Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2009-2010
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 (14)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The current contract for public defender services is a fixed-price multi-year instrument. There is no visibility (transparency) into the breakdown of costs associated with this effort. The CAO negotiates extensions to this contract periodically without reference to the separate cost elements which make up the bottom line price. Response: Santa Cruz County Administrator Office and Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREE The current contract for public defender services is a fixed price multi-year instrument. The current contract is scheduled to expire as of June 30, 2015. The County Administrative Office has in the past negotiated extensions to this contract prior to and in accordance with expiration dates, and has negotiated reductions in the mid-term when the County’s fiscal constraints have required such renegotiation. The County has negotiated extensions to the contract in exchange for concessions from the amounts previously negotiated. Fixed price contracts are used throughout the County including in Public Works where large contracts do not include line item details on costs.
F2:
The primary Public Defender’s contract has never been audited by the County Auditor- Controller’s Office or any independent, outside auditor. This finding is similar to a finding of the 1991-1992 Grand Jury, which recommended that provisions for audit be included in all County contracts. The County’s response was, “The County’s policy regarding the inclusion of an audit provision within a contract is determined by the specific requirements of the contract. Certain contracts, particularly for professional services, including legal services, generally do not contain a provision for audit.” Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller – AGREE To our knowledge such an audit has not been performed.
F3:
The County, as directed by The Board of Supervisors, has not initiated a request for proposal for the primary public defender contract due in part to the following reasons: • belief that public competition for this contract would be costly and complex 26 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 • assumption that there is no other local law firm of sufficient size that could manage the current work load • fact that the Board of Supervisors and judges are satisfied with the current law firm and therefore there is no reason to change contractors Response: Santa Cruz County Administrator Office and Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREE The County has identified the following reasons for not recently initiating a request for proposals for the primary public defender contract: ● the complexity and costs associated with transitioning the magnitude of the current public defender case load (between approximately 9,500 to 10,500 adult and juvenile appointments per year), ● the absence of another local firm with sufficient staffing resources and management experience to provide comparable services, ● the indications by the Board of Supervisors and the Superior Court that the current contractor meets the need of their clients and the needs of the Court. ● the determination that costs for the current primary public defender contract are competitive with the costs the County would pay for a Public Defender Office operated as a County department, staffed with public employees and, ● the importance that the current Public Defender plays in the local Criminal Justice System as an advocate for the defense of indigent clients and as an advocate for an efficiently run criminal justice system.
F4:
The County’s decision not to convert from a contracted public defender to a County department is based largely on the use of a comparability or replication model and the costs associated with conversion. This model was developed in-house by the CAO and is considered to be Confidential. Response: Santa Cruz County Administrator Office and Board of Supervisors – DISAGREE The County’s decision is based on all of the issues identified in the response to Finding 3 above.
F5:
In 1998, the County created a Public Defender Transition Task Force to consider future provisions for public defender services if the primary contractor were no longer available. The Task Force’s efforts included estimating the costs of contracting with other law firms and the costs of providing public defender services through an in-house department staffed by attorneys who would be County employees. Since this 1998 exercise and a 2006 update of the comparability model, there have been no recent evaluations of possible alternatives for providing public defender services. Response: Santa Cruz County Administrator Office and Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREE The County created a Public Defender Transition Task Force in light of the fact that as of July 1998 there would be three years remaining on the agreement with the Biggam law firm. The purpose of the Task Force, as articulated in a preliminary agenda for the meeting on June 19, 1998, was to continue the County’s long tradition of cooperation between the Forever Gr$$n, But Not Transparent ∫ 27 Board of Supervisors and the Court in the delivery of public defender services, and to develop a plan for Public Defender Services, to address what happens when the Biggam Law firm is no longer available to provide public defender services, including a determination of what the form of the next provider would be, i.e., a County Department or another contractor, and when the transition would begin and end. During the period from June 1998 through December 1998 the Task Force considered a number of issues, including: how public defender services are provided in other counties, the County’s legal authority for multi-year agreements, inter-county cost comparisons for Public Defender services and the distribution of cost and caseloads between the main firm and the conflicts firms, the history of collection of payments for public defender services assessed by the Courts, the cost per case for the District Attorney’s Office, and the estimated cost of the main public defender function if it were operated as a county department. Among other costs, the estimate included costs for a Public Defender, attorneys, administrative staff, investigators and support staff. While not recalculated each year, in the event that the County renegotiates the economic value of the contract mid-term, the various elements of the comparability model are tested.
F6:
All parties involved with the primary public defender, e.g., the Superior Courts, the County Board of Supervisors, County attorneys, and the CAO, are satisfied with the services provided by the contractor. Several persons interviewed by the Grand Jury volunteered favorable comments about the quality of the primary public defender’s services. No Response Required Conclusions C1. During the last 35 years, the same law firm has been contracted to be the primary public defender. Because there has been no competition for, or audit of, this contract during this time period, the citizens of Santa Cruz County only can assume that this is the best means of providing public defender services. The County needs to make public not just their reasoning but also their factual findings as to why the County continues to contract public defender services with the same firm. C2. There is more latitude with service contracts than just the bottom line. The County’s argument that the contract is too large for another local firm cannot be known without an RFP; another firm may be able to satisfy the terms of the contract. The County’s arguments that there are costs involved in the RFP process and that everyone appears to be satisfied with the current contractor seem to be true. However, with the RFP process the County might be able to award the contract to the current contractor at a lower cost to the County. C3. Without an analysis (audit) of the cost elements which determine the bottom line price of the public defender services contract, it is impossible to determine if the price is fair and reasonable for the effort being performed, especially since this contract is extended periodically without competition. The County’s response to a prior Grand Jury 28 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010
F7:
Adolescents with addiction problems can be treated at Tyler House, often at no cost to their families. Importantly, the program is structured and of sufficient length to promote recovery. Students residing at Tyler House are able to continue their education at La Escuela Quetzal, a sober school adjacent to the house on the same property. Tyler House is not well-known and is underutilized. County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREE Tyler House is very well known to its primary referral sources (Probation, Children’s Mental Health, and the Alcohol and Drug Program) and is seeking to be better known by the general public. Although the occupancy rate at Tyler House is typically high, it dipped between January and June of 2010 due to clients with more difficult behavior problems being placed in the program who exited the program earlier than anticipated. Tyler House is working with the Probation Department to coordinate referrals of clients who are more appropriate for the program. The Role of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (ADAC) The Grand Jury found that ADAC has been dedicated in assisting the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency in its efforts to stem alcohol and drug abuses. Historically, there have been times when ADAC has had to operate without a full panel of representatives. How to Catch the RecoveryWave ∫ 41
F8:
HSA has been handicapped by a lack of resources to promote broad awareness of RecoveryWave.com in the Santa Cruz county community, especially to those in critical and immediate need of support and information. County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – AGREE The County supported the Commission’s early promotion efforts, including paying for the printing of 11”x14” color posters and 8”x11” color flyers in English and Spanish. Commissioners, HSA personnel and members of the recovery community helped distribute the promotional materials, and the Commission issued press releases regarding the website. However, in recent years resources have not been available to support these public awareness efforts. The English version of the site has received 16,220 page loads (hits) since the Commission began accumulating data on the site on February 15, 2009. The site’s average daily hit count has increased 17.5 percent, from 28.5 hits in 2009 to 33.5 hits through July 21, 2010. The Spanish language site draws significantly fewer visitors, with 3,405 total hits during the same time period.
