by Corrections staff as being physically fit.
F9:
Some prisoners who do not meet medical requirements are assigned to a fire camp because they have skills the camp needs, such as carpentry or cooking. They work as members of in-camp or kitchen crews. The in-camp crew maintains the grounds and buildings, does laundry, cleans the facilities, landscapes, and provides clerical services. The kitchen crew provides the meals for the other inmates. Since this is a working camp, the meals must be hearty and nutritious and meet the Title 15 guidelines of 2600 calories a day.
F10:
Random drug testing is performed on all inmates.
F11:
The maximum stay in the program is three-and-a-half years; however, inmates are rotated every two years to other camps.
F12:
As of the day of the Grand Jury’s visit, there were no escapes in 2007, but there were two escapes in 2006. Both escapes were Mexican nationals nearing the end of their sentences and facing deportation. Due to this risk, inmates with an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) hold are no longer permitted at the camp. Since that policy was established, the number of escapees and attempted escapes has decreased.
F13:
Inmates earn $1.45 per day for the work they perform, and $1.00 an hour when on a fire crew.
F14:
Unless there is a fire, crews work Monday through Friday from 8:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on maintenance and conservation projects.
F15:
All work performed by the crews is under contract with a local city or county agency.
F16:
There are always at least two work crews that are “hot,” meaning they are suited up and ready to respond to a fire within three minutes.
F17:
Inmates who violate the rules accumulate points, which result in disciplinary action. The number of points they receive depends on the type and frequency of the violation. For instance, if an inmate is caught with tobacco, he automatically receives four points. If caught with tobacco again, he receives another six points. And if caught with tobacco a third time, he is removed from camp. Any inmate caught out of bounds three times is also removed from the camp. The Facility and Security
F18:
The facility and grounds are beautifully maintained.
F19:
At least two correctional officers — one sergeant and one lieutenant — are on duty on any given day.
F20:
In the control room, staff can view all video surveillance monitors, control the inmate television, and monitor phone calls.
F21:
Alarms are set at night on the doors to all residential buildings.
F22:
Video surveillance operates 24 hours a day monitoring all access roads although not all access from the rear of the facility is clearly monitored. Surveillance data is saved for four days.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends additional security cameras at access points at the rear of the facility to increase security.
F23:
In order to make outside calls, inmates must first sign up on a phone list. They are allowed one call per day, and all calls are recorded. The staff monitor inmate phone calls on a random basis and are required to review at least three calls per shift.
F24:
Inmates may purchase personal items from the on-site canteen up to two times a month, with a monthly limit of $180 in purchases.
F25:
All inmates are counted at least every two hours to ensure no one is missing.
F26:
The facility is equipped with hobby, pool, and television rooms. Outdoor facilities include handball and basketball courts.
F27:
Visitors are allowed on Saturdays and Sundays. Staff must pre-approve all visitors, and inmates may have a maximum of eight approved visitors on file at one time.
F28:
Support programs are provided for the inmates by Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, with meetings twice a week. Religious services are available three days a week, and counseling is provided every other week. A facilitator assists inmates as they prepare for release. Inmates may also work for their General Equivalency Diploma (GED) via courses available by mail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends GED classes be made available on site for inmates.
F29:
Whenever there is a change of custody between Camp 45 and Cal Fire, it is performed with a careful process of photo ID verification.
F30:
The bus arrives every Tuesday to drop off new inmates and Wednesday to pick up any inmates leaving the camp. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
93 findings
F1:
Santa Cruz County governmental agencies (with the exception of Scotts Valley) have joint powers agreements with Net Com specifying how emergency calls are routed for fire, police and medical assistance. Net Com then routes calls to the appropriate authorities for response.
F2:
Net Com assigns emergency calls a priority rating from one to nine, one requiring the most urgent response. The calls rating and the case details are reflected on the mobile data terminal in all squad cars.
F3:
The County’s only booking facility is at the Main Jail in Santa Cruz so all law enforcement officers must transport arrestees there. Approximately 13,000 persons are booked at the Main Jail each year. This often results in overcrowding in the Main Jail 43 booking area and delays for the law enforcement officers. The officers must wait and cannot return to other duties until the arrestee has been processed through the system.
F4:
Intake process: • All squad cars and persons are monitored via video surveillance as they enter the vehicle sally port (an enclosed area secured by locked doors at each end, only one of which can be opened at any one time). • Officers then lead suspects through a pedestrian sally port and into the booking area. • Officers of the same gender pat down the suspects and complete the suspects’ health intake questionnaires. • For medical reasons, the facility nurse may refuse suspects admittance to the jail. If refused admittance, they are taken directly to Dominican Hospital. Upon receiving medical clearance from the hospital, suspects are taken back to the Main Jail to complete the booking process. • An audio and video recording is made of the booking and kept in storage for a period of two years.
F5:
After walking through a metal detector, suspects are put into a group holding cell. Special needs arrestees and women are kept in separate cells. Intoxicated arrestees are put into the jail’s “drunk tank” for a minimum of five hours. If intoxication prevents them from standing or communicating coherently, they are taken to a local medical emergency room for detox. A violent arrestee is placed in a restraint chair in a private safety cell with two large viewing panels and checked every 15 minutes.
F6:
At the start of the booking process all personal property, except one shirt, a pair of pants, underwear, and socks, is taken from the detainee, labeled and stored either in the jail’s property room or a valuables locker. These items are returned when the inmate is released.
F7:
During the booking process, a pretrial probation officer reviews each suspect’s charges to determine if there was probable cause for arrest. The suspect’s prints are then run through a touch fingerprint system, which has a record of over 300,000 people arrested in Santa Cruz County. These prints are also checked with the State Department of Justice.
F8:
After booking, suspects can be released if charged with minor crimes and, if allowed , they can post bail. The pretrial Probation Officer calls the “on call” judge, who makes the decision whether the suspect is eligible to be released. Individuals unable to post bail, or not eligible for release, are housed in a pre-classification unit. Their picture is taken and all tattoos are photographed.
F9:
Newly housed inmates can shower and must change into jail-issue clothes. Personal clothing is labeled and stored with the rest of the inmate’s property. Money in the possession of the suspect at the time of arrest is posted as a credit to a personal jail account.
F10:
Each inmate is issued a kit, which includes clothing, bedding, utensils, and hygiene items. Main Jail
F11:
Prior to admittance, a nurse performs a medical review of each inmate, including taking vital signs. A doctor is on call if needed.
F12:
In March 2008 the Sheriff’s office implemented a new fingerprint picture system called the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). This system includes photographs, palm print and fingerprints of a suspect. The AFIS system provides positive identification of a suspect throughout the intake process and interfaces with the state mug shot system. In the near future a pilot project will be implemented making AFIS available to law enforcement officers on squad car monitors.
F13:
Those arrested for drug or weapons offenses, or suspected of hiding drugs or weapons, may require body inspection. This procedure – a visual, non-contact search must be approved by a supervisor and performed by a correctional officer of the same gender. For this type of inspection, the Sheriff’s Office recently constructed a separate room to ensure privacy. Those refusing to cooperate are x-rayed. If x-rays reveal contraband, approval is then secured through a court order and the person is taken to Dominican Hospital for removal of the contraband.
F14:
After voters approved Proposition 69 in November 2004, the Sheriff’s Office implemented a new procedure requiring all convicted felons to submit a DNA sample. A cheek swab sample from offenders is sent to the Department of Justice for processing and inclusion in the State database. Staffing
F15:
Thirteen to 15 correctional officers staff 12-hour shifts, four days a week. All shifts include Spanish-speaking and female correctional officers.
F16:
The state’s Corrections Standards Authority 2007 report indicated that additional staff positions would be advantageous to institutional security. Shift supervisors routinely check to ensure rounds are being done, but the large number of inmates delays some activities, such as searching individual cells.
F17:
Currently, the Main Jail has 12 staff positions that have not been filled. Recruiting is under way for the seven positions for which funding has been allocated. Funding has not been yet been approved for the remaining five positions. All correctional officers working at the jail must attend 24 hours of the Standards and Training class per year.
F18:
Two correctional officers are located in the central control area during the 12-hour day shift, and one during the night shift. These officers monitor all ten video surveillance cameras located both inside and outside the facility. They also grant access through video surveillance and remote control to all the locked entry points inside and outside the facility. These staff positions are rotated among the correctional officers. Previous Grand Juries recommended this video surveillance be recorded. To date, this recommendation has not been implemented.
F19:
A Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) was created in 2005. This team of 16 volunteer officers has received training in procedures that keep a facility safe and secure for staff and inmates. The CERT team can respond to emergencies in any of the county’s detention facilities, dealing with difficult inmates and quelling violent inmate incidents. Main Jail 45
F20:
The entire corrections staff was retrained in the use of the X26 Taser in the fall of 2006 following the death of an inmate who had been subdued by a Taser while in custody. The Sheriff’s Office officially responded to this incident by stating, “The Forensic Pathologist’s cause of death for that inmate did not include the Taser Device as causing death.” Tasers were reintroduced to the jail in October 2006. Operations
F21:
The Main Jail houses inmates in various detention situations including those • awaiting trial who are ineligible for or cannot post bail. • awaiting sentencing. • convicted of crimes with sentences of no longer than one year. • already convicted of very serious offenses and whose cases are on appeal (doing “soft time” at the Main Jail instead of being in the state prison). • awaiting transportation back to state prison due to a parole violation (another type of “soft time”). • sentenced minimum or medium security inmates requiring medical care that cannot be provided by other county detention facilities.
F22:
Approximately 75 percent of inmates are repeat offenders. On September 26, 2007, the jail population was 344, and 65 percent of these inmates were not yet sentenced. Fifty-two percent of inmates were White, 40 percent Hispanic, and six percent Black. The average inmate age was 33 years. The state-rated capacity for the Main Jail is 311.
F23:
Inmate housing is separated into the North, South and West wings, each containing several units separating inmates according to their classification. • The North Wing (A – D) includes mental health and special needs units. • The South Wing (E – H) includes pre-classification and two women’s units. • The West Wing (J – Q) includes men’s maximum security, medical oversight and disciplinary units. The male inmate workers unit is unlocked. • Unit I is a holding cell located in the booking area. The type of inmates held in each housing unit periodically changes depending on the gender, number and classification of inmates being held at any given time.
F24:
The Main Jail holds members of various gangs, including White power, Hispanic (Norteños and Sureños), and Black (Bloods and Crips). Members of competing gangs may be housed in separate units, each with its own recreation room and exercise yard. If gang members sign behavioral contracts pledging to get along with all inmates regardless of gang affiliation, they can be housed with the general population. Inmates with psychological problems, sex offenders and those who are violent are segregated from the rest of the population and housed in a special needs unit. Their meals are served separately to eliminate contact with other inmates. Jail inmates come into contact with inmates from the other units only during travel to and from court.
F25:
According to Titles 15 and 24, inmates must have individual cells, a group day room, and a group patio area. Title 24 requires 35 square feet of floor space per inmate in 46 Main Jail the dayrooms and tables and seating to accommodate the maximum number of inmates allowed at any given time. Due to the overcrowding at the facility, these requirements cannot always be met.
F26:
Showers and bathrooms are located in each of the units. The 2005 State report indicated many of the bathroom and shower areas were “filthy, as are the majority of the cells, which are cluttered with paper and leftover food from meals.” In 2006, the Sheriff’s Office spent $99,000 on remodeling and mildew removal in one of the shower facilities at the Main Jail. The 2007 State Inspection report indicated shower areas and individual cells were in compliance with Title 24 standards. However, County Environmental Health Services completed an annual evaluation in 2007, and the jail was granted an environmental health clearance with the exception of the shower areas, which the report indicated are still in need of repair. In November 2007, two female jurors on an unscheduled visit to one of the women’s housing units inspected H unit shower area, the community bathroom and an inmate cell. These areas were found to be clean and in good condition. In December 2007, two male jurors on an unscheduled visit inspected the men’s housing units E, F and Q and found the shower, toilet areas and the individual cells clean but not tidy. In March 2007, two female jurors on an unscheduled visit inspected the G unit shower area. They found it to be badly in need of repair with toilet paper stuffed around the shower head, and the entire shower and the walls in the adjacent dressing room area covered with water. Mold and the smell of mildew were also present. Inmates have complained that some of the shower areas have small flies that swarm inside the shower and bugs that come up from the drain.