F9:
Both HSA and ADAC have voiced their willingness to accept the recent work of this Grand Jury on the residential treatment facilities as a resource both for HSA and for addition to the RecoveryWave.com web site. County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – AGREE The County agrees with this finding and thanks the Grand Jury for the thorough review of the website. The Commission is dedicated to maintaining an accurate, up-to-date, robust and informative website, consistent with the needs of the community and within budgetary constraints. Conclusions C1. The RecoveryWave.com web site does not include adequate information to help individuals make an informed decision when choosing a residential treatment facility in Santa Cruz County. C2. Santa Cruz County funding for residential treatment for individuals with drug and alcohol addictions has been cut back to such a severe degree as to deny treatment to many of the most vulnerable, such as the dual-diagnosed and serial inebriates, and to hamper recovery for many others because of shortened programs. Most of the funding available to Santa Cruz County for all these programs has been provided by the State. The drastic reduction in State support has severely affected programs within Santa Cruz County. C3. Despite the presence of a lengthy disclaimer on RecoveryWave.com, there is the appearance of endorsement of the programs listed on the web site by the County Health Services Agency and the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. C4. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors has provided limited support for promoting its public service web site, RecoveryWave.com. 42 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 C5. Because of issues with the Spanish translation and the lack of a disclaimer in Spanish, the usefulness of the web site for Spanish speakers is compromised. C6. The disclaimer is nearly hidden in tiny type at the very bottom of the home page only, and a web site user is not easily aware of the cautionary remarks by the HSA.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrative Office to restructure the current contract from a fixed-price type to a cost element type immediately or, at a minimum, during the next negotiation with the incumbent contractor. Response: Santa Cruz County Administrator Office and Board of Supervisors – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED The County Administrative Office cannot restructure the current contract immediately because the term of the contract has not expired. The County will include discussion of different methods of cost structuring in future negotiations.
R2:
The County Administrative Office should add a ‘right to audit’ clause to the primary public defender’s contract. Response: Santa Cruz County Administrator Office and Board of Supervisors – HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE The County Administrative Office cannot unilaterally amend the existing contract. The office will discuss this recommendation with the contractor if renegotiations occur.
R3:
The County Auditor-Controller’s Office should conduct annual audits of the public defender contracts as part of the ongoing County Audit Program. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN NEXT 6 MONTHS The County performs various audits each year included some contract compliance audits. Due to staffing limitations and the wide range of audits to be performed, it is unusual that the same contract compliance audit would be performed annually unless the County is required to do so by either contract terms or legal requirements. The current primary Public Defender's contract does not presently have a clause that allows the Auditor-Controller to perform a contract compliance audit of it. Any request to perform an audit would need to be negotiated by the County Administrative office with the Public Defender firm. Under the current terms of the contract, it would be at the Public Defender's discretion to allow the audit and to control the scope of the audit. However, the Forever Gr$$n, But Not Transparent ∫ 29 contract does stipulate that the Public Defender "shall provide other reports to the Board of Supervisors as may be requested from time to time by the County Administrative Office." The Auditor-Controller will work with the County Administrative Office to request various reports supporting a variety of detailed information which will hopefully allow the County to analyze staffing and case loads. At the time the Public Defender's contract is next modified, we support the contract being brought in compliance with the current County Procedures. The Current County Policy and Procedures Manual, Section 300.A, which covers contracts and agreements, requires that contracts contain an audit provision allowing for audit and retention of records for a period of not less than 5 years or until audited whichever occurs first. The originating department is responsible for ensuring that these provisions are included in the agreement. We would at that time place the contract compliance audit on our annual audit plan.
R4:
The County Administrative Office, or other appropriate agencies, should announce publicly if and when the public defender contracts are being competed or extended by negotiation in a manner similar to other contract awards or announcements. In view of the extended period since this contract was put out for bid (1975), such an announcement would indicate that a formal public process is being used by the County to obtain these services. Response: Santa Cruz County Administrator Office and Board of Supervisors – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED Each year, the Board of Supervisors adopts the Public Defender Budget in a Public Hearing. The County Administrative Officer’s Recommended Budget and subsequent documents including the Supplemental Budget and Last Day Budget are made widely available to the public. For the past several years, existing contracts for the conflicts and main firms have only been re-opened by mutual consent solely to make reductions in the compensation schedules based on the County’s fiscal constraints. For each year that reductions have been agreed to by the contractors, the negotiations have included a one- year extension. These contracts are considered by the Board of Supervisors either in scheduled Public Hearings during budget considerations, or on publicly noticed Board of Supervisors’ Agendas.
R5:
The County Administrative Office should have the comparability model reviewed and updated by another agency or organization, such as the County Auditor-Controller’s Office or an independent auditor, to verify that the model provides a valid basis for the decision to continue to use a contracted public defender. Response: Santa Cruz County Administrator Office and Board of Supervisors – HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE Working with County Counsel to assure confidentiality, the County Administrative Office will review the comparability model with the Auditor-Controller for the purpose of verifying that the model provides a valid basis for the comparison of costs between a contracted public defender and providing these services as a County department. 30 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
At the time of this inspection, there were five unfilled correctional officer positions due to budget constraints. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – AGREE
F2:
The mental health of inmates is handled by medications, the social model, counseling, and behavior modification. Mental health services are limited due to a shortage of trained mental health professionals to serve the needs of so many inmates. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY DISAGREES The reason Mental Health Services are limited is not due to a shortage of trained mental health professionals but because funding available from the State for Mental Health services has experienced cuts for the last three years, and the Mental Health Division of the Health Services The Jail Inspection Reports ∫ 135 Agency continues to faces significant challenges due to a reduction of almost $3 million in Proposition 63 (Mental Health Services Act) funding for 2010-11.
F3:
On the two occasions that the Grand Jury toured the Main Jail, it found boxes of supplies stored in the hallways. The boxes blocked the visibility of the fire alarm. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – AGREE The County agrees that boxes of supplies have from time to time been stored in the hallways at the Main Jail.
F4:
While the officers had been on weekly rotations to monitor and maintain order at the facility, currently the Sheriff’s Office has ended the rotation and a permanent officer has been assigned to the site. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office – NO RESPONSE
F5:
Inmates at Blaine Street attend classes at the Main Jail. However, the classroom space there is divided by an accordion partition and the classrooms often are noisy. Additionally, the classes for women are limited to basic education and life skills. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – DISAGREE Inmates at the Blaine Street facility do not attend classes at the Main Jail. Classes for Blaine Street inmates attend classes conducted at Blaine Street. The Blaine Street facility offers a number of classes, programs and support groups to the occupants including Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, New Direction, Parenting, Computer Lab, Art and Writing through the University of California at Santa Cruz, Walnut Avenue Domestic Violence Support, Health Education, Yoga and faith-based programs. Women at the Blaine Street facility are eligible to participate in the Gemma Day Program. Gemma staff screen, interview and 136 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 enroll 6 to 8 women at a time, giving priority to those who will be homeless upon their release from jail, and who have long incarceration histories. The Day Program is a 9-week series of diverse life skills classes that can prepare women for reentry into the community. Women who participate in the Day Program and who do not have a safe place to live upon release can apply for the Gemma Residential Program.
F6:
Only three libraries in the SCPL system currently offer self checkout: Aptos, Live Oak, and Scotts Valley. Sadly, very few people are using it, just about 8 % of patrons compared to 60% in Watsonville and Los Gatos and about 95% at the San Jose libraries. Efforts to convert to self checkout have been handicapped by the need to add barcode labels to outside book covers, a time-consuming and costly exercise; labels originally were put inside the books. Response: Joint Powers Authority Board – PARTIALLY DISAGREE Live Oak self check is currently at 84%. A rollout plan is underway whereby all branches will be using self checkout by December 2010. Rebarcoding is taking place at each branch prior to implementation of self check. Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries – PARTIALLY DISAGREE Live Oak has achieved 84% self checkout since it was instituted in a serious way in April 2010. There is a rollout plan whereby all branches will be using self checkout by December 2010. Previous attempts to do so had many barriers which are being corrected. Rebarcoding is happening just before each library goes to self check. We are using ARRA paid workers through September and then volunteers. I question the 95% figure. The industry benchmark is 80%. San Jose does have the advantage of an aggressive building program which enabled them to build branches with self checkout integrated into the design. Scotts Valley will be built to this standard.
F7:
Medical services are not available at the Rountree facility. Emergency medical cases are transported to local Doctors on Duty or Watsonville Community Hospital. Mental health professionals are available on an on-call basis. Inmates requiring mental health prescription medication cannot be housed at Rountree due to lack of medical personnel. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREE It is accurate to say that medical services provided by Sheriff’s medical staff are not available at the Rountree facility. However, as mentioned previously, emergency medical services are provided and mental health professionals are available on an on-call basis.
F8:
The Santa Cruz Holding Facility is very old and has only five cells available to separate inmates by classification. The general population cell houses as many as 20 inmates at a time. Rival gangs are separated, with one cell devoted to Sureños members and one cell to Norteños members. Females are placed in one cell, and juveniles, mental health inmates, and special circumstances inmates reside in the fifth cell. The approximate number of custodials per day is 50. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREE Juveniles are rarely held in the holding facility for the Santa Cruz Court. The Jail Inspection Reports ∫ 137
F9:
It is library policy that a volunteer cannot check out books to patrons. Government Code Section 6267 is cited as the basis for this policy. However, this code does not explicitly exclude volunteers from checking out books for patrons, nor is there case law which would prohibit their doing so. Code Section 6267 reads: “All registration and circulation records of any library which is in whole or in part supported by public funds shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, local agency, or state agency except as follows: (a) By a person acting within the scope of his or her duties within the administration of the library. (b) By a person authorized, in writing, by the individual to whom the records pertain, to inspect the records. (c) By order of the appropriate superior court. Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries – PARTIALLY AGREE The confidentiality of library patrons is legally protected by the State of California. Staff undergoes background and fingerprint checks before being hired. This is an issue of public Saving the Branches May Kill the Tree ∫ 151 trust and allowing volunteers to access information considered confidential by our patrons and protected thereby by law is an area of great concern. Checking out materials is considered a core and basic service. Libraries, in general, do not entrust this type of service to volunteers. Signing a confidentially agreement is a weak form of protection since there are no sanctions to be taken against a volunteer who violates patron confidentiality. Paid employees risk their livelihood and references to secure another job; volunteers can only be asked to not volunteer anymore.
F10:
Due to the lack of funds, the project to convert inward-opening doors to outward-opening doors in detainee cells was terminated halfway through the project. Currently half of the doors on detainee rooms open inward, which limits space in an already small area. In addition, detainees can barricade the doors from the inside, causing unsafe conditions for staff and the detainee. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREE It is correct that the County has not converted all the doors in detainee cells. However, those rooms with inward opening doors are no longer used to house detainees so there are no safety issues.
F11:
Due to the lack of funds, the existing recreational space at the juvenile facility is limited to a small, cracked and uneven concrete quad area for all recreational activities. The backfield area is not fenced and does not have security cameras. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – AGREE
F12:
The 2007-2008 Grand Jury report recommended that Camp 45 install surveillance cameras at access points in the rear of the property. Upon inspection of the facility and through communication with management, the 2009-2010 Grand Jury learned that the cameras have not been installed. Response: CAL FIRE – NO RESPONSE
F13:
GED and college extension programs for inmates sometimes are provided by Feather River College in Lassen County. Currently only GED classes are offered. No teachers are available to the inmates onsite; students must communicate with teachers through phone conversations. Assignments are completed and sent to Feather River College via a bus that travels to Susanville once a week. Response: CAL FIRE– NO RESPONSE
F14:
The Friends recently expanded the list of current volunteer needs posted on its web site. It does not include checking out books, however, which limits the possibility of using volunteers to keep the libraries open more hours. Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries – PARTIALLY DISAGREE Thinking that using volunteers to check out is the only way they can help libraries stay open more hours is way too narrow. There are many functions that volunteers can help 152 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 with that might eventually result in being able to be open more hours. We need staff devoted to volunteer coordination as stated in Finding 13 to explore this. Until that happens, even if we were to use volunteers to check out books, we would not be able to do so without staff to manage the volunteer function. Library Services and the Strategic Plan In December 2008, the past library director retired after 25 years of service. There was an interim director for a brief time while the JPB and the City of Santa Cruz recruited and hired a new director, who joined the SCPL system in July 2009. Under new leadership, the SCPL undertook an ambitious series of town hall meetings and focus group sessions with the goal of developing a community-based plan for the next five years. The town hall meetings were centered on the library branches. The focus groups were of assorted demographics (seniors, Latinos, business leaders, teens, educators, the homeless, a lady’s club, et cetera). The data collected through these activities was supplemented with information from about 2,500 surveys gathered over the internet and in person at grocery stores and farmers markets in the county. The result is the 3-5 Year Strategic Plan, 2010-2015, presented to the JPB and the public on Monday, April 19, 2010. The strategic plan that was developed is not intended to solve current budget problems but rather to provide the system with a focused future.
F15:
What was discovered through the planning process was not a surprise: library patrons use their local libraries, but they also enjoy visiting other libraries in the system. This is supported by the data in the chart that follows on illustrating where people from each community check out their library materials. These percentages are based on numbers from the 2007/08 fiscal year, before the serious reduction in open hours. The first, second, and third most frequently used libraries (in terms of circulation) for each residential area are color-coded. You can see that patrons from all communities in the county check out books from the Central library, with the Aptos and Scotts Valley branches being second and third most popular. Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries –AGREE
F16:
There was considerable consistency in library service priorities, with reading, viewing, and listening for pleasure; lifelong learning; creating young readers; and connecting with the online world being generally the highest ranked. One notable contrast was the attitude of some among the more mature population who favor local branches and believe libraries must be about books and personal service, while others among the younger population suggest that there will be fewer branches in the future and libraries will be less about books and more about technology. Everyone, regardless of age, wants the libraries open many more hours and on regular schedules. Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries –AGREE Saving the Branches May Kill the Tree ∫ 153 8002-7002 hcnarB hcaE ta noitacoL emoH reworroB yb stuO kcehC fo egatnecreP 51F hcnarB yrarbiL avleS aL dleifraG redluoB aO eviL notleF lartneC alotipaC etroficnarB sotpA hcaeB kraP keerC %4 %2 %0 %0 %21 %5 %2 %1 %37 sotpA %3 %2 %0 %0 %73 %8 %1 %2 %74 samorA %3 %0 %0 %12 %02 %1 %2 %9 %2 dnomoL neB %1 %0 %0 %3 %41 %0 %1 %86 %1 keerC redluoB %2 %0 %1 %8 %52 %1 %1 %73 %01 eladkoorB %31 %1 %1 %0 %61 %15 %2 %0 %41 alotipaC %3 %1 %0 %0 %21 %6 %2 %0 %57 sotilarroC %1 %0 %7 %1 %38 %1 %3 %0 %2 tropnevaD %2 %0 %0 %63 %42 %1 %2 %2 %1 notleF %1 %1 %51 %1 %04 %2 %2 %0 %73 modeerF %1 %74 %0 %0 %11 %2 %4 %0 %33 hcaeB avleS aL %35 %0 %0 %0 %32 %11 %7 %0 %3 kaO eviL %1 %0 %0 %71 %21 %1 %4 %1 %2 nomreH .tM %2 %3 %0 %0 %8 %3 %1 %0 %28 raM leD oiR %4 %0 %01 %1 %36 %2 %61 %0 %2 ytiC zurC atnaS %7 %0 %3 %1 %04 %11 %81 %0 %4 tuO zurC atnaS %1 %0 %0 %1 %21 %1 %1 %0 %1 yellaV sttocS %1 %0 %0 %0 %5 %3 %1 %0 %88 ffilcaeS %9 %1 %1 %0 %02 %93 %3 %0 %62 leuqoS %3 %0 %1 %2 %63 %6 %6 %0 %4 procninU ytnuoC CS %4 %9 %1 %0 %72 %7 %4 %0 %54 ytiC ellivnostaW %7 %9 %0 %1 %54 %8 %31 %0 %41 tuO ellivnostaW %4 %1 %4 %6 %25 %5 %3 %1 %11 aerA fo tuO noitacoL emoH sttocS k yellaV %1 %0 %14 %21 %61 %2 %2 %2 %13 %0 %1 %1 %16 %1 %2 %61 %28 %1 %1 %24 %2 %4 %41 %31 %01 %1 %4 %3 %43 %8 %8 %4 %51 slatoT noitacol emoh rep stuokcehc fo rebmun tsetaerG noitacol emoh rep stuokcehc fo rebmun ni dnoceS noitacol emoh rep stuokcehc fo rebmun ni drihT morf elpoep erehw setartsulli trahc sihT .metsys eht ni seirarbil rehto gnitisiv yojne osla yeht tub ,seirarbil lacol rieht esu snortap yrarbiL smeti rehto dna skoob rieht fo tnecrep 37 tuo kcehc sotpA ni gnivil elpoep ,ecnatsni roF .slairetam rieht tuo kcehc ytinummoc hcae no desab era segatnecrep esehT .yrarbil alotipaC eht morf tnecrep 5 dna yrarbil lartneC eht morf tnecrep 21 ,yrarbil sotpA eht morf .sruoh yrarbil ni snoitcuder suoires eht erofeb ,raey lacsif 8002/7002 eht morf srebmun 154 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010