F27:
Each inmate is responsible for the cleanliness of his/her housing area including the showers. Floors must be swept and mopped daily. All inmate privileges are withheld until the housing area is clean. This is a non-directed activity. Correctional officers provide each unit with a mop, bucket with water and cleanser on a daily basis (or more often if requested) to clean the floors and shower areas. Periodically a stronger disinfectant is provided to alleviate bacterial growth in the shower areas.
F28:
The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC) is aging and outdated and does not provide consistent heating and cooling throughout the facility. Some areas of the jail are very cold while others are too warm. Maintaining the HVAC system is the responsibility of the General Services Department (GSD). Its response to the Sheriff Office concerns has been slow, repairs take too long, and, to date, the problems have not been corrected.
F29:
Many inmates have filed Inmate Request Forms (green slips) about being too cold or too hot. No sweaters are allowed in the jail. Two thin cotton blankets are allowed in the summer and three in the winter. Additional blankets must be requested via a green slip. Correctional officers determine if an additional blanket will be issued. It is rare for an inmate to receive more than the allotted number of blankets. According to inmates, correctional officers confiscate any additional blankets they find.
F30:
As a result of the fire marshal 2007 inspection, the facility was granted a fire and life safety clearance. Main Jail 47
F31:
While there are no outside windows in the inmate housing units, the front of each has windows facing a central area where the correctional officers are located. The central command area has dimmed red lighting so the officers can see into each of the well- lighted housing units. Food trays and medicine are dispensed from this central area through openings in the main door of each unit. This type of detention facility in which no correctional officers are located within the inmate housing areas is called a “podular design” system. Such a configuration contrasts with a direct supervision detention facility in which the correctional officers are located directly in the inmate housing areas.
F32:
In 2005, a computerized program was established to monitor inmate classification, housing movements and disciplinary actions. The Sheriff’s Office Detention Bureau hopes to replace that system with a comprehensive jail management system in the next two years that will integrate the current classification system with medical, commissary, food, and inmate records management (currently located across the street in the county building). To date no funding has been secured for this project.
F33:
Department 11 of the Santa Cruz Superior Court handles the drug cases and is now located at the Main Jail. Fifty to 100 inmates are taken from their cells to court each week in shackles and chains. Having drug court located at the Main Jail has eliminated the need for transport to the county court house on Ocean Street and has facilitated a more efficient handling of drug cases.
F34:
Policies and procedures are in place to ensure the facility’s security, but it is an ongoing concern for the staff. Last year, two inmates attempted unsuccessfully to escape. Inmate Services
F35:
Inmates may see visitors in one of the five visiting rooms during visiting hours. All visits are audio recorded. Inmates and visitors are separated by a wire and plexiglass barrier. Inmates must complete a visitor request form before any visits will be allowed. Staff must pre-approve all visitors before they are scheduled. The inmate’s visitor lists can be updated only once every 30 days from the date the original list was completed.
F36:
Professional interview rooms are available 24 hours a day for the inmates and their attorneys or the clergy. To preserve client confidentiality, no recordings are made in these rooms.
F37:
Each of the housing units has a secure outdoor area for basketball, handball and exercise. Board games, cards and puzzles are also available. Newly released movies are rented from Swank distribution for monthly movie viewing.
F38:
Other services available include television (both Spanish and English from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.) and a limited selection of paperback books. Inmates may purchase any book or periodical accepted for distribution by the U.S. Post Office. A law library is available to provide legal research assistance for inmates and UCSC Women’s Center Inside-Out offers writing workshops. Main Jail
F39:
Inmates are served three meals per day (at 6:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.). A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for consumption and/or disposal of a meal. The county nutritionist plans the meals according to the standards set forth in the California Code of Regulations. The inmates receive a total of 2,600 calories a day according to Title 15 standards. The kitchen area was originally built to serve 90 inmates. The kitchen passed the 2007 State Standards review even though it is outdated and extremely small for the current jail population.
F40:
Once a week, inmates have access to a commissary. They may purchase from a pre- approved list of items, such as snacks, canvas shoes, nail clippers, cosmetic items. Inmates must use money placed in their individual accounts to purchase commissary items. Upon their request, inmates with less than $3 in their accounts may be given the following items once each week: six sheets of paper, two stamped envelopes, two shampoo packets, a pencil, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a comb.
F41:
Friends Outside, a program provided by Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County, helps maintain outside contacts, and assists inmates in conducting basic and necessary transactions, such as banking and paying bills. They also provide reading glasses.
F42:
The jail chaplain provides religious services while several local churches of numerous denominations provide Bible studies, communion services and prayer groups.
F43:
Drug counseling is provided by Alto and Janus of Santa Cruz. Programs are also offered by Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA), Dual Diagnosis Group, and Criminal Gangs Anonymous.
F44:
Inmates qualified to vote may request voting material from the Elections Department. Corrections personnel deliver material to the election department for the inmates.
F45:
Inmates may mail and receive letters daily. They must pay their own postage, the exception being indigent inmates who may mail letters free to an attorney, a judge, a court, a doctor, or one personal correspondent per week. All incoming mail is opened and checked for contraband. Mail deemed inappropriate is not delivered to inmates. Inappropriate materials could include: scented mail, glitter, powdery substances, and pornographic pictures.
F46:
For all phone calls inmates must either call collect or use a phone card purchased through the commissary. All inmates may order telephone time once a week unless that privilege is withheld for disciplinary reasons. All calls are recorded and may be monitored.
F47:
Lights are out at 11:00 p.m. seven days a week.
F48:
A video of the Main Jail rules and what is expected of an inmate is shown every day from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on the TVs located in the day rooms of each housing unit. The video is shown in both English and Spanish.
F49:
If inmates feel they have been treated unfairly, they may file a grievance using an Inmate Request Form (green slip). Grievances may relate to any confinement condition, including medical care, classification actions, disciplinary actions, program participation, telephone privileges, mail, visiting procedures, food, clothing and bedding. Inmates may file one green slip per issue. Once corrections personnel rule Main Jail 49 on an issue, inmates cannot file another grievance on the same matter. Grievances regarding television availability or programming are not accepted. Medical Services
F50:
The Board of Supervisors recently approved transferring part of the Main Jail’s detention medical program from the County Health Services Agency (HSA) to the Sheriff’s Office. This change will occur over several years. In the past all medical and psychiatric care was provided by medical professionals under the auspices of the HSA.
F51:
The jail facility includes a specially designed medical and psychiatric unit for the care of the inmates. The Main Jail infirmary currently has two exam rooms.
F52:
The Main Jail now has a full-time medical director. This position was recently changed from 16 hours per week to full-time. The doctor is also available on call as needed. Every inmate admitted to the jail for 14 days or longer is examined by the staff doctor.
F53:
Title 15 requires a minimum number of medical staff to be on duty for each shift. Substitute nurses fill in when full-time staff take vacation. It has been difficult to recruit substitutes because they receive lower wages and no benefits. Nurses lose accrued vacation time because of substitute shortages.
F54:
Currently the Main Jail employs three registered nurses during the day, two in the evening and one at night. A nurse practitioner works 20 hours per week and is on call when off duty. All these positions are currently filled. Gynecological services are provided 2 to 3 hours once a week.
F55:
Every morning, the Crisis Intervention Team meets to review risk management problems and any new admits in the last 24 hours. The team consists of medical and mental health staff, lieutenants, sergeants, and booking staff.
F56:
Currently the medical staff provides services for HIV, hepatitis, prenatal care, lacerations, pain management, gynecological and internal medicine. If an injury is minor, the medical staff can provide the necessary care. Inmates with serious injuries are transported to Dominican Hospital. The jail has no X-ray services; inmates are sent to outside medical facilities for MRI/CT scans and procedures requiring specialists. Tuberculosis testing of all inmates is mandatory and must be completed within three days of admittance.
F57:
The Main Jail has two automated external defibrillators (AEDs), and correctional officers and medical personnel are trained in their use. They are also trained to administer CPR.
F58:
Ill or injured inmates must fill out medical request forms (blue slip). The medical staff receives approximately 200 blue slips per month. Nurses pick up these slips twice daily when they distribute medicine. The nurse on duty reviews each complaint and determines if it can be handled by a nurse or if the inmate needs to be put on the sick call list. The list is given to the nurse practitioner, who reviews and triages the needs. Some action must be taken on each blue slip within 24 hours. In case of emergency correctional officers contact medical personnel. Main Jail
F59:
A blue slip must be completed for every medical problem, creating a backlog of slips. Many inmates reported having to wait up to three weeks to be seen. Requests range from simple medical needs, such as antibacterial ointment, to more serious medical services. Inmates said the medical treatment is very good once they receive it.
F60:
Inmates are not seen in the medical unit on Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. On other days 30 to 50 patients are examined per day. Under the best circumstances, it can take three to four days for medical personnel to see an inmate, unless it is determined to be an emergency.
F61:
On a given day, 150 to 170 inmates are on maintenance medication. Medical staff dispenses medicine twice a day, at 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. In addition, some inmates require insulin every four hours. Because neither Blaine Street nor Rountree detention facilities have the medical staff needed to dispense medications on an ongoing basis, those requiring regular medication must be housed at the Main Jail, contributing to its overcrowding.
F62:
Title 15 specifies any inmate who is diagnosed with mental health issues must have a face-to-face evaluation with a mental health professional within 24 hours of being booked into the facility. Those on psychiatric maintenance medication see the doctor at least once a month to review their medications. A psychiatrist works at the Main Jail 20 hours per week. Inmates diagnosed with mental health issues or with a dual diagnosis (the presence of both a mental health disorder and substance abuse disorder) constitute about ten percent of the jail population.
F63:
Although no inmates attempted suicide during 2007, it remains an ongoing concern for the staff. Mental health workers prepare discharge treatment plans for the mentally ill inmates and coordinate in-jail services to qualify for MediCruz or Medi- Cal reimbursement. When an inmate is released, this process provides a continuity of services.
F64:
The O Unit is the medical observation unit that includes individual rooms where physically or mentally ill inmates are monitored by medical staff and by a video monitoring system. Seven rooms have video monitoring. In addition, a “padded room” houses inmates who are a danger to themselves or others. This room also has video surveillance and physically inspected every 15 minutes. New linoleum has recently been installed over the concrete floors throughout the O Unit This new flooring can be more effectively cleaned and sanitized.
F65:
A 5150 hold is a provision of the state’s Welfare and Institutions Code whereby people can be held for 72 hours if, as result of mental disorder, they pose a danger to themselves or others or are gravely disabled. Dominican Hospital is the only facility in the county licensed to care for 5150 patients. Those on 5150 hold and suspected of committing felonies are not accepted in Dominican’s Behavioral Health Unit and instead are booked into the Main Jail. Those with psychiatric problems need to be separated from the rest of the inmate population. If after the 72-hour hold, an inmate is still incapacitated and no licensed outside placement can be located, he or she remains in isolation in the medical unit. The jail does not have the resources to provide adequate psychiatric services, nor is it licensed to provide ongoing support services to these inmates. Main Jail 51
F66:
The jail provides on-site dental work two half days per month and serves about 18 inmates per month. The dental staff pulls teeth but does not provide fillings or more extensive dental work. Inmates must turn in a blue slip to request dental services. The jail dentist receives about 25 blue slip requests per month. Many inmates cancel their requests prior to their dental appointment. Recent legislation provides for more extensive dental work to be performed off-site if necessary and if approved by the correctional officers. This service is not extended to inmates sentenced to six months or less. Minimum security inmates are eligible to go to their own outside dentist. Medium and maximum security inmates are eligible to see an outside dentist if approved by the correctional officers. Anyone under administrative segregation for disciplinary reasons is not eligible to see an outside dentist. No provisions are being considered to address the dental needs of inmates incarcerated for longer than one year (about five percent of the population) and who also are not approved to see an outside dentist.
F67:
The medical records of all present and past inmates are kept in paper files. The 2006 - 2007 Grand Jury found inmate records stored in the medical corridor, in violation of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) security and privacy requirements. The medical unit has recently installed a $25,000 mechanized file sorter, which provides complete security for each inmate’s medical folder and resolves previous security and confidentiality concerns.