F17:
One important part of the Strategic Plan is the section entitled “Change for the Future,” a description of five current trends in public library services that the SCPL has identified and committed to in the coming years as it pursues its vision of Transforming lives and supporting communities. Succinctly, the five trends are: 1. Patrons get service at the level they want – more self-service in checking out materials, placing and picking up holds, editing own accounts, paying fines; and single point of service, 2. Rebranding and marketing – establishing the library as a relevant resource through evolving services and better marketing of those services, 3. Local focus – providing local content that is unavailable elsewhere and taking library services outside into the community, 4. Remote delivery of services – associated with self-service; downloadable materials, e- books, podcasts; online payment of fees, and 5. User involvement – use of social media like Twitter, Facebook, and Wikis. Response: Joint Powers Authority Board – AGREE Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries –AGREE
F18:
Despite the budget problems, the SCPL offers an amazing range of outreach programs and in-house events. Through the efforts of library employees and Friends volunteers, there are programs for special populations like toddlers and young readers, students of all levels, teens, film and gaming enthusiasts, the elderly, the sight impaired, and the developmentally disabled. There are special holiday events, including pumpkin carving and gingerbread workshops. Programs and Partnerships was begun in September 2009, involving local businesses in library activities. It includes the “Book Wish List” being supported by local bookstores. Other businesses have held fundraisers, and still others have partnered with the library in offering parents and children in-store workshops and story-times. Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries –AGREE However, the Programs and Partnerships Division was established for more than just involving local businesses. It was established to bring under one roof all library programming and various partnerships with all sectors of the community. The Budget Funding for the libraries comes from five sources: • county property taxes and Santa Cruz and Watsonville city general funds • the ¼ cent sales tax approved by voters first in 1996 and then again in 2008 • library fees and fines • a State of California Public Library Fund grant • income from bequests and trusts The sales tax and monies from the city general funds are allocated to the SCPL and the Watsonville Library each year by a Library Financing Authority; the funds are divided using a population-based formula. The city of Santa Cruz provides administrative, financial, human resources, and legal services to the SCPL; they charge the library system a flat 5.5% of its total revenues for these services. Saving the Branches May Kill the Tree ∫ 155
F19:
In March 2009, after two years of generous sales tax revenues, the SCPL had no cash reserves. In April 2009, the JPB set guidelines for the FY 2009/10 budget that included establishing and maintaining ongoing cash reserves of at least 5% of its annual budget and dedicating at least 8% of its operating budget to books and media. These goals were not met in the FY 2009/10 budget, and they are not being met in the budget proposed for FY 2010/11. Response: City of Santa Cruz Director of Finance – AGREE Response: Joint Powers Authority Board – AGREE Sales taxes were projected to increase FY08/09 from FY07/08 by $27,000. In reality, they declined by $344,000. The 8% for materials was established in the Facilities Master Plan adopted in 2008 not in FY 2009/10 as stated above. Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries –AGREE Sales taxes were projected to[sic] in FY08/09 from FY07/08 by $27,000. In reality, they declined by $344,000. The 8% for materials was established in the Facilities Master Plan adopted in 2008.
F20:
Over the last decade, prior and present library administrators have proposed or recommended closing from one to six branches to benefit the balance of the library system. However, in May 2009, the JPB directed library management to develop a balanced budget for FY 2009/10 that did not close any branches. They provided the same direction this April while facing even greater challenges to the system, essentially “kicking the can down the street a bit farther,” in the words of one board member. Response: Joint Powers Authority Board – PARTIALLY AGREE In April 2010 the JPB was presented with several options that all achieved the same goal- a balanced budget for 10/11. They selected the one that reduced hours at all the branches. Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries –PARTIALLY AGREE In April 2010 the JPB was presented with several options that all achieved the same goal- a balanced budget for 10/11. They selected the one that did not call for closing any facilities.
F21:
The SCPL may be able to balance the budget through deep cuts in personnel and services, but there is a cash-flow problem. The City of Santa Cruz loans the library the cash for payroll and other payables; it covers the actual cash deficit between the time expenses are paid and revenues are received. Currently this loan balance averages between $1 million and $1.4 million. The City charges interest at portfolio rates (in April 2010, about 1.4%), but beginning with the 2011/12 fiscal year the interest will rise to portfolio rates plus 2% (about 3.4% if the portfolio rate was still 1.4%); in the meantime the City will cap the loan at $1 million. The additional interest will add to the cost of operating the library system, and staff stated that, with a cap, some bills will not be paid in a timely manner and additional staff time and effort will be required to prioritize payments. 156 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 Response: City of Santa Cruz Director of Finance – PARTIALLY AGREE The average loan balance has not averaged between $1 million and $1.4 million. The loan balance averaged approximately $500,000 in fiscal year 2009 and approximately $400,000 in fiscal year 2010. The loan balance has decreased over the last two fiscal years and there has been no need for a loan during the last 3 months of fiscal year 2010. Response: Joint Powers Authority Board – PARTIALLY DISAGREE The loan balance does not average between $1-1.4 million. These are maximum amounts reached on several days last year not on a regular basis. The Library has also factored into its 5 year projections re-establishing the reserve to handle the cash flow issue. Given the current situation (ending FY0910 in the black) we do not anticipate exceeding the limit. Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries –PARTIALLY DISAGREE The loan balance does not average between $1-1.4 million. These are maximum amounts reached on several days last year not on a regular basis. The Library has also factored into its 5 year projections re-establishing the reserve to handle the cash flow issue. The line about with a cap, some bills MAY not be paid in a timely manner rather than will. Given the current situation (ending FY0910 in the black) we do not anticipate this issue occurring.
F22:
The SCPL has three loans that it must repay, with interest, and substantive rent for headquarters: • First, there is the working capital loan mentioned above, the advance from the City of Santa Cruz to cover the cash requirements on a day-by-day basis. This loan will be outstanding until the SCPL develops the reserves to manage its cash flow. Response: Joint Powers Authority Board – PARTIALLY DISAGREE This is a cash flow loan that is repaid as soon as the monthly payment is received from the County. Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries –PARTIALLY DISAGREE This is a cash flow loan that is repaid as soon as the monthly payment is received from the County. • Second, there is a loan associated with a Santa Cruz County overpayment, a distribution error discovered in 2005. From August 2005 through August 2013, the SCPL must pay annual principal of $40,293 plus variable rate interest. Response: Joint Powers Authority Board – AGREE Response: Santa Cruz City/County Public Libraries – AGREE • Third, there is a loan from the city of Santa Cruz for improvements to the new headquarters building. Interest is 5%. In September 2008, the principal was $467,303; the current loan balance is about $430,150. The annual payment is $60,518, and this loan will be paid off in 2018.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to remedy the shortage of correctional officers in the Main Jail so that the plan can be implemented as funds become available. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED As in previous years, the Sheriff’s Office has a plan in place to fill existing vacancies should funding become available for this purpose.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors seek additional funds to increase mental health services for inmates. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED As they have in prior years, the County’s Health Services Agency and the Sheriff-Coroner have applied for grants for mentally ill offenders whenever funding opportunities have become available. In addition, the County’s Health Services Agency has also sought funding for dual diagnosis (drug abuse/mental health) programming, but at this time, no new funding has been identified.