F68:
Inmates sleep on two-inch thick, fireproof, foam mattresses placed on concrete blocks. Due to limited supply, each inmate is issued only a single mattress. The State fire marshal and Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation mandate the mattress’s overall length and width but not the thickness. To receive an additional mattress, an inmate must be housed in the Medical Observation Unit and the request approved by a doctor.
F69:
The current medical budget is $3 million per year. Outside emergency medical visits for inmates account for $400,000 of that. Because Medi-Cal and most other insurance providers will not cover a person who is incarcerated, the jail is billed full hospital fees for inmate treatment at Dominican Hospital. The County is not offered a reduced rate. Overcrowding
F70:
The average daily population (ADP) of the Main Jail continues to exceed the State- rated capacity of 311. The ADP for the first six months of 2007 was 358 (318 men and 40 women). The 2007 state inspection report identified overcrowding as a significant area of non-compliance.
F71:
Triple bunks and/or boats (boat-shaped plastic beds that sit directly on the floor) are sometimes situated in the dayrooms, reducing space for daytime activities. The bunks and boats allow the jail to accommodate 422 beds even though its rated capacity is only 311.
F72:
When a housing module becomes too crowded the inmates in that module can be traded to a larger module holding a smaller group of inmates. Main Jail
F73:
The maximum sentence a person can receive for a misdemeanor is one year, which can be shortened with time off for good behavior. However, if a person is convicted of several misdemeanors, the judge can order sentences to be served consecutively. In that case, an inmate could end up serving several years in the Mail Jail, adding to the total inmate population.
F74:
Inmates doing “soft time” contribute to the overcrowded conditions. At any given time, the jail has 16 to 24 inmates charged with very serious crimes who are doing soft time awaiting appeal of their cases.
F75:
The Sheriff’s Office offers a work release program for eligible inmates, which helps reduce overcrowding. The inmate pays a fee and does community work in lieu of serving time.
F76:
A representative from the Sheriff’s Office chairs the Jail Overcrowding Committee, which consists of representatives from each of the following groups: law enforcement, the judiciary, prosecutors, probation, public defenders, county supervisors, county administrative office, health services and community service providers. It meets quarterly to examine methods of reducing overcrowding without jeopardizing public safety.
F77:
The overcrowding committee has developed a set of strategies to reduce jail crowding, primarily at the Main Jail. The results of these efforts have been significant. The average monthly population in 2004 was 408. The 2007 average population was 347. The current average monthly population is down 15 percent compared to 2004.
F78:
The overcrowding committee continues its efforts on a number of fronts that include • dedicating sufficient personnel to classifying inmates. • exploring options for expanding the use of the Rountree and Blaine Street facilities. • securing funding through the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program in conjunction with the Probation Department and the Health Services Agency. This grant provides for an out-of-custody program from a Community Corrections Center to be located on Water Street.
F79:
A jail population control officer was appointed to monitor overcrowding at the Main Jail until a new classification system was completed. This position was discontinued at the beginning of fiscal year 2007 - 2008 and rolled into a classification supervisor position. The new position, along with the new classification system, allows more appropriate distribution of the county inmate population, which should then reduce the Main Jail population.
F80:
The Board of Supervisors approved a medical staffing increase, which began in March of 2008 at the Rountree facility. As a result, an additional five to seven inmates a day may be transferred from the Main Jail to the Rountree facility.
F81:
The Probation Department has implemented a number of alternative programs and added personnel to address jail crowding. These include • expanded pretrial services, such as release on one’s own recognizance with or without conditions. Main Jail 53 • a supervised release, which includes phone checks, field supervision, with conditions such as drug and alcohol testing. • intensive supervision, which includes field supervision, electronic monitoring and individualized conditions. These supervised and intensely supervised programs account for an average jail population reduction of 30 jail beds per day.
F82:
The Community Action Board, a local nonprofit agency, also provides a community service alternative to jail with its Community Restoration Program. This program provides supervised work crews in county parks and, together with Habitat for Humanity, builds low income housing. This alternative to jail served 54 individuals and saved an estimated 1,785 bed days in 2007.
F83:
In Partnership with Community Action Board’s Gemma program the Probation Department is reducing the recidivism of females who typically are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses related to substance abuse. The women’s jail sentences are reduced contingent on participation in the residential component of the program. The program offers day treatment and skill-building classes for women.
F84:
The Warrant Reduction Advocacy Program (WRAP) is designed to avert the issuance of probation bench warrants for individuals who have not maintained contact with their probation officers. Friends Outside provides a three-quarter time warrant reduction specialist to make contact with probationers and reconnect them to their probation officers. This program saves an estimated 40 jail bed days for each warrant averted.
F85:
While all the jail reduction strategies are working as planned and the population has declined since 2005, the Main Jail is still above rated capacity. The daily jail population is the result of two variables: the number of individuals placed in jail and how long the inmates stay in jail. Had the recent measures not been put into place, the projected Main Jail population would have been 416 rather than the actual average population for 2007, which was 347. Classification and Discipline
F86:
The jail uses the National Council of Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) classification system to determine an inmate’s housing assignment. This system considers ten different factors that either increase or decrease points for an inmate. Within 24 hours, the inmate is classified as minimum, medium or maximum security depending on total points. Gang affiliation, medical needs, escape risk, level of violence, crimes committed, charges pending, and behavior while in custody are all factors used in the classification system.
F87:
Inmates are classified by a formal process. The booking supervisor is the first person to consider an inmate’s classification within the facility. There are two classification correctional officers (working alternate shifts) who interview every new inmate, review the booking supervisor’s preclassification, and ultimately determine the inmate’s classification and housing placement within the facility. These two officers are supervised by the classification supervisor, a position added at the beginning of fiscal year 2007-2008. Main Jail
F88:
Inmates requiring disciplinary measures are monitored by two disciplinary correctional officers working alternating shifts. The disciplinary officers report to the classification supervisor.
F89:
For safety reasons there are times when groups of inmates in a given housing module cannot get along with one another. In an effort to quell potential problems these groups of inmates can be “racked” (allowed out of their cells and into the dayrooms for a minimum of four hours per day).
F90:
Privileges can be withheld if an inmate breaks the rules. According to Title 15, the degree of punitive actions taken by the disciplinary officer needs to be directly related to the severity of the rule infraction. The Main Jail has a four-point discipline system. A minor infraction could result in a verbal warning. A second minor infraction could result in a loss of visiting or commissary privileges or confinement to a cell for four hours. A maximum infraction, such as injury to someone, could result in administrative segregation (ad seg) lasting from ten to 60 days.
F91:
Inmates unable to get along with others for any reason, such as gang affiliation, race hatred, or antisocial behavior, are assigned to ad seg, defined by Title 15 as separated from the general population. Inmates may request ad seg if they fear for their own safety. They can request a reclassification and/or change in housing assignment every 30 days.
F92:
Some ad seg inmates are held in disciplinary isolation (lock-down), and confined to cells 23 hours a day with only one hour outside to eat, shower, exercise, watch TV, make phone calls, and talk with others. While locked down, they have no access to any type of religious services or addiction therapy support groups. They can turn in a green slip to talk with the chaplain or a blue slip to see medical personnel. They can also receive books from the book cart. Title 15 states no inmate can be in lock-down beyond 30 consecutive days without review by the facility manager. The jail complies with this Title 15 requirement.
F93:
Title 15 states food is not to be used as a disciplinary measure. In the ad seg unit, food (mostly snacks) may be withheld as an incentive to improve behavior. Inmates always receive at least the state-required calories. After major violations of institution rules, inmates may be subjected to a disciplinary isolation diet in accordance with Title 15. Every 72 hours, the facility manager must approve the continuation of this diet. Reportedly the isolation diet has only been implemented on rare occasions. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Booking. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Office locate funding to staff the Main Jail’s booking area and/or revise the booking protocols to reduce the time law enforcement officers must wait while completing the booking process.
R2:
Staffing. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Office locate moneys for the five currently unfunded correctional officer positions.
R3:
Staffing. The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Office record the video surveillance of the building facility.
R4:
Operations. The Grand Jury strongly recommends the Board of Supervisors directs that the General Services Department (GSD) fix the existing HVAC system or replace it with one that provides adequate heat and cooling of the inmate housing units.
R5:
Operations. The Grand Jury strongly recommends the Sheriff’s Office and Board of Supervisors locate the necessary funding to repair shower areas as noted on the environmental health report and to direct the GSD makes repair of these shower areas a top priority.
R6:
Operations. The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Office modify their operation protocols to direct the use of a strong disinfectant as frequently as necessary to inhibit infestation of insects and mold in the shower areas. Main Jail
R7:
Inmate Services. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Office locate funding to expand and update the kitchen facilities at the Main Jail.
R8:
Medical Services. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Office purchase additional mattresses and blankets for the inmates.
R9:
Medical Services. The Grand Jury recommends the blue slip protocols be revised to allow inmates to receive more efficient and timely medical services.
R10:
Medical Services. The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Office and HSA develop a comprehensive strategy to meet the ongoing mental health needs of the 5150 inmates.
R11:
Overcrowding. The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Office continue working with the overcrowding committee to reduce crowding at the Main Jail.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
34 findings
F1:
One of only four facilities in the nation to be so recognized, Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall is a model site for the Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). JDAI objectives are: (cid:131) To reach consensus among all juvenile justice agencies about the purpose of secure detention and to eliminate its inappropriate or unnecessary use (cid:131) To reduce the number of alleged delinquents failing to appear in court or committing new offenses (cid:131) To use limited juvenile justice resources in a more efficient manner by developing responsible alternatives to secure confinement rather than adding new detention beds (cid:131) To improve conditions and alleviate overcrowding in secure detention facilities
F2:
Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall has been recognized by the Justice Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., for its successful reduction in the number of minors detained through implementation of reforms inspired by the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. Facilities
F3:
The rated capacity of Juvenile Hall is 42. The facility experienced its highest daily count of 61 detainees in January 1997. As a result, the Probation Department developed a continuum of alternatives to detention designed to maintain the population of the Juvenile Hall below the rated capacity without impacting public safety. Although primary funding for these support programs comes from the County of Santa Cruz, the Probation Department has secured State mental health and private foundation grants.
F4:
The average daily occupancy for 2006-2007 was 25 with an annual admission of 894. On the day of the inspection, there were 19 males and one female. However, the staff reported there are usually 20-25 percent females and 75-80 percent males. About 55 percent of youth are listed as non-White. Typically, all occupants are between the ages of 12 and 18, but rare exceptions occur, when someone younger than 12 or older than 18 may be housed at Juvenile Hall. The average age of juveniles housed is 16. Older youth can be held at Juvenile Hall if their offenses occurred prior to age 18.
F5:
The facility passed inspection by the State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on July 9, 2007. The inspection process was conducted by the fire marshal, health department, building inspector, superintendent of schools, the juvenile court and the Juvenile Justice Commission. The medical, mental health, nutrition and environmental health inspections revealed no deficiencies. The fire marshal’s report rated the facility as having “a reasonable level of fire and life safety.”
F6:
Juveniles are housed in two units connected by a common hallway. The “A” unit houses older, more sophisticated offenders who have committed more serious crimes, while the “B” unit houses girls and the younger, less sophisticated male detainees.
F7:
Juveniles are housed in small private rooms. Each room has a toilet, sink, drinking fountain and bed.
F8:
Some doors to the rooms were previously modified to swing out into the hall rather than into the rooms, which increased living space and safety for the staff. The rooms were in good repair, considering the age of the facility.
F9:
Shower rooms were recently upgraded to provide separation and privacy.
F10:
The dayroom areas were clean and orderly.
F11:
Due to the age of the facility, continual maintenance is required. County maintenance provides support in repairing toilets, showers, and kitchen equipment. County building facilities personnel conduct weekly inspections of the facility. Juvenile Hall has previously upgraded both unit bathrooms, the plumbing in individual rooms, and a new medical/health wing has been completed. Security screens in the sleeping rooms have been replaced. Floor and ceiling tiles were replaced in 2006-2007 and a phased-in upgrade to the security system is also underway.
F12:
The facility has a video monitoring system. However, during the Grand Jury inspection, several cameras and the intercom system were not working. In addition, some of the security systems are out of date. A phased upgrade to the security system is underway. Phase I includes the installation of wiring, and other infrastructure for working cameras, video recording devices, intercom, control panels, video monitors, music system, door locking system (for facility entrance and exit). Phase II includes the installation of the security components. County General Services Department has assured Juvenile Hall this work will be underway by January 2008 and completed by June 2008.