R3:
The Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors should solve the storage problem at the Main Jail by finding an appropriate place to house supplies or by purchasing additional storage space. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED All areas in front of fire alarms have been cleared of obstruction, and the Sheriff’s Office has assigned the fire safety officer to monitor keeping these areas clear. The Sheriff’s Office does not believe that there is a need for additional storage at this time. Blaine Street Women’s Facility
R4:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office should continue the strategy of having a permanent officer on site. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office – NO RESPONSE
R5:
The Sheriff’s Office and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should allocate funds to create a classroom and expand the curriculum to include more general education classes and job- training skills. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Jail program curriculum is evaluated monthly by a fulltime program manager dedicated to this task, and inmate curriculum and programs change, expand or decrease based on inmate populations, available instructors, and available funding. Rountree Minimum / Medium Correctional Facility
R6:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office should assign medical personnel to Rountree to administer medications. This would allow inmates who are housed at the Main Jail because they need medication, but who otherwise would qualify for Rountree, to be transferred to that facility, which perhaps would be a better setting for them and also ease overcrowding at the Main Jail. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED AT THIS TIME At this time, funding is not available to provide additional medical personnel that could be deployed to the Rountree facility. As additional funding becomes available, the increase of medical personnel will be considered with other program needs. Santa Cruz Court Holding Facility
R7:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to update the Santa Cruz Holding Facility and to fully utilize the Watsonville Holding Facility and the Watsonville courthouse to alleviate the overcrowding of certain individual cells in the Santa Cruz Holding Facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED AT THIS TIME The Superior Court has transferred all criminal courts from the Watsonville Courthouse facility to the Santa Cruz Courthouse facility. This practice will prevent the County from utilizing the Watsonville Holding facility at this time. The Santa Cruz Holding facility meets all federal and State requirements. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors / Santa Cruz County Probation Department Joint Responses Juvenile Hall
R8:
The Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors should provide funds to complete the door alteration project to increase safety as well as increase the amount of space for the detainee. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The door alteration (change in door swing) was originally initiated to provide better access to detainee rooms, in cases of double bunking, when the facility was over crowded. One half of the rooms have been modified as such. Because of the success of the past ten years of detention reform efforts, the Juvenile Hall population has consistently remained at, or under 60% of capacity. Overcrowded conditions are not anticipated in the foreseeable future. Should they occur, the available rooms, with modified door swing would provide ample resources to meet a population of up to 140% of the facility’s rated capacity.
R9:
The Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors should allocate funds to secure the backfield and install security cameras. 138 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors – THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE In 2009, the County was awarded grant funds to construct a multi-use recreational facility. Part of the scope of that project will be to provide secure fencing and security equipment, so as to make a larger play field available for use, in addition to the multi-use indoor facility. The construction on this project is currently planned for completion by the end of 2013. Sheriff’s Office Responses Main Jail
R10:
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should install surveillance cameras at access points in the rear of the Camp 45 property to increase the safety and protection of staff and inmates. Response: CAL FIRE– NO RESPONSE The Jail Inspection Reports ∫ 141
R11:
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Camp 45 should establish partnerships with local colleges and/or universities to offer onsite GED and college extension programs to provide a more convenient educational experience. Response: CAL FIRE– NO RESPONSE California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Responses Camp 45
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
At the time of this inspection, there were five unfilled correctional officer positions due to budget constraints.
F2:
The mental health of inmates is handled by medications, the social model, counseling, and behavior modification. Mental health services are limited due to a shortage of trained mental health professionals to serve the needs of so many inmates.
F3:
On the two occasions that the Grand Jury toured the Main Jail, it found boxes of supplies stored in the hallways. The boxes blocked the visibility of the fire alarm. Conclusions: C1. The shortage of correctional officers hinders the individual care and progress of inmates and overburdens the workload of the current correctional officers. C2. Reduction of recidivism is possible if there are alternatives for mental health inmates such as appropriate medications and behavioral programs. C3. The Main Jail does not have adequate storage for supplies. Supplies are stored in areas that create a hazard to staff and inmates. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY MAIN JAIL 80 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010
F4:
While the officers had been on weekly rotations to monitor and maintain order at the facility, currently the Sheriff's Office has ended the rotation and a permanent officer has been assigned to the site.
F5:
Inmates at Blaine Street attend classes at the Main Jail. However, the classroom space there is divided by an accordion partition and the classrooms often are noisy. Additionally, the classes for women are limited to basic education and life skills. Conclusions: C4. The presence of a permanent officer onsite is a significant improvement, especially in the areas of employee-inmate relations and inmate accountability. There is more stability and consistency because inmates are clearer on expectations. C5. Improving the classroom space and the curriculum for women inmates would provide a better learning environment and perhaps enable the women to learn skills that would be useful to them when they are no longer incarcerated.
F6:
In January 2010, in a cost saving measure, minimum security inmates were moved into the medium risk facility for housing. The minimum risk facility (commonly referred to as “The Farm”) remains open to minimum security inmates for day activities such as GED classes and auto body classes.
F7:
Medical services are not available at the Rountree facility. Emergency medical cases are transported to local Doctors on Duty or Watsonville Community Hospital. Mental health professionals are available on an on-call basis. Inmates requiring mental health prescription medication cannot be housed at Rountree due to lack of medical personnel. Conclusions: C6. The conjoining of the two facilities was conducted in an efficient manner causing minimal disruption and optimal results. C7. Lack of medical and mental health treatment at the Rountree facility limits the type of inmate who can be housed at the facility and contributes to the overcrowding of the Main Jail ROUNTREE MINIMUM/MEDIUM CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 98 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010
F8:
The Santa Cruz Holding Facility is very old and has only five cells available to separate inmates by classification. The general population cell houses as many as 20 inmates at a time. Rival gangs are separated, with one cell devoted to Sureños members and one cell to Norteños members. Females are placed in one cell, and juveniles, mental health inmates, and special circumstances inmates reside in the fifth cell. The approximate number of custodials per day is 50. Conclusions: C8. With a high volume of inmates and only five holding cells, it is a challenge to adequately separate inmates who pose a danger to one another and therefore to staff. Given the configuration of the holding cells, juveniles (particularly those who are affiliated with a gang) are at risk for being influenced by adult gang members.
F9:
The Watsonville Holding Facility is a new facility that is state of the art and referred to by many correctional officers as “the jewel of Santa Cruz County.” The Watsonville Holding Facility has six holding cells for the following classifications: general population, females, juveniles, special needs such as inmates needing wheel chair access, and rival gangs. The Sureños and Norteños are kept in separate holding cells. The average number of custodials per day is 18 with a maximum capacity of 48. Conclusions: C9. The Watsonville Holding Facility incorporates several innovative and specific methods for assuring the safety of inmates and officers including a secure sally port area for the transfer of detainees, extensive video surveillance, a state of the art secure control room and well thought out classification of cell populations.
F10:
Due to the lack of funds, the project to convert inward-opening doors to outward- opening doors in detainee cells was terminated halfway through the project. Currently half of the doors on detainee rooms open inward, which limits space in an already small area. In addition, detainees can barricade the doors from the inside, causing unsafe conditions for staff and the detainee.
F11:
Due to the lack of funds, the existing recreational space at the juvenile facility is limited to a small, cracked and uneven concrete quad area for all recreational activities. The backfield area is not fenced and does not have security cameras. Conclusions: C10. The doors that swing inward into the cells create a safety hazard for both detainee and staff. C11. Additional recreational space could be provided if the rear of the facility was fenced and security cameras were added. There would be access to a lawn area that would provide a more outdoorsy feel instead of the concrete recreational space that currently exits.
F12:
The 2007-2008 Grand Jury report recommended that Camp 45 install surveillance cameras at access points in the rear of the property. Upon inspection of the facility and through communication with management, the 2009-2010 Grand Jury learned that the cameras have not been installed.
F13:
GED and college extension programs for inmates sometimes are provided by Feather River College in Lassen County. Currently only GED classes are offered. No teachers are available to the inmates onsite; students must communicate with teachers through phone conversations. Assignments are completed and sent to Feather River College via a bus that travels to Susanville once a week. Conclusions: C12. Surveillance cameras would provide additional safety to the camp and potentially deter inmates from trying to escape. C13. The distance from the camp to the college limits the number of course offerings. In addition, the quality of education is not optimum with communication mostly via phone.
F14:
The staff is to be commended for their use of "high strictness, high warmth," which encourages a positive attitude among detainees and facilitates the quick re-entry into their home environment.
F15:
The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 and CAL FIRE for the excellent working relationship and communication they have established at the camp.
F16:
The Grand Jury commends the management and staff of Camp 45 for creating a caring and supportive environment that contributes to the success of the rehabilitation process.
F17:
The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 for the utilization of inmates in creating delicious meals and baked goods as well as a very well-run kitchen.
F18:
The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 for creating a welcoming atmosphere with outside grounds that include tables and barbecues. Visitors are able to enjoy the beautiful surroundings while providing inmates a chance for contact with family and friends.
F50:
Conclusions: C8. With a high volume of inmates and only five holding cells, it is a challenge to adequately separate inmates who pose a danger to one another and therefore to staff. Given the configuration of the holding cells, juveniles (particularly those who are affiliated with a gang) are at risk for being influenced by adult gang members.
Additional Recommendations
20
Not linked to specific findings.
R0:
Atmosphere of classroom(s): Engaging and respectful. Are there adequate supplies (books, paper, computers, et cetera)? Yes. Are activities and coursework assigned by teachers? Students are given the same work as at any other high school. Are minors required to do homework? Yes. Number of minors not attending. Reason?
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to remedy the shortage of correctional officers in the Main Jail so that the plan can be implemented as funds become available.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff's Office and the Board of Supervisors seek additional funds to increase mental health services for inmates.
R3:
The Sheriff's Office and the Board of Supervisors should solve the storage problem at the Main Jail by finding an appropriate place to house supplies or by purchasing additional storage space. Commendations: 1. The Grand Jury commends the staff at the Main Jail for creating a culture in which strict behavioral guidelines are balanced with dignity and respect. 2. The Grand Jury commends the staff at the Main Jail for their positive attitude despite continually having to do more with less. 3. The Grand Jury also commends the staff at the Main Jail for grouping inmates by degree of sociability and safety potential rather than by ethnicity. 4. The Grand Jury commends the mental health staff for their exceptional dedication to the treatment of inmates with mental health issues.
R4:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office should continue the strategy of having a permanent officer on site.
R5:
The Sheriff's Office and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should allocate funds to create a classroom and expand the curriculum to include more general education classes and job-training skills. BLAINE STREET WOMEN’S FACILITY The Jail Inspection Reports ∫ 89 Commendations: 5. The Grand Jury commends the staff at the Blaine Street Women's Facility for its professional and competent manner of running the facility. 6. The Grand Jury commends the staff for maintaining a clean and orderly computer room. 7. The Grand Jury commends the staff for accessing the Gemma program.
R6:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office should assign medical personnel to Rountree to administer medications. This would allow inmates who are housed at the Main Jail because they need medication, but who otherwise would qualify for Rountree, to be transferred to that facility, which perhaps would be a better setting for them and also ease overcrowding at the Main Jail. Commendations: 8. The Grand Jury commends the Rountree staff and correctional officers for the smooth transition during the combination of the minimum and medium detention facilities. The general well-being and safety of the inmates, staff, and correctional officers remained a priority and daily operations were not disrupted.
R7:
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to update the Santa Cruz Holding Facility and to fully utilize the Watsonville Holding Facility and the Watsonville courthouse to alleviate the overcrowding of certain individual cells in the Santa Cruz Holding Facility. SANTA CRUZ COURT HOLDING FACILITY The Jail Inspection Reports ∫ 107 Commendations: 9. The Grand Jury commends the correctional officers and staff for maintaining a well- controlled environment within Court Holding, particularly given the need to update the facility.
R8:
The Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors should provide funds to complete the door alteration project to increase safety as well as increase the amount of space for the detainee.
R9:
The Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors should allocate funds to secure the backfield and install security cameras. SANTA CRUZ JUVENILE HALL The Jail Inspection Reports ∫ 115 Commendations: 11. The staff is to be commended for their persistance in obtaining funds from grants. 12. The staff is to be commended for their progressive attitude in incorporating state of the art and well-researched methodologies in juvenile offender rehabilitation. 13. The Grand Jury commends the kitchen staff for their continual efforts in enhancing nutritional offerings for detainees, including use of organic products as well as reducing fat content in the food served. 14. The staff is to be commended for their use of "high strictness, high warmth," which encourages a positive attitude among detainees and facilitates the quick re-entry into their home environment.
R10:
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should install surveillance cameras at access points in the rear of the Camp 45 property to increase the safety and protection of staff and inmates.
R11:
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Camp 45 should establish partnerships with local colleges and/or universities to offer onsite GED and college CAMP 45 – INMATE FIRE CAMP 126 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 extension programs to provide a more convenient educational experience. Commendations: 15. The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 and CAL FIRE for the excellent working relationship and communication they have established at the camp. 16. The Grand Jury commends the management and staff of Camp 45 for creating a caring and supportive environment that contributes to the success of the rehabilitation process. 17. The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 for the utilization of inmates in creating delicious meals and baked goods as well as a very well-run kitchen. 18. The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 for creating a welcoming atmosphere with outside grounds that include tables and barbecues. Visitors are able to enjoy the beautiful surroundings while providing inmates a chance for contact with family and friends.
R12:
The staff is to be commended for their progressive attitude in incorporating state of the art and well-researched methodologies in juvenile offender rehabilitation.
R13:
The Grand Jury commends the kitchen staff for their continual efforts in enhancing nutritional offerings for detainees, including use of organic products as well as reducing fat content in the food served.
R14:
The staff is to be commended for their use of "high strictness, high warmth," which encourages a positive attitude among detainees and facilitates the quick re-entry into their home environment.
R15:
SANTA CRUZ JUVENILE HALL 124 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 ACCESS TO MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Available 6 hours a day for medical and 8 hours a day for mental health services, 7 days a week. SANTA CRUZ JUVENILE HALL The Jail Inspection Reports ∫ 125 , 2009 CAMP 45 – INMATE FIRE CAMP January 28, 2010 Address: Rated Capacity: 100 + 10% overflow 13575 Empire Grade Occupancy: 97 Santa Cruz, CA
R16:
The Grand Jury commends the management and staff of Camp 45 for creating a caring and supportive environment that contributes to the success of the rehabilitation process.
R17:
The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 for the utilization of inmates in creating delicious meals and baked goods as well as a very well-run kitchen.
R18:
The Grand Jury commends Camp 45 for creating a welcoming atmosphere with outside grounds that include tables and barbecues. Visitors are able to enjoy the beautiful surroundings while providing inmates a chance for contact with family and friends.