F13:
The kitchen and dining areas were clean and appeared adequate. The County is working with the Criminal Justice Research Foundation in anticipation of potential State funds to renovate the kitchen area.
F14:
Juvenile Hall needs a new heating and air conditioning system, retrofitting of the remaining doors for the juveniles’ rooms and an upgraded loading door for the food service pantry. The cost for these projects is estimated to be $867,700.
F15:
The outdoor space is well maintained, although there is inadequate recreational space to meet Title 15 requirements. Current standards call for 7500 square feet of recreational outdoor space, but only the uncovered courtyard area (5900 square feet) is useable. There is additional outdoor space that could help meet Title 15 standards, but it can’t be used due to lack of security fencing. The additional space includes a grassy area, a basketball hoop and volleyball court. Operations
F16:
The average length of stay in Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall in 2006 was 8.7 days.
F17:
Juveniles brought to Juvenile Hall undergo a risk assessment screening to determine if they pose a threat to the public and if they can be released to house arrest. The assessment involves scoring of nine critical areas: (1) seriousness of the offense, (2) current arrest on warrant, (3) legal status, (4) risk of re-offense, (5) risk of new offense, (6) mitigating factors, (7) aggravating factors, (8) victim/witness factors and (9) substance use. After this screening, juveniles undergo medical and mental health assessments.
F18:
Upon intake, juveniles are given an orientation to the rules of the facility and the consequences of a violation. Rules are posted on bulletin boards.
F19:
Juveniles who are sentenced and not recommended for home detention are sent out of the county to facilities operated by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to serve their sentences. There are no DJJ facilities in Santa Cruz County.
F20:
Medical services are provided to all juvenile residents through the County Health Services Agency. Staffing consists of 56 hours per week of registered nursing services and eight hours of nurse practitioner services. The Mental Health Division of the Health Services Agency provides crisis intervention, individual counseling and assessment services for all residents of Juvenile Hall. Approximately 95 percent of the residents receive mental health services while in custody. A substance abuse specialist performs drug and alcohol abuse assessments and develops treatment
F21:
There is currently no automated external defibrillator (AED) onsite, but one is on order through the Health Services Agency, and the cost will be shared with the Probation Department. It will be installed at the Institutional Supervisor’s work station for use by both Juvenile Hall and the Probation Department. The nurse will train all Juvenile Hall staff in the use of the AED. Training may take some time due to scheduling needs; however, there will be a trained staff working on each shift. Untrained staff will not be permitted to use the device. Maintenance of the device will be the responsibility of the nurse.
F22:
The Hartman School operates year-round onsite. The County Office of Education provides one full-time teacher, one bilingual senior instructional aide and a part-time resource specialist. Juveniles are enrolled within one day of admission to Juvenile Hall. Juveniles receive the same amount of instructional time as required in public schools. The Hartman School staff works with the Probation and Juvenile Hall staffs to manage students in a successful and positive educational environment. The classrooms appeared well stocked with instructional materials and computers.
F23:
At Juvenile Hall, weekly meetings are provided by Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, and various religious groups visit regularly. Barrios Unidos provides individual and group counseling and sponsors many special events. Volunteers also provide weekly poetry writing workshops, yoga and meditation instruction. Friday Night Live offers a structured life skills curriculum teaching youth to make healthy life choices.
F24:
Juvenile Hall management and staff believe that support programs for the youth are important to help reduce recidivism. Management has hired bilingual staff and conducted employee racial sensitivity training. The staff has secured placements for the juvenile offenders in the community in a way that is sensitive to racial issues.
F25:
The Santa Cruz County Probation Department has taken steps to address the disproportionate minority representation in Juvenile Hall by examining its systems to ensure policies and practices are not contributing to disproportionate confinement of youth of color.
F26:
In partnership with county mental health and community-based providers, the County has developed a network of services delivered in the community and at day treatment sites. This approach encourages the family to take the lead in developing a plan to have youth be successful in their own homes. The result of this emphasis is that the County has one of the lowest out-of-home placement rates in the state.
F27:
The number of probation officers dedicated to Juvenile Hall varies according to the population. On the day of the Grand Jury inspection, there were five probation officers on site, two for each unit with one additional crossover officer. The Corrections Standards Authority concluded in its inspection that there were an adequate number of personnel to carry out the facility program and meet established standards and regulations. During hours that minors are awake, one probation officer is on duty for each 10 minors in detention. During hours that minors are asleep, one probation officer is on duty for each 15 minors in detention. At least one probation officer on duty is the same gender as minor(s) who are housed in the facility. There is always one senior institutional supervisor on duty who is responsible for all operations and activities.
F28:
During sleeping hours, juveniles are locked in their rooms. Each cell has a night light, and a staff member walks the halls making safety checks every 15 minutes.
F29:
Interns from Cabrillo College, San Jose State University, and the University of California Santa Cruz assist staff with programs and provide individual attention to the detainees. Training is an ongoing process because it takes a minimum of five weeks and there is high turnover.
F30:
About half of the 24 full time permanent staff is bilingual, including administrative, kitchen and housekeeping staff.
F31:
Parents are charged a daily fee of $24 while their children are housed in Juvenile Hall. The fees are collected by County Collections. When families are not able to pay, they are encouraged to contact County Collections to arrange a payment schedule to match their needs. The response of County Collections is governed by their internal policies.
F32:
As of the date of Grand Jury’s visit on September 19, 2007, there had been 14 incidents of juveniles fighting and one incident of assault on a staff person at Juvenile Hall during the year. This represents an increase in fights over prior years. In 2004, 10 fights were reported and six fights were reported in 2005. In 2006, there were 10 fights and 15 assaults. There had been no serious injuries to either detainees or staff.
F33:
In May of 2007, Juvenile Hall staff received critical incident response training to improve its ability to diffuse volatile situations before they erupt into violent encounters.
F34:
Juvenile Court is located onsite with one Superior Court Judge assigned to preside over all cases. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department locate the necessary funding to install fencing required for the juveniles to use the ball field, basketball and volleyball courts and grassy area to increase exercise opportunities and meet Title 15 outside space requirements.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure that the plans to upgrade the heating and ventilation system at Juvenile Hall are implemented as soon as possible.
R3:
To increase safety, the remaining doors to the sleeping rooms should be modified so they open out.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
27 findings
F1:
Blaine Street is designed for women inmates who have been screened as minimum security risks. Low risk medium security women may also be assigned to this facility.
F2:
In 2006, the average inmate population was 24, and in 2007 (through September 26, 2007) was 25. On the day of the initial visit, there were 27 inmates. Approximately 20 percent of the women are Hispanic; the majority are identified as “White.” The average age is 35.
F3:
On September 5, 2007, the California Corrections Standards Authority recommended that Blaine Street be reclassified from a Type III facility (minimum security only) to a Type II facility, which would allow some medium security women to be moved from the Main Jail, reducing overcrowding there. This reclassification was implemented on September 5, 2007.
F4:
Most women at Blaine Street are incarcerated for drug and alcohol offenses. Some are there for theft and embezzling offenses, usually related to drug and alcohol addiction. On September 26, 2007, Blaine Street inmates consisted of women convicted of 17 felonies and nine misdemeanors.
F5:
The average stay is about two months. The maximum is one year.
F6:
In 2006, only one violent incident was reported at Blaine Street. Gang affiliation has not been a problem in this facility and inmates do not require separation based on gang identity.
F7:
The California Corrections Standards Authority issued a very positive assessment in a report dated September 5, 2007, stating that Blaine Street “continues to be a well run and clean facility.”
F8:
The front door is locked to the outside but not from the inside. There is a security camera on the outside of the front door, but nothing prevents an inmate from walking away. In 2006, the superintendent reported six inmates had walked away; all were apprehended and returned to the Main Jail.
F9:
Telephones are available and can be used with a prepaid account.
F10:
The meals are fresh and well balanced. The food services manager at the Main Jail prepares the menu.
F11:
In a report dated July 10, 2007, the Environmental Health report indicated, “The homestyle hood in use is insufficient for use over the commercial range.” According to a phone call to the Supervising Correctional Officer on December 13, 2007, a commercial hood is being considered for future installation. Response from the County: AGREES. A commercial hood will be installed when funding becomes available
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department replace the hood over the range with a commercial hood.
F12:
The Blaine Street supervisor is present four days a week. Her time is split between Blaine Street and the Work Furlough program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department implement long-term staff assignments, giving preference to correctional officers who are bilingual in Spanish and English. Having a consistent staff, rather than a different corrections officer every few days, would better serve the inmates.
F13:
In addition to the supervisor, there is one corrections officer on duty who works a 12- hour shift. Corrections officers are rotated among all the county jail facilities, so several different officers are assigned to Blaine Street each week.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department implement long-term staff assignments, giving preference to correctional officers who are bilingual in Spanish and English. Having a consistent staff, rather than a different corrections officer every few days, would better serve the inmates.
F14:
Some staff members speak Spanish, but it is not required. If there is a language barrier, other inmates are asked to translate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department implement long-term staff assignments, giving preference to correctional officers who are bilingual in Spanish and English. Having a consistent staff, rather than a different corrections officer every few days, would better serve the inmates.
F15:
A Work Furlough program is available to inmates who meet program requirements. It allows them to leave the facility for a job, but they must return when their work hours are completed. The program will accommodate any work schedule the employer requires. Inmates are responsible for their own transportation, clothing and meals when they leave Blaine Street.
F16:
Each inmate is required to spend time working in the kitchen, doing laundry, or cleaning the facility.
F17:
Educational and support programs are offered. Each time one of the women attends a class, group meeting or other program, it is counted as a “unit.” In a typical month there are more than 500 units of attendance counted for all of the classes, groups and programs.
F18:
Computer training classes are offered to the inmates. The plan is to double the number of computers available from six to 12 and connect them to the Internet. Computers cannot be used by inmates without supervision.
F19:
In addition to computer training, other programs include: • The Santa Cruz City Adult School offers classes for a General Education Degree (GED), job skills and parenting. • The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency (HSA) offers classes on women’s health issues and provides Hepatitis C and HIV testing. • The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center offers a support group for domestic violence victims. • Pajaro Valley Prevention offers classes dealing with drug and alcohol abuse. The class meets four times a week for 90 minutes each session. Once a week, it is offered in Spanish. From July through September 2007, there were almost 400 units of attendance recorded in these classes. • Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) hold regular meetings at Blaine Street. • Volunteers teach a popular knitting and crocheting class; yarn and other supplies are donated. • Volunteer groups offer religious services. • Volunteers from Friends Outside bring books for the library and other resources for the inmates.
F20:
Inmates have access to transitional programs such as Gemma, which serves as a halfway house for women making the adjustment back to civilian life after incarceration.
F21:
The non-profit agency New Directions uses state funds to provide counseling and educational services to the children of incarcerated parents. This agency provides services to South County families of women at Blaine Street.
F22:
Inmates have free time, which they can spend on the patio or lounging in the building. A small room has exercise equipment, though it was not being used on the day of the Grand Jury visit.
F23:
Inmates are allowed to grow fresh vegetables for their meals in an onsite garden.
F24:
Inmates may schedule one visit a week on weekends from a pre-approved list of up to eight visitors. Visits can be held in the common room or outside on the patio.
F25:
The nurse from the Main Jail is available 24 hours a day and visits three times a week. There is no onsite medical supervision. Inmates can be transported to public medical facilities in an emergency. Recent policy changes allow for dispensing methadone and other medications.
F26:
Twelve inmates are randomly drug tested each month. Additionally, if women show signs of behavior that could be drug induced, they are transferred back to the Main Jail.
F27:
There is no automated external defibrillator (AED) at Blaine Street although one was recommended by the previous Grand Jury. Response from the County: AGREES. An AED has not yet been implemented due to funding restraints, but it is anticipated that an AED will be installed during FY 2008-09. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Sheriff’s Department install an automated external defibrillator (AED) at Blaine Street, as recommended in the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury Report.
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The Court Holding facility was clean and well maintained.
F2:
Guns and knives are forbidden in Court Holding, even for law enforcement although officers may carry batons and/or stun guns. Other weapons are secured in lockers located outside the Court Holding entrance doors.