R50:
Conclusions: C8. With a high volume of inmates and only five holding cells, it is a challenge to adequately separate inmates who pose a danger to one another and therefore to staff. Given the configuration of the holding cells, juveniles (particularly those who are affiliated with a gang) are at risk for being influenced by adult gang members. Recommendations: R7. The Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to update the Santa Cruz Holding Facility and to fully utilize the Watsonville Holding Facility and the Watsonville courthouse to alleviate the overcrowding of certain individual cells in the Santa Cruz Holding Facility. SANTA CRUZ COURT HOLDING FACILITY The Jail Inspection Reports ∫ 107 Commendations:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 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 ∫ 193 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
F4:
Through a review of district records and interviews with past and present directors, the Grand Jury determined that the boards of directors have failed to adequately perform some of the basic duties of a governing board. • LCWD directors indicated that they had little or no training to be board members. In addition they have not taken sufficient advantage of opportunities to educate themselves, nor have they created a training manual or handbook to appropriately educate successive boards. • The LCWD board has not created rules or guidelines for its proceedings, such as district bylaws, as required by the California Water Code section 30530. • The Board Policy Manual created in 2009 was duplicated from San Lorenzo Valley Water District. • Interviews and documentation reveal that the LCWD consistently failed to hold regular board and committee meetings. • LCWD board members stated that the agenda for meetings did not reflect items board members requested to be placed on the agenda. • The Grand Jury observed that some LCWD board members were not familiar with using Sturgis’ Rules of Order and that they sometimes failed to treat each other and members of the public with civility when conducting their meetings. • The Grand Jury’s review of meeting minutes from 2006 to the present revealed that the LCWD board did not monitor minutes for completeness or accuracy. 180 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 • Letters from the District Attorney’s office in 2008 and 2009 indicated that citizens filed complaints about alleged violations of the Brown Act. The District Attorney did not find sufficient grounds to warrant criminal charges. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE, with updates. In 1964, the Board of directors of Lompico County Water District adopted Ordinance 2, which defined when and where the board would meet to conduct meetings, the order of the agenda, and that the board of directors shall use Robert's Rules of order. The Board of directors reviewed Ordinance 2 at a special meeting on June 8, 2010. The board of directors has been improving its compliance with Robert's Rules of order in conducting meeting. Within 72 hours of the regular board meetings, the District Secretary writes up the minutes from the meeting, and emails the minutes to each director for review. The corrections, if any are transmitted back to the District Secretary for update. The Board conducted a special meeting on June 8, 2010 to review Ordinance 3 Rules and Regulations of Water Service and enhance their understanding of those rules and regulations. The original Ordinance 3 was passed in 1964. In the 45 1/2 years since, Ordinance 3 has undergone numerous additions and changes. While these changes have been available in the district's files, it was difficult to know all the rules, as they where found in more than 40 different ordinances. The board has produced a single document containing all of Ordinance 3, complete with additions and changes from the last 45 1/2 years. The board members are in the process of providing needed updates for consideration by the board. The resulting ordinance will contain updates needed due to a reorganization of the staff positions and duties, reorganization of the ordinance to improve its readability, as well as clarifications, and other changes needed to reflect county policies. The board will be reviewing and consider for adoption the resulting codified version. The result will be one document that defines the rules and regulations of water service. The board recently adopted a budget for fiscal 2010 - 2011 with revenue excess of $32,675. This includes one time large expenses for forensic audits. These numbers are based on reasonable forecasts of income. The board has scheduled a workshop on planning and rate setting with a professional in small water districts from the California Rural Water Association. The board and District Secretary have aggressively pursued collection of delinquent water charges and the board is in pursuit of placing delinquent water charges on the tax rolls to recover long delinquent accounts receivable. The delinquent water charges have not been included in the income forecasting. The pursuit of delinquent water charges has brought $13,524.00 in funds to the district. The 5 day disconnect notices for remaining delinquent charges for water services have been sent, and the district expects additional collection of delinquent charges for water service as a result. By the end of the billing cycle for May- June 2010, any remaining accounts that are delinquent will be either making payments under an agreed to payment plan, or will be locked off for non-payment. Up a Creek without a Financial Paddle ∫ 181 The board has educated themselves on the billing and collection procedures described in the Rules and Regulations of Water Service, and has brought action to bring enforcement of collection of delinquent water charges through disconnection of water service. The board’s enforcement of the disconnection process is now current. Per Ordinance 3, Rules and Regulations of Water Service, Accounts that are delinquent will be disconnected within 60 days from billing of charges not paid (if not under payment arrangements). Response: Santa Cruz County LAFCO Directors – AGREE to the extent that LAFCO does not have any information that contradicts the findings. In its role as a boundary regulatory agency, LAFCO gathers information for its periodic preparation of service reviews and agency spheres of influence. When a boundary change application is filed, LAFCO prepares a detailed staff report that analyses the proposed boundary change. LAFCO has not received a boundary change application concerning the Lompico County Water District in many years. Therefore, LAFCO does not have first-hand information concerning any of the subsections of Finding F4. LAFCO does maintain a file of district bylaws that special districts in Santa Cruz County voluntarily submit, and any public agency is welcome to use these samples when drafting a set of bylaws.
F5:
The board of directors failed to adequately oversee the financial activities of the water district and to verify that operations were conducted according to good business practices, and they made questionable business decisions. • LCWD board did not set rates and charges at a level sufficient to provide for repairs and depreciation of works owned or operated by the district as required by California Water Code section 31007. • LCWD directors did not set rates and charges sufficient to cover the operational expenses of the water district, in part because they lacked the background or knowledge of bookkeeping and budgeting procedures in general, and they did not demand the information specific to the district that would allow them to set rates reasonably. In interviews, board members stated they were reluctant to impose higher rates on their friends and neighbors. • In 1998, the LCWD board made a voluntary $100,000 CalPERS retirement payment on behalf of the district manager for ten years he had worked for the district prior to the adoption of the retirement program. • LCWD boards ignored or did not know about a 1999 resolution to cap the accrual of vacation and overtime pay to two years. The Grand Jury was unable to find any official action to rescind the limits. However, the board did re-impose the limits in 2009. 182 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE Response: Santa Cruz County LAFCO Directors – AGREE to the extent that LAFCO does not have any information that contradicts the findings. As a boundary regulatory agency, LAFCO does not gather detailed information such as retirement system payments or employee vacation accrual rules. LAFCO does not have information that verifies or counters the Grand Jury’s findings.