F3:
Staffing generally consists of ten deputies each day, with at least one female deputy on duty for searching female inmates. The first shift begins at 7:30 am, and the last shift leaves at 5:00 pm. All deputy sheriffs spend at least one year assigned to Court Holding.
F4:
The number of inmates held at Court Holding each day ranges from 20 to 60. Previously, when drug court was held at the courthouse, the number of inmates could reach 90. Drug court is now held at the Main Jail in Department 11.
F5:
On days when they appear in court, most inmates are held in Court Holding between 7:30 am and 11:00 am. Inmates are served breakfast and dinner at the detention facility. If inmates are at Court Holding during lunch hours, they are served bagged lunches.
F6:
At 7:15 am each weekday, vans are dispatched from 701 Ocean Street to the various detention centers to pick up inmates who are appearing in court that day. Each van holds up to 13 detainees who can be separated into three compartments. The number of trips each day depends on the number of inmates going to Court Holding, the security classification of the inmates, and the time the courts finish for the day.
F7:
There are four transport vans, one each for transporting inmates to and from detention facilities and Court Holding.
F8:
Before transport, inmates are given a security classification to determine van and cell placement. If an inmate is involved in an incident or commits a crime, he or she is reclassified immediately.
F9:
Approximately a year and a half ago, new restraint standards were implemented. Most inmates are now manacled while being transported to and from court, incarcerated in a Court Holding cell or appearing in a courtroom. Since then, very few, if any, escape attempts have occurred. There are times when a judge will order “no chains” and the chains are then removed from inmates. All inmates – chained or not – have the opportunity to change into attire appropriate for court appearances.
F10:
At this time, the video surveillance of the holding cells is not being recorded because of a problem finding storage space for the digital data. Staff is reviewing a possible storage solution and is hoping to secure adequate space for storing video recordings in the near future.
F11:
Before being placed into a holding cell, the inmates are searched for contraband items. Inmates are allowed to have court papers, although deputies take possession of them while the inmates are in the holding cells, returning the documents to the inmates for their court appearances.
F12:
If a medical problem or emergency occurs, or if there is an altercation which results in injury, Emergency Services is called. Medical problems and emergencies are handled first, then incidents are documented.
F13:
When an incident such as a fight or other disruption occurs, deputies file either an incident or crime report. Verbal insults, or refusal to follow commands, result in disciplinary action, which can range from a loss of privileges at the detention facility to new charges being filed.
F14:
Each holding cell consists of a concrete room, with concrete benches built into the walls. There is a window on the door of each cell. A red rectangle is painted on the floor around the door. Inmates must stay outside the red lines. Holding Cell One contains emergency lights, a dome mirror, sprinklers, vents, a toilet and a sink.
F15:
Toilets in the holding cells are flushed by deputies in response to requests, or every half hour during prisoner “welfare checks.” This procedure prevents prisoners from creating disturbances by clogging the toilets.
F16:
The five holding cells are currently utilized as follows: Cell One (maximum occupancy 16) – males: general population Cell Two (maximum occupancy 16) – males: Sureño gang members, white supremacists, and black gang members Cell Three (maximum occupancy 15) – females Cell Four (maximum occupancy 15) – males: juveniles, Norteño gang members Cell Five (maximum occupancy 16) – males in protective custody (sex offenders, medical issues, gang dropouts)
F17:
Deputies conduct walkthrough “welfare checks” on all inmates in holding cells at least every 30 minutes. They also use cameras to constantly monitor all cells (excluding Cell 3, reserved for women).
F18:
The annual budget for court security is $2.5 million, which is paid by the State under a contract with the Sheriff’s Office. Court transportation costs are included in the Sheriff’s Office budget. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends equipment be purchased for video recording activity in all areas of the Court Holding facility, and space found to store equipment and recordings. While this recommendation was previously made in the 2006-2007 Grand Jury report — and the Sheriff’s Office agreed — it has yet to be implemented.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Correctional officers and civilian workers at Rountree Detention Center appear to be respectful of inmate rights, experienced in dealing with inmates, and well trained in security procedures.
F2:
Inmate visits in both facilities are well managed and beneficial to both the inmates and their families.
F3:
The maintenance and cleanliness of all areas of both facilities is good.
F4:
There are a commendable variety of constructive activities and skill building classes for inmates although few are conducted by Spanish-speaking teachers.
F5:
Because the Rountree jail inmate populations are consistently under capacity, the facilities could be better utilized to relieve the overcrowding at the Main Jail.
F6:
The staffing of the facilities is inadequate to properly oversee, protect, and transport the inmate population.
F7:
Onsite medical care is currently available 40 hours a week. The newly approved nursing weekend hours are needed to assure that medical problems are properly assessed and expeditiously treated. This weekend coverage will allow qualified inmates who need mental health maintenance medications to be transferred from the Main Jail to Rountree.
F8:
The video surveillance system has been noted to be inadequate in earlier Grand Jury reports, but it has still not been improved.
F9:
Installation of fencing around the facility would prohibit the public from entering the facility without permission and would deter contraband from entering the facility.
F10:
The Grand Jury agrees with the Environmental Health Report that the shower posts, flooring and support walls at the Jail Farm are in need of repair and replacement.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Education provide additional Spanish-speaking teachers or teacher’s aides for the skill-building classes.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Office develop new strategies to house more of the County’s Main Jail population at the Rountree facilities.
R3:
It is recommended that the Sheriff’s Office finish recruiting for the weekend nursing position.
R4:
It is recommended that the Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors locate funding for additional correctional officers, at least one per shift per facility, to assure the safety of staff and inmates.
R5:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Sheriff’s Office provide a recording of all surveillance camera activity.
R6:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends GSD put the shower repair project out to bid as soon as possible.
R7:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends GSD go out to bid for the fencing project as soon as possible.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriffs Department and the Board of Supervisors secure the necessary funds to install fencing around the remaining perimeter of both facilities.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
28 findings
F1:
Correctional officers and civilian workers at Rountree Detention Center appear to be respectful of inmate rights, experienced in dealing with inmates, and well trained in security procedures.
F2:
Inmate visits in both facilities are well managed and beneficial to both the inmates and their families.
F3:
The maintenance and cleanliness of all areas of both facilities is good.
F4:
There are a commendable variety of constructive activities and skill building classes for inmates although few are conducted by Spanish-speaking teachers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Education provide additional Spanish-speaking teachers or teacher’s aides for the skill-building classes. Response from Santa Cruz County Office of Education: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
F5:
Because the Rountree jail inmate populations are consistently under capacity, the facilities could be better utilized to relieve the overcrowding at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Office develop new strategies to house more of the County’s Main Jail population at the Rountree facilities.
F6:
The staffing of the facilities is inadequate to properly oversee, protect, and transport the inmate population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
It is recommended that the Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors locate funding for additional correctional officers, at least one per shift per facility, to assure the safety of staff and inmates. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The current staffing meets State requirements for all shifts and are operated so as to assure the safety of staff and inmates. As noted in the Grand Jury report, both facilities operate an average of 20 to 40 percent below rated capacity.
F7:
Onsite medical care is currently available 40 hours a week. The newly approved nursing weekend hours are needed to assure that medical problems are properly assessed and expeditiously treated. This weekend coverage will allow qualified inmates who need mental health maintenance medications to be transferred from the Main Jail to Rountree.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
It is recommended that the Sheriff’s Office finish recruiting for the weekend nursing position.
F8:
The video surveillance system has been noted to be inadequate in earlier Grand Jury reports, but it has still not been improved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Sheriff’s Office provide a recording of all surveillance camera activity.
F9:
Installation of fencing around the facility would prohibit the public from entering the facility without permission and would deter contraband from entering the facility.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends GSD go out to bid for the fencing project as soon as possible. Response from the County: HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. The fencing project will be going to bid On October 7, 2008.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriffs Department and the Board of Supervisors secure the necessary funds to install fencing around the remaining perimeter of both facilities. Response from the County: WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. The recommendation will be implemented in FY ’08-09.
F10:
The Grand Jury agrees with the Environmental Health Report that the shower posts, flooring and support walls at the Jail Farm are in need of repair and replacement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends GSD put the shower repair project out to bid as soon as possible. Response from the County: HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. Funds are currently allocated for additional plumbing upgrades, however, the fencing project is the priority project and may need additional funds that would supersede the plumbing/shower issues at this time. The Sheriff’s office will prioritize site needs within the existing allocation after bids are received on the fencing project.
F11:
Educational programs are offered in both the medium and minimum security facilities. The Watsonville/Aptos Adult Education program offers preparatory classes for the General Education Diploma (GED) and Adult Basic Education. Parent Education and substance abuse classes are also offered. A number of programs are provided by volunteer organizations, including Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and church services. Response from the County Office of Education: PARTIALLY AGREES.
F12:
A medical unit serves both facilities. It includes private examination rooms and seems well equipped and well maintained. An experienced registered nurse is on duty eight hours a day, five days a week. If a problem arises, the staff can call the Main Jail medical staff. If necessary, the inmate will be transported to a nearby medical facility. The Sheriff’s Department recently received additional funding to add nursing hours on the weekend. They are currently recruiting for this position.
F13:
In keeping with the requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 1216 Management of Pharmaceuticals, inmates prescribed certain mental health medications cannot be housed at Rountree because of the lack of medical personnel to dispense doses on weekends. The recent approval of weekend nursing hours will allow for medication to be dispensed seven days per week.
F14:
There is one automated external defibrillator (AED) in each facility. All correctional officers are trained in first aid, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and AED use as a part of their initial training. They also attend a refresher course annually.
F15:
All visitors must be approved in advance. Only six people per inmate, including children, are on an inmate’s approved visitor list during any 90-day period. Every 90 days, the inmates may submit new visitor lists for approval.
F16:
Telephones are available to all inmates. They can use prepaid phone cards to make a call. They can also make collect calls as long as the party being called has posted a deposit with the phone service provider.
F17:
The Environmental Health Report dated July 10, 2007 indicated the plumbing and condition of the floors, coving, and lower walls of the showers “are deteriorated” in the minimu0m security facility. The Grand Jury members noted these conditions on their visit. Response from the County: AGREES. Medium Security Findings 18. The medium security facility is designed with two direct-supervision housing units. Half the facility was opened in May of 1996, and the other half was opened in February 1999. The rated capacity is 96 inmates and the maximum capacity is 110. On September 10, 2007, the population was 73; of those, 33 were classified as “White,” 37 as “Hispanic,” and three as “Black.” 19. There are five correctional officers on duty per 12-hour shift at the medium security facility, except between 11 pm and 7 am when there are four. The number of onsite officers may be fewer during any given shift when officers are needed to transport inmates. Such circumstances occur daily when inmates are transported to or from court in Watsonville or Santa Cruz, or when there is a need for offsite medical care. Response from Santa Cruz County Office of Education: PARTIALLY AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education provides occupational training classes to both medium and minimum security inmates as agreed upon by Rountree administration and the Regional Occupational Program. Classes offered vary, sometimes from year-to- year as they are available from Regional Occupational Program (ROP) and as requested by Rountree administration. Last year, two courses were no longer provided at the request of Rountree. The County Office of Education ROP provides occupational training programs only.
F20:
One officer is stationed in a secured area and controls all doors and gates. This area also has surveillance cameras monitoring inmate detention areas. No record is kept of the surveillance videos.
F21:
Medium security inmates attend classes located in the two classrooms behind the control room area of the facility. These classrooms hold about 20 inmates at a time. In addition to the educational programs previously mentioned and offered for both medium and minimum security inmates, the following classes are offered exclusively to medium security inmates: English as a Second Language (ESL) and domestic violence prevention classes.
F22:
Medium security inmates can be visited Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays, during one of the four hour-long periods between 8:30 am and 2:00 pm. Visits are via telephone through glass. Two adults or one adult with two juveniles are allowed to visit an inmate at a time. There are four cubicles available for the visits.
F23:
Contained within each unit is an exercise yard with equipment such as pull-up bars and a basketball hoop. Minimum Security Findings 24. The minimum security facility, often referred to as the “Jail Farm,” was first opened in 1970. The board rated capacity is 162 inmates with a maximum capacity of 250. The population on inspection day was 99. They were categorized as 60 “White,” 34 “Hispanic,” four “Black” and one “Other.” 25. There are three officers on duty during the day shift and two during the night shift. The shifts are 12 hours long. As with medium security, there may be fewer staff onsite when officers are needed to transport inmates from one place to another. Response from the County: AGREES.
F26:
There are surveillance cameras monitoring inmate detention areas. No video record is kept of the surveillance.
F27:
Visiting is allowed for minimum security inmates on Sundays from 12:45 pm to 2:45 pm. These are contact visits in a large fenced grassy area adjacent to the minimum facility. On rainy days, visits are held in the dining hall. All six approved visitors may visit each visiting day.
F28:
makes no distinction between Regional Occupational Program classes and Watsonville Adult Education classes. They are operated by two distinct entities. Watsonville Adult Education is a Pajaro Valley Unified School District function and the Regional Occupational Program is a County Office of Education function. ROP can offer only Career Technical Education courses under California Education Code. By law, ROP does not offer skill-building classes. All classes at Rountree, with the exception of Auto Body and Computer Applications are under the jurisdiction of Watsonville Adult Education. Of the two ROP instructors at the facility, the Auto Body instructor is a native Spanish- speaker. The Computer Applications instructor is semi-fluent in speaking and fully fluent in understanding Spanish. All ROP teachers are trained in Sheltered Instruction under the requirements of the State of California as part of their credential process. ROP does not employ teachers’ aides. ROP will, of course, make every effort to provide instruction in dual languages. 29. Minimum security inmates can walk away from the facility, and it happens about four times a year. Those who walk away are generally rearrested within 24 hours. They are then likely to be held at the Main Jail for the remainder of their sentences, and new charges can result. 30. Due to the lack of fencing around the facility, Rountree has had problems with unauthorized persons entering the grounds. This has enabled contraband to be dropped off in the parking lot area which can be picked up by inmates working in the area and brought into the facility. The Grand Jury has been informed the Sheriff’s office has secured $72,000 to install fencing around the front of the facility. The automatic gates into the facility would be controlled from the control room located in the medium security section of Rountree. The Sheriff’s Office is waiting for the General Services Department (GSD) to put this project out to bid. Response from the County: AGREES. 31. Exercise and recreational options are adequate and include basketball, weight lifting, horseshoes, volleyball, baseball, soccer and ping pong. 32. The County has provided $48,000 in funding to repair and replace the shower posts, flooring and support walls at the Jail Farm. This was reported to be a problem in the Environmental Health Report. Funding has been secured for this project. Rountree staff is still awaiting GSD to put the project out to bid. Conclusions 1. Correctional officers and civilian workers at Rountree Detention Center appear to be respectful of inmate rights, experienced in dealing with inmates, and well trained in security procedures. 2. Inmate visits in both facilities are well managed and beneficial to both the inmates and their families. 3. The maintenance and cleanliness of all areas of both facilities is good. 4. There are a commendable variety of constructive activities and skill building classes for inmates although few are conducted by Spanish-speaking teachers. 5. Because the Rountree jail inmate populations are consistently under capacity, the facilities could be better utilized to relieve the overcrowding at the Main Jail. 6. The staffing of the facilities is inadequate to properly oversee, protect, and transport the inmate population. 7. Onsite medical care is currently available 40 hours a week. The newly approved nursing weekend hours are needed to assure that medical problems are properly assessed and expeditiously treated. This weekend coverage will allow qualified inmates who need mental health maintenance medications to be transferred from the Main Jail to Rountree. 8. The video surveillance system has been noted to be inadequate in earlier Grand Jury reports, but it has still not been improved. 9. Installation of fencing around the facility would prohibit the public from entering the facility without permission and would deter contraband from entering the facility. 10. The Grand Jury agrees with the Environmental Health Report that the shower posts, flooring and support walls at the Jail Farm are in need of repair and replacement.
F29:
Minimum security inmates can walk away from the facility, and it happens about four times a year. Those who walk away are generally rearrested within 24 hours. They are then likely to be held at the Main Jail for the remainder of their sentences, and new charges can result.
F30:
Due to the lack of fencing around the facility, Rountree has had problems with unauthorized persons entering the grounds. This has enabled contraband to be dropped off in the parking lot area which can be picked up by inmates working in the area and brought into the facility. The Grand Jury has been informed the Sheriff’s office has secured $72,000 to install fencing around the front of the facility. The automatic gates into the facility would be controlled from the control room located in the medium security section of Rountree. The Sheriff’s Office is waiting for the General Services Department (GSD) to put this project out to bid. Response from the County: AGREES.
F31:
Exercise and recreational options are adequate and include basketball, weight lifting, horseshoes, volleyball, baseball, soccer and ping pong.
F32:
The County has provided $48,000 in funding to repair and replace the shower posts, flooring and support walls at the Jail Farm. This was reported to be a problem in the Environmental Health Report. Funding has been secured for this project. Rountree staff is still awaiting GSD to put the project out to bid. Conclusions 1. Correctional officers and civilian workers at Rountree Detention Center appear to be respectful of inmate rights, experienced in dealing with inmates, and well trained in security procedures.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
The Planning Department currently uses two parallel data systems: • ALUS (Automated Land Use System), an older system, is used by the entire Planning Department and also the Assessor’s Office • The Hansen Information Technologies Permit Tracking System (HANSEN®), a newer system, has been in development since its purchase by the county more than five years ago and currently used only by the code compliance group. All new code violation complaints have been entered into the HANSEN® system since the middle of 2007.
F2:
County code violations do not always result in enforcement action. • The Planning Department documents some violations but does not enforce them, for example, violations of residential property fence height limits. • Some enforcement decisions are based upon Board of Supervisors’ policy, such as the 2002 board policy specifying that structures built pre-1980 without permit will not be subject to enforcement. • “No enforcement” is one complaint classification category in HANSEN®. Between March 29, 2007, and February 7, 2008, 11 percent of “no enforcement” decisions were based on policy adopted by the board; the remaining 89 percent were decided within the Planning Department without clear policy guidelines.
F3:
There is no formal policy requiring county building inspectors or code compliance investigators to report code violations they might chance upon. • The City of Watsonville requires home maintenance compliance, and its inspectors report violations they happen to see. • The City of Santa Cruz expects its staff to report obvious violations it encounters as a matter of policy.
F4:
After a party files a complaint and receives an initial acknowledgement letter, the complainant is responsible for future contact with the Planning Department to determine the status of the violation.
F5:
It appears to be technically feasible to access the public information contained in the code violation database and there is a plan to implement public online INCOMING COMPLAINTS (by type) access before the end of 2009. 50.0% Currently, members of the public wishing to learn the status of a code violation must telephone or visit the 40.0% Planning Department.
F6:
The code compliance staff fields 30.0% roughly 750 incoming complaints annually. About 300 of the 20.0% complaints require continuing extensive investigation and action. 10.0% These represent approximately 40 percent of the total; the other 60 0.0% BUILDING ZONING VIOLATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL REFERRALS VIOLATIONS VIOLATIONS percent are either found to be invalid or are referred to another agency for appropriate action.
F7:
Each of the four full-time and one half-time code compliance investigators averages 66 new complaint investigations per year (not including those classified as “no violation,” “no enforcement action,” or “referred to other agency”), or fewer than two each week.
F8:
The code compliance group has positions for one typist/clerk, one planning technician, five code compliance investigators, and a principal planner. Additional assistance may also be provided by county financial and legal staff.
F9:
Earlier this year one investigator worked half time assisting the Planning Department’s understaffed fiscal section.
F10:
One additional investigator position has been funded but will not be filled during 2008; funding for this position for 2009 is not guaranteed.
F11:
Staff responsible for data entry works part time performing Planning Department receptionist duties.
F12:
To help reduce the overall workload, follow-up with complainants is generally limited to a single written acknowledgment that the complaint has been received. Also the Planning Department does not take any enforcement action against some low-priority violations or investigate anonymous complaints.
F13:
Compliance-by-mail form letters are sent to violators asking for voluntary cooperation in correcting some low-priority violations. Violators comply by returning a signed Declaration and Affidavit of Correction. Investigators may subsequently perform an inspection to confirm compliance. Violations currently handled this way include illegally inhabited mobile homes or campers, or people keeping too many cats or dogs. Compliance-by-mail was used in two percent of the complaints reviewed by the Grand Jury.
F14:
Despite two requests, the Grand Jury was not provided with precise data describing the size of the backlog of unresolved code compliance complaints or the rate at which this backlog is growing. One estimate provided was that for every 100 complaints entering the system 80 were being resolved, leaving 20 to accrue to the existing backlog. Based on this estimate and the annual number of complaints, the backlog of unresolved complaints would grow by about 150 a year.
F15:
There are many rules built into the current code violation resolution system that allow violators to delay complying with code requirements. Examples: • It may take six weeks or more to get on the calendar for a protest hearing. • Once the hearing is scheduled, the violator has the right to delay the hearing once. • During the hearing, a violator may request a continuance, which the judge will usually grant.
F16:
In 2003, the Planning Department committed to the Board of Supervisors to develop written procedures for using the HANSEN® system. The code compliance group has established process mileposts and created a detailed flow chart, but there is no employee procedures manual for handling complaints.
F17:
Except for a single summary report, the HANSEN® system was not generating data management reports as of March 1, 2008.
F18:
The Planning Department has requested at least 12 data management reports. As of April 11, 2008, only six of the reports originally requested the previous December were completed.
F19:
The Planning Department has not asked for a routinely-generated report listing unresolved cases chronologically, with the oldest first.
F20:
The Grand Jury reviewed 100 consecutively numbered complaints (spanning entry dates between August 10 and September 27, 2007) and found the following: • Almost 30 percent of them were incorrectly coded. • Nearly 18 percent of the complaints had activity dates earlier than the entry date. These differences mean that work was performed on the complaints before their entry into the HANSEN® system. The largest discrepancy between entry date and the activity date was more than two months. • The Planning Department received more code violations than it resolved. After six months, unresolved complaints outnumbered resolved complaints by 50 percent.
F21:
In April and May of 2008, the Planning Department presented several code change proposals to the Board of Supervisors. Some were approved and others were tabled for further study and discussion. While major focus of the changes was on rules for building second units, among the approved changes were several that are intended to reduce the burden on code enforcement by eliminating requirements judged unnecessary. For example, the County now intends to • exclude most demolition from requiring Coastal Commission approval. • allow installation of solar energy systems in the coastal zone without a discretionary permit. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Planning Department should • remove responsibilities other than code enforcement from existing code compliance staff. • recruit and train volunteers to assist the code compliance group. • consider expanding the compliance-by-mail program to include additional low- priority violations. • create a list of code violations not currently being enforced and determine if any of the most commonly received complaints represent violations that can be added to the list.
R2:
The Planning Department should • enter data into the HANSEN® system daily, no longer than two days after receipt. • ensure that a code compliance supervisor reviews service requests (HANSEN®’s terminology for complaints) for accurate data entry on a regular basis. If errors are encountered, additional staff training should be provided. • generate monthly reports that detail the total number of code complaints, the number deemed valid, how many were resolved, and the size of unresolved complaint backlog. These reports should be available for review at any time by the Planning Director and the Board of Supervisors. • create a monthly report listing all unresolved complaints in reverse order by date. These reports should be reviewed by code compliance staff monthly and by the Planning Director quarterly. • make every effort to promptly finalize complaints to avoid building an unmanageable backlog.
R3:
To create consistency among code compliance staff, Planning Department management should provide a detailed, written procedures manual, including targets for the amount of time allowed for each step in the complaint resolution process.
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
The Planning Department currently uses two parallel data systems: • ALUS (Automated Land Use System), an older system, is used by the entire Planning Department and also the Assessor’s Office • The Hansen Information Technologies Permit Tracking System (HANSEN®), a newer system, has been in development since its purchase by the county more than five years ago and currently used only by the code compliance group. All new code violation complaints have been entered into the HANSEN® system since the middle of 2007.
F2:
County code violations do not always result in enforcement action. • The Planning Department documents some violations but does not enforce them, for example, violations of residential property fence height limits. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. In certain, limited situations such as side or rear yard fences that are slightly over the maximum height, no enforcement action is taken due to workload/caseload issues. Enforcement action for other minor violations may be limited to the issuance of a Notice of Violation (Red-tag) and recordation of the Notice of Violation on the property title. The Notice of Violation must be addressed when the property is sold or refinanced or when a permit is required for something else. • Some enforcement decisions are based upon Board of Supervisors’ policy, such as the 2002 board policy specifying that structures built pre-1980 without permit will not be subject to enforcement. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. This policy directive is followed, but pertains solely to non-habitable structures. • “No enforcement” is one complaint classification category in HANSEN®. Between March 29, 2007, and February 7, 2008, 11 percent of “no enforcement” decisions were based on policy adopted by the board; the remaining 89 percent were decided within the Planning Department without clear policy guidelines. Response from the County: DISAGREES. A portion of these “no enforcement” designations were open Service Requests (complaints) that had not yet been resolved. The Code Compliance staff initially selected “no enforcement” in the Hansen system for complaints that did not immediately result in the issuance of a Notice of Violation. It is common for a Code Compliance Investigator to conduct a site inspection and need to perform additional review of office records before determining whether, in fact, a violation exists. The remainder of the Service Requests referred to were actually resolved, with no further action, using the “no enforcement” designation. During the deliberations that ultimately led to adoption of the policy regarding structures built without permits prior to 1980, the Planning Department informed the Board that there is a category of violations that are so minor that no enforcement action on the part of the County is warranted. Planning Department management staff is involved in the decision-making process for each of the Service Requests that result in resolution using the “no enforcement action” coding. Examples of these determinations include side or rear yard fences that are a few inches over height, or a minor setback encroachment of a deck that would not otherwise require a Building Permit.
F3:
There is no formal policy requiring county building inspectors or code compliance investigators to report code violations they might chance upon. • The City of Watsonville requires home maintenance compliance, and its inspectors report violations they happen to see. • The City of Santa Cruz expects its staff to report obvious violations it encounters as a matter of policy. Response from the County: DISAGREES. The Planning Department Procedures Manual contains a Section related to the reporting of code violations by staff. That procedure, established in 2006, requires that certain types of violations be reported to the Code Compliance Section if encountered by any departmental employee during the course of their work. These include obvious and serious health and/or safety violations, significant environmental violations, and construction in-progress. The procedure contains specific definitions to provide further guidance to staff related to filing a code compliance complaint.
F4:
After a party files a complaint and receives an initial acknowledgement letter, the complainant is responsible for future contact with the Planning Department to determine the status of the violation.
F5:
It appears to be technically feasible to access the public information contained in the code violation database and INCOMING COMPLAINTS (by type) there is a plan to implement public online access before 50.0% the end of 2009. Currently, members of the public 40.0% wishing to learn the status of a code violation must telephone or visit the 30.0% Planning Department. Response from the County: 20.0% AGREES.
F6:
The code compliance staff 10.0% fields roughly 750 incoming complaints annually. About 0.0% 300 of the complaints require BUILDING ZONING VIOLATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL REFERRALS VIOLATIONS VIOLATIONS continuing extensive investigation and action. These represent approximately 40 percent of the total; the other 60 percent are either found to be invalid or are referred to another agency for appropriate action.
F7:
Each of the four full-time and one half-time code compliance investigators averages 66 new complaint investigations per year (not including those classified as “no violation,” “no enforcement action,” or “referred to other agency”), or fewer than two each week.
F8:
The code compliance group has positions for one typist/clerk, one planning technician, five code compliance investigators, and a principal planner. Additional assistance may also be provided by county financial and legal staff.
F9:
Earlier this year one investigator worked half time assisting the Planning Department’s understaffed fiscal section.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Department should • remove responsibilities other than code enforcement from existing code compliance staff. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The temporary reassignment of one of our Code Investigators to assist in the training of a new fiscal person was the result of unprecedented turnover in our fiscal division and the need to train incoming accounting personnel to support the Code program. This training has been completed and the individual has returned full time to Code Investigations. In addition, all of the Planning Technicians in the Department, including the two staff presently assigned to our Code Program, assist in staffing the General Information Desk that is an integral part of our public counter operation. This time commitment ranges from 2-10 hours a week. While this assignment does divert a few hours away from the Code Program, it also ensures that Code staff are kept aware of all of the ongoing changes at our building and zoning counters, and also places them in a position to suggest operational changes that improve the interactions between code staff, counter staff, and property owners trying to resolve their violation(s). This arrangement will remain in place for the foreseeable future. • recruit and train volunteers to assist the code compliance group. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. With the reassignment of an additional Planning Technician to the Code Compliance Section, sufficient staff resources are in place to assist the existing Investigators with caseload management. Two Planning Technicians assist the Investigators with in-office research and preparation of draft stipulated agreements and case hearing packets. It would not be appropriate to use volunteers to act as Code Investigators due to the technical training and expertise that is required to perform the job. • consider expanding the compliance-by-mail program to include additional low- priority violations. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. The compliance-by-mail program is used for violations that do not require issuance of a permit or a field investigation to verify the existence of a violation. In addition, correction of the violation must be able to be verified by the complainant. Initially, the Program was limited to illegal occupation of trailers and RV’s. In the last year, it was expanded to include certain animal keeping violations. We are currently evaluating whether this approach to code enforcement can be further expanded and will implement this expansion, if deemed appropriate, no later that the end of the 2008 calendar year. • create a list of code violations not currently being enforced and determine if any of the most commonly received complaints represent violations that can be added to the list. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. Certain minor code violations may not warrant enforcement action. Quite often, factors specific to the particular situation are taken into account when making a determination as to whether or not enforcement action will be taken. The Department will evaluate the range of minor violations that it encounters to determine whether, regardless of other factors, any of them qualify for such treatment. This evaluation will be completed in early
F10:
One additional investigator position has been funded but will not be filled during 2008; funding for this position for 2009 is not guaranteed.
F11:
Staff responsible for data entry works part time performing Planning Department receptionist duties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Department should • remove responsibilities other than code enforcement from existing code compliance staff. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The temporary reassignment of one of our Code Investigators to assist in the training of a new fiscal person was the result of unprecedented turnover in our fiscal division and the need to train incoming accounting personnel to support the Code program. This training has been completed and the individual has returned full time to Code Investigations. In addition, all of the Planning Technicians in the Department, including the two staff presently assigned to our Code Program, assist in staffing the General Information Desk that is an integral part of our public counter operation. This time commitment ranges from 2-10 hours a week. While this assignment does divert a few hours away from the Code Program, it also ensures that Code staff are kept aware of all of the ongoing changes at our building and zoning counters, and also places them in a position to suggest operational changes that improve the interactions between code staff, counter staff, and property owners trying to resolve their violation(s). This arrangement will remain in place for the foreseeable future. • recruit and train volunteers to assist the code compliance group. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. With the reassignment of an additional Planning Technician to the Code Compliance Section, sufficient staff resources are in place to assist the existing Investigators with caseload management. Two Planning Technicians assist the Investigators with in-office research and preparation of draft stipulated agreements and case hearing packets. It would not be appropriate to use volunteers to act as Code Investigators due to the technical training and expertise that is required to perform the job. • consider expanding the compliance-by-mail program to include additional low- priority violations. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. The compliance-by-mail program is used for violations that do not require issuance of a permit or a field investigation to verify the existence of a violation. In addition, correction of the violation must be able to be verified by the complainant. Initially, the Program was limited to illegal occupation of trailers and RV’s. In the last year, it was expanded to include certain animal keeping violations. We are currently evaluating whether this approach to code enforcement can be further expanded and will implement this expansion, if deemed appropriate, no later that the end of the 2008 calendar year. • create a list of code violations not currently being enforced and determine if any of the most commonly received complaints represent violations that can be added to the list. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. Certain minor code violations may not warrant enforcement action. Quite often, factors specific to the particular situation are taken into account when making a determination as to whether or not enforcement action will be taken. The Department will evaluate the range of minor violations that it encounters to determine whether, regardless of other factors, any of them qualify for such treatment. This evaluation will be completed in early
F12:
To help reduce the overall workload, follow-up with complainants is generally limited to a single written acknowledgment that the complaint has been received. Also the Planning Department does not take any enforcement action against some low-priority violations or investigate anonymous complaints. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. In addition to the written acknowledgment of the complaint, code enforcement staff frequently answer questions from complainants about the status of a case throughout the enforcement process. In addition, our Compliance-by-Mail Program requires the original complainant to verify that a violation has been in fact been resolved following receipt of a declaration from the property owner stating that the violation has been corrected. Planning staff makes contact with the complainant to verify resolution. Staff is also investigating whether it will be possible, within the Hansen system, to allow complainants to access the status of their code complaints on-line.
F13:
Compliance-by-mail form letters are sent to violators asking for voluntary cooperation in correcting some low-priority violations. Violators comply by returning a signed Declaration and Affidavit of Correction. Investigators may subsequently perform an inspection to confirm compliance. Violations currently handled this way include illegally inhabited mobile homes or campers, or people keeping too many cats or dogs. Compliance-by-mail was used in two percent of the complaints reviewed by the Grand Jury.
F14:
Despite two requests, the Grand Jury was not provided with precise data describing the size of the backlog of unresolved code compliance complaints or the rate at which this backlog is growing. One estimate provided was that for every 100 complaints entering the system 80 were being resolved, leaving 20 to accrue to the existing backlog. Based on this estimate and the annual number of complaints, the backlog of unresolved complaints would grow by about 150 a year. Response from the County: DISAGREES. We believe that the Department has now provided all information requested by the Grand Jury related to their investigation. There was an initial misunderstanding as to whether such a request was related to code compliance cases that reside in the older, ALUS system or in Hansen. Information on this topic of the backlog does exist for both systems and has since been provided to the Grand Jury. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of unresolved cases since the beginning of 2008 due, in large part, to the audit of the department’s records related to the transition to the Hansen system. In addition, the department has implemented a systematic strategy for addressing the backlog and is confident that further reductions will occur.
F15:
There are many rules built into the current code violation resolution system that allow violators to delay complying with code requirements. Examples: • It may take six weeks or more to get on the calendar for a protest hearing. • Once the hearing is scheduled, the violator has the right to delay the hearing once. • During the hearing, a violator may request a continuance, which the judge will usually grant.
F16:
In 2003, the Planning Department committed to the Board of Supervisors to develop written procedures for using the HANSEN® system. The code compliance group has established process mileposts and created a detailed flow chart, but there is no employee procedures manual for handling complaints. Response from the County: DISAGREES. The Grand Jury was provided with a high level summary page that represents the milestone flow within the Code Violation case type. This summary page was excerpted from a detailed user’s manual that guides users through each milestone of a code case, from intake to completion. This manual, over 120 pages in length, was developed in July of 2007 and was distributed to each of the Code Compliance staff to assist them in their transition to using the Hansen system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
To create consistency among code compliance staff, Planning Department management should provide a detailed, written procedures manual, including targets for the amount of time allowed for each step in the complaint resolution process. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
F17:
Except for a single summary report, the HANSEN® system was not generating data management reports as of March 1, 2008.
F18:
The Planning Department has requested at least 12 data management reports. As of April 11, 2008, only six of the reports originally requested the previous December were completed. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. Initially, the development of management and other system reports was a joint undertaking by the Planning Department and the County Information Services Department. However, after several months, it became clear that the development of these reports required a stronger technical background, and the Information Services Department took the lead in getting these reports into production. This resulted in some delays, but that has since changed. The Planning Department has been working closely with the Information Services Department on the development of numerous reports utilizing the information contained within the Hansen system. These reports fall into three categories: letters and forms generated by the system, information related to Service Requests, and information related to Cases. To date, seventeen of these reports have been developed and are in use. Of these, nine fall into the category of “data management reports.” The remaining reports will be completed by Fall of 2008. In addition to these programmed reports, a great deal of management information can be generated on- demand using Hansen’s search and reporting function that are built into the software.
F19:
The Planning Department has not asked for a routinely-generated report listing unresolved cases chronologically, with the oldest first. Response from the County: DISAGREES. It is true that the department does not get a listing of unresolved cases by the age of the case, because that is not how the caseload is managed: the oldest cases are not necessarily the most important. The department does track cases to ensure that appropriate actions are taken at the various stages of the enforcement process. The Planning Department receives reports for various milestones within the Hansen system to ensure that cases are moving forward according to their established business practices. The department receives reports listing unresolved Service Requests to ensure that new complaints do not remain open ended. The department has requested a report listing cases where a red tag has been issued and the Notice of Violation has not been recorded on the property title within 35 days of the mailing of that Notice. Similarly, the department has requested a notification report when 60 days have elapsed since recordation of the Notice of Violation and that, if the violation has not been corrected, a stipulation must be developed and sent to the property owner specifying required compliance periods and penalties. Finally, the department has requested a report indicating the current milestone of all cases and number of days spent in that milestone. The report will be able to be sorted in any number of ways, including chronologically.
F20:
The Grand Jury reviewed 100 consecutively numbered complaints (spanning entry dates between August 10 and September 27, 2007) and found the following: • Almost 30 percent of them were incorrectly coded. • Nearly 18 percent of the complaints had activity dates earlier than the entry date. These differences mean that work was performed on the complaints before their entry into the HANSEN® system. The largest discrepancy between entry date and the activity date was more than two months. • The Planning Department received more code violations than it resolved. After six months, unresolved complaints outnumbered resolved complaints by 50 percent.
F21:
In April and May of 2008, the Planning Department presented several code change proposals to the Board of Supervisors. Some were approved and others were tabled for further study and discussion. While major focus of the changes was on rules for building second units, among the approved changes were several that are intended to reduce the burden on code enforcement by eliminating requirements judged unnecessary. For example, the County now intends to • exclude most demolition from requiring Coastal Commission approval. • allow installation of solar energy systems in the coastal zone without a discretionary permit. Conclusions
Findings & Recommendations
37 findings
F1:
“County Fire” is a generic term used to describe fire protection services provided in the rural parts of the county but has two different meanings depending upon the agency using it: • Includes both CSA 48 and CSA 4 6, 7 • Includes only CSA 48 8, 9, 10
F2:
The County Fire contract provides fire and rescue services for two separate county service areas: CSA 48 (286 sq. mi.) and CSA 4 (Pajaro Dunes, 0.2 sq. mi.). Pajaro Dunes is a beachfront development located on the southern tip of the county.
F3:
All of CSA 48 is a State Responsibility Area except for the farmlands on the county’s North Coast and the farmlands that surround Pajaro Dunes. Cal Fire is, therefore, responsible for preventing and suppressing fires in this CSA.
F4:
County Fire does not include all the state responsibility areas in Santa Cruz County. Notably excluded is the area within the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District.
F5:
CSA 4 is a Local Responsibility Area. The County is required to provide fire protection services in this CSA.
F6:
By county ordinance, the Fire Department Advisory Commission (FDAC) was established to advise the Board of Supervisors and County Fire Chief on budgeting, personnel, and other concerns relating to CSA 48 fire protection, rescue and emergency services.
F7:
The County Fire contract consists of three different cooperative agreements. Two are related to CSA 48, and a separate agreement is for CSA 4. • The two agreements for CSA 48 are (cid:190) Amador Plan, wherein the county government pays Cal Fire for fire and rescue service during the winter/non-fire season. There are four Cal Fire stations in this agreement. Coastal Incident Response Plan, August 2005 http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/oes/Coastal%20Incident%20Response%20Plan%202005v1.5.pdf ( ). County Fire Contract for FY 2007-2008 as signed by the Director of General Services, http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/Minutes/2008/20080212/PDF/069.pdf 8 County Service Area (CSA) 48 contains all areas served by the County Fire Department, except the Pajaro Dunes development, which constitutes County Service Area 4” – . Santa Cruz County Volunteer Firefighter Handbook [Revised: November 2003]. LAFCO – Countywide Service Review 2005: CSA 48 is County Fire and CSA 4 is Pajaro Dunes. 10 2007-2008 Secured Property Tax Bill special assessments for parcels in CSA 48 labeled County Fire and CSA 4 labeled Pajaro Dunes. County Fire 103 (cid:190) Schedule A, which provides a year-round Fire Marshal,11 ECC, volunteer training, vehicle maintenance and administrative support services. • CSA 4 consists of a single Schedule A agreement, which provides Pajaro Dunes with year-round two-operator engine staffing.
F8:
In CSA 48, Cal Fire retains full control of state resources (personnel, vehicles, equipment) and can reassign these to meet emergency needs elsewhere in the state. In contrast, the Pajaro Dunes Schedule A year-round agreement requires Cal Fire to always staff and maintain a fire station in CSA 4.
F9:
There are four Cal Fire Amador Plan stations and five volunteer companies in CSA 48: Cal Fire Amador Stations Volunteer Company Stations Big Creek Bonny Doon – Martin Rd. Burrell Bonny Doon – McDermott Corralitos* Corralitos* Saratoga Summit Davenport Las Cumbres Loma Prieta *Cal Fire and volunteers co-located (See Map, Appendix A, and Sources/Websites: Santa Cruz County Fire Interactive Map12.)
F10:
Cal Fire prepares the annual operating budget for County Fire. In 2007-2008 this budget is $2,870,629 including $2,030,354 for CSA 48 and $840,275 for CSA 4.
F11:
The primary funding sources for County Fire are property taxes and special assessments. The majority of CSA 48 property owners in 2007-2008 were assessed $117 per parcel and CSA 4 property owners $669.80. Secondary funding sources come from Proposition 172 funds and grants.
F12:
A special election was held in fall 2007 that would have nearly doubled the CSA 48 special assessment in order to offset the increasing cost of the Amador Plan staffing and equipment replacement. This ballot measure failed and, as a result, budget reductions were required.
F13:
The County Fire contract prepared by Cal Fire has been inconsistent from year to year: • The 2007-2008 Amador agreement showed three stations, but the 2006-2007 agreement showed four stations. • The 2007-2008 Amador agreement totaled $53,267, but the 2005-2006 agreement totaled $711,590. The much lower cost in 2007-2008 was due to firefighter 11 The Fire Marshal duties include fire code enforcement, plan review, inspection and addressing services. 12 http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=105229572859786697499.00044308a6fb925404fc3&hl=e n&ie=UTF8&z=10 104 County Fire personnel, the most significant cost component, being listed on the Schedule A agreement instead of on the Amador agreement.
F14:
Santa Cruz County Office of Emergency Services (OES) under the General Services Department administers the County Fire contract and Cal Fire manages County Fire on a day-to-day basis.
F15:
The cost of the Amador Plan is dependent on the length of the state-declared fire season. The longer the fire season, the longer the state rather than the county is obligated to fund staffing for state-run fire stations.
F16:
The final 2007-2008 Amador Plan included 29 Cal Fire firefighters. Of these, 12 officers were paid by the state, and 17 seasonal firefighters were fully funded by the county. The majority of firefighters were not paid, with approximately 74 active volunteers in CSA 48.
F17:
During the last four months of the 2007-2008 Amador Plan, firefighter staffing was reduced. On a rotating schedule, instead of assigning three engine operators to all four stations, one station was reduced to two engine operators each week. Cal Fire assigned other state-paid personnel to the fire stations based on anticipated need.
F18:
A significant portion of the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District is classified as State Responsibility Area but in contrast to CSA 48 has a single fire station with a year- round Cal Fire contract for two engine operators.
F19:
Only 0.4 percent of approximately $16 million in Proposition 172 funds are designated to the 2007-2008 County Fire budget with the remainder going to county law enforcement.
F20:
The average age of fire engines ready to respond is 15 years, but County Fire recommends maintaining an average age of less than ten years. The replacement cost of an engine is approximately $350,000.13
F21:
The community of Paradise Park is located within the boundaries of CSA 48. (See Map, Appendix A.) Because of the distance to the nearest County Fire station, it is impractical for them to service this community, so Paradise Park’s fire protection services are contracted out to the City of Santa Cruz.
F22:
Fees collected for fire marshal services do not cover the cost of operations. FDAC recommended recently that fire marshal staffing be reduced in an effort to match spending with revenues.14
F23:
CSA 48 fully funds the position of addressing clerk in the General Services Department. The addressing clerk updates and maintains the database of street names and locations. All emergency personnel in the county have access to this updated information to accurately locate addresses. FDAC recommended recently that the County Office of Emergency Services assume the funding for this position.12 13 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection/Santa Cruz County Fire Department. Five-Year Mobile Equipment Replacement Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2011. County of Santa Cruz Fire Department Advisory Commission, draft minutes for the March 19, 2008, meeting. County Fire 105
F24:
Cal Fire enters dispatch information into and draws statistics from the California All Incident Response System (CAIRS) database. CAIRS data was used to prepare the County Fire call reports presented to the Board of Supervisors.
F25:
A type of CAIRS report, Resources Activity, shows dispatch data for four different time points: dispatch, enroute, on-scene, return to quarter. Each incident is identified using the following fields: incident type, location, area and unit.
F26:
The majority of emergency incidents are not fire related yet fire personnel and heavy equipment are dispatched routinely. (See Appendix B.)
F27:
The Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA) was established to administer a program to integrate fire agency emergency medical services into a countywide system.
F28:
In the rural areas of the county, firefighters are normally the first medically trained responders to arrive on the scene of an emergency.
F29:
Cal Fire and volunteer firefighters are trained and certified to provide basic life support services.
F30:
The County contracts with American Medical Response to provide medically necessary ambulance transport staffed with advanced life support paramedics.
F31:
The Board of Supervisors asked County Fire management to provide monthly incident reports to evaluate the effects of reduced staffing approved in February 2008. Matching a 10-day period of ECC audio dispatches 15 to corresponding CAIRS Resource Activity reports revealed • A single incident can have multiple responses. • Every dispatch is reported as an incident response regardless of actual on-scene arrival. Volunteer company responses are not included. • Adjoining fire district responses are not included. • Ambulance responses are not included.
F32:
Emergency calls from County Fire are first routed to the Santa Cruz Consolidated Emergency Communications Center (Netcom). Since the State requires Cal Fire to command its resources, Netcom must relay the initial call and pass control of the dispatch to the Cal Fire ECC.
F33:
County Fire responds to medical emergency calls but is not a member of the Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA).16 The Cal Fire Chief is on the EMSIA Board of Directors only on behalf of the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District.
F34:
The Cal Fire Unit Chief for both San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties is designated as the Chief of County Fire and the Santa Cruz County Fire Department. Approximately 20 percent of his time is spent on Santa Cruz County support. Firescan.net, http://www.firescan.net/ 16 “Surviving Sudden Cardiac Arrest: Improving the Odds with Automated External Defibrillators, -5. County Fire
F35:
The FDAC represents CSA 48 and its role is to advise the County Fire Chief and the County Board of Supervisors. FDAC does not represent CSA 4.
F36:
The county code for FDAC membership was amended in 2005 to reduce membership from 13 seats to 10 seats, eliminating two representatives from the Health Services Agency (one each from Emergency Medical Services and Environmental Health) and one from Public Works, due to their poor attendance records.
F37:
Although several volunteer fire companies and Cal Fire maintain websites, there is no County Fire website. Conclusions 1. “County Fire” is a confusing term, implying the existence of a single department responsible for fire protection in the rural areas of the county.
Additional Recommendations
13
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The label “County Fire” should be applied only to County Service Area 48 and not CSA 4. The Pajaro Dunes Schedule A service agreement should be removed from future County Fire contracts.
R2:
The Cal Fire contract should clearly present the services paid by the County so that FDAC, General Services Dept/OES and Board of Supervisors may properly review and understand the services provided in the contract.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should carefully scrutinize FDAC recommendations for Cal Fire services with the knowledge that these recommendations are heavily influenced and prioritized by Cal Fire officers who also manage County Fire.
R4:
A County Fire web page should be created, with a link available on the Santa Cruz County Government home page. The County Fire web page could include the Cal Fire cooperative agreements that make up the contract and links to the Cal Fire and participating volunteer company web sites.
R5:
All fire company volunteers should receive recognition from the Board of Supervisors, with particular commendations to long-time volunteers.
R6:
County Fire management needs to explain the parameters that shape its incident reporting to the Board of Supervisors, and the supervisors should understand the elements involved in tracking incident responses. This knowledge is required to understand properly what is being reported.
R7:
County Fire management should include the responses of volunteer companies and other mutual aid when evaluating the effects of reduced staffing.
R8:
The FDAC should include a representative of the Health Services Agency to add perspective to medical response issues.
R9:
County Fire should be made a member of the Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA).
R10:
Paradise Park should be detached from CSA 48.
R11:
All agencies using addressing clerk services should share in the cost.
R12:
The Board of Supervisors should review the allocation of Proposition 172 funds.
R13:
The Board of Supervisors should examine fire marshal services for ways to reduce County Fire cost.
* 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.