F6:
The past and present board of directors failed to provide adequate oversight of the personnel and personnel functions and activities of the district. • The original Personnel Manual was rewritten and approved in early 2010. The approved manual is still incomplete because there are no job descriptions. • The LCWD board did not conduct adequate due diligence to confirm the qualifications of new hires, specifically the district secretary. • The LCWD board did not systematically conduct in-depth performance evaluations for the district manager. • The LCWD board did not hold the site management adequately accountable for day-to- day activities, long-term planning, and financial tasks. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – PARTIALLY AGREE The current board, when made aware of the Personnel Manual, took steps to enforce and update these policies. The board met with extreme resistance from the manager and secretary on day-to-day activities, long-term planning and financial tasks. Governance Conclusions C6. The boards of directors consistently demonstrated a lack of knowledge and oversight of all aspects of the district’s operations: governance, finances, management and facilities. C7. The directors often appeared to disregard the California Water Code, the Director’s Guide for Setting a Budget, the Lompico Water District Manual, the Board Policy Manual, and resolutions passed by preceding boards. C8. Members of the board of directors appear to lack the financial knowledge necessary to develop and oversee a balanced budget and consequently may not be adequately prepared to guide the district in a financially sustainable direction. C9. Because agendas are poorly developed and meeting minutes are incomplete and inaccurate, there is a lack of reliable records to allow consistent governance of the district’s business. C10. Board policies pertaining to personnel matters have at times not been followed. Up a Creek without a Financial Paddle ∫ 183 C11. The board of directors did not hold the site management and staff sufficiently accountable from day-to-day activities to long-term planning. Management The LCWD district manager is an at-will employee reporting to the board, and management duties are outlined in the Personnel Manual and referenced in the Board Policy Manual. The district manager is responsible for the business activities and the day-to-day operations of the district. The other employees (two at the time of this investigation: the district secretary and the operations technician) report to the manager, who also serves as the safety officer for the district. While there have been many members of the board of directors through the years, there has been only one district manager over the past 20 years. Management Findings
F7:
The board of directors depends on the LCWD staff for accurate information delivered in a timely manner. • The LCWD board did not receive timely and accurate board meeting agendas. Furthermore, protocol and board requests regarding the preparation of the agendas were at times disregarded or altered. • For the last five years, management did not provide complete and realistic budgets for review and approval by the board. • The urgency of infrastructure repairs was evident upon inspection of the physical plant. However, board members stated that management did not stress the importance of the need for immediate repairs. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE
F8:
The business and personnel activities of the district were not always conducted in a professional and appropriate manner. • The district’s independent auditor recommended hiring a bookkeeper in 2008; however, the district did not hire one, citing the lack of funds. • In 2009, a district secretary was hired who had no bookkeeping experience, which was a specific qualification for that position. Selection protocol established by the board, such as posting the position in the newspaper, was not followed. • Performance reviews for the secretary and the operations technician were not performed annually as specified in the Personnel Manual. • Daily work logs sometimes were not completed and were not given to the board even when requested. 184 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 • The office file of customer work was not updated on a daily basis. • Creditors’ bills were not always paid in a timely fashion. Board members revealed that checks were written and then stored in the district office safe until adequate revenues arrived to cover the checks. Consequently, in July 2009 the board of directors asked the Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller’s office to take over payroll and other accounts payable functions. • LCWD received a letter dated February 1, 2010, from the State Controller’s Office Division of Accounting, informing it that the Annual Report of Financial Transactions had not been filed for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009. The State imposed a $5,000 penalty for non-filing. • The Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller’s office performed an Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures at the request of the LCWD board of directors and presented the report on December 3, 2009. The report revealed that sufficient and accurate data on payroll procedures was not provided to the County despite multiple requests. • Communications and unresolved complaints from customers sometimes were not recorded in the minutes or addressed, nor were they always reported to the board. • The main and satellite offices, and the records and files associated with the district’s business, were not maintained in an organized, orderly fashion. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE The current board is addressing all items.
F9:
The infrastructure was not maintained in good and working order. • The California State Public Health Department (CSPH) shut down the LCWD water treatment plant from May 6, 2010 to May 14, 2010 because the water treatment filters (Memcor filters) in the plant were no longer viable. The filters dated from 1996 and the effective life span of the filters, according to their manufacturer, was seven years. New Memcor filters were installed on May 12, 2010. • The monthly reports to the CSPH documenting the turbidity of the drinking water in LCWD were not accurate. The chart wheels that record daily turbidity provide the information that is transferred to the report form that is submitted to the CSPH. The information on the chart wheels should be exactly the same as information on the reports. Grand Jury members compared the two and noted that they did not match. • A written capital improvement plan (CIP) was not found. Up a Creek without a Financial Paddle ∫ 185 • There was no immediate systematic replacement plan for the faulty lateral pipes; consequently, failing pipes needed emergency repair, causing customers inconvenience and resulting in additional expense in overtime pay. • Facility maintenance was not done on a routine basis; for example, the fire hydrants had not been flushed annually nor had the gate shut-off valves been checked regularly. • There was no plan for the repair or replacement of the three finished water storage tanks that have severe leaks. Water tanks are leaking so seriously that pumps from the four district wells are being overworked to keep up with the loss of water. In addition, there is extra expense for the chemicals and power to treat additional water. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE
F10:
The safety of LCWD staff and the Lompico community was put at risk. • Frequently just one employee responded alone to night emergencies, regardless of the weather. • Employees failed to shore up the sides of the trench and walls of a deep excavation pit. • The fire hydrants had not been flushed for several years, although they should be flushed annually. • Zayante Fire District was not always notified of low water conditions that were a consequence of the tank leaks. • Zayante Fire District was not always notified when LCWD was doing repairs or maintenance on the tanks and there was low water pressure or no water at all. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – AGREE Management Conclusions C12. There often was poor communication between the board of directors and district management, and the board consistently lacked the accurate and complete information necessary to help it govern the district competently. C13. The condition of the district’s finances is so poor that the district is near collapse. Additionally, the infrastructure has deteriorated almost to the point of failure, and the board of directors was not properly apprised of the true condition of either the finances or the facilities. C14. The lack of water or water pressure puts the residents of the community at risk of serious fire damage, particularly when the Zayante Fire District is not informed of conditions. 186 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury recommends that the board of directors of LCWD should continue to evaluate and, if appropriate, pursue a merger with the San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) using one of the three options listed below. Although many residents of Lompico are passionate about their independent water district, the Grand Jury finds the ongoing crises facing this water district too overwhelming for it to handle by itself. Three merger options are listed in order of increasing complexity and time: (1) A working alliance with SLVWD using a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) which is established by the two water district boards of directors. This type of agreement is very flexible. For instance, it could be used for management of the districts only, and can be revised as necessary. A JPA could go into effect immediately and could in time lead to LAFCO reorganization of the district. (2) A consolidation of LCWD and SLVWD through LAFCO. If the boards of each district file with LAFCO for consolidation, it would happen automatically. This process generally takes about six months. (3) Reorganization through application to LAFCO. Any party can file directly to LAFCO, for example, a group of property owners, registered voters, or a board of directors. Whoever applies pays the filing fee. This process usually takes at least a year and a half. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS The board is currently exploring the possibility closest to item (2), which would require dissolution of Lompico Water District; San Lorenzo Valley Water District would then request a Sphere of Influence amendment for the annexation of the territory of Lompico. The board has held a series of public meetings for education and community input. This action will require further negotiations of indeterminate time, and is also subject to the timeframe held by the LAFCo review process. Response: Santa Cruz County LAFCO Directors – THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. This section has not been implemented yet because the Lompico and San Lorenzo Water Districts are studying their options, and no application has yet been filed with LAFCO. After receiving a consolidation or reorganization application, LAFCO will prepare a comprehensive report and conduct a public hearing on the application. LAFCO expects its review process and public hearing to take between three and six months. LAFCO staff has already provided information to Board Members of the Lompico County Water District and the San Lorenzo Valley Water District to explain the LAFCO processes. LAFCO staff attended a public forum at the Zayante Fire Station on July 8, 2010 at which the Lompico community discussed their options. LAFCO acknowledges the 2009-2010 Grand Jury’s thorough investigation of the Lompico County Water District, which emphasizes the problems facing the Lompico water system. Up a Creek without a Financial Paddle ∫ 187 LAFCO notes the Grand Jury’s recommendation, under Recommendation R2 on , that the Lompico County Water District evaluate an immediate merger with the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. In the last ten years, LAFCO has reviewed two applications to “merge” water systems into the San Lorenzo Valley Water District--the Mañana Woods Mutual Water Company and the Felton Service Area of the California-American Water Company. Both mergers were complicated. In both cases, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District presented a professional service plan, LAFCO authorized the mergers, the affected communities found the costs to be reasonable. The San Lorenzo Valley Water District is now operating both of the merged systems in a manner consistent with the service plans that accompanied the original applications to LAFCO.
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury recognizes the possibility that LCWD might want to reorganize and recast itself as a viable water district. The difficulty of the challenges involved should not be minimized. Continuing the status quo would almost certainly lead to financial collapse and possible bankruptcy. If the board of directors of LCWD chooses this option, to remain an independent, unassociated water district, the following actions would be critical in the restructuring: (1) Adopt a clear and thorough set of bylaws as a binding ordinance. (2) Establish a clear and binding personnel hiring and management system, and follow bylaws and the guidelines in the Personnel Manual when hiring staff. (3) Separate business operations/administration from maintenance operations to allow the manager to run the district in a financially prudent manner without the potential conflict of interest that exists when serving two roles. (4) Hire a permanent, qualified bookkeeper. (5) Develop a training program for the directors to educate them in the business operations of a water utility, including: budgets and finance, parliamentary procedures, water utility functions. (6) Create a reliable system to provide the board of directors full access to all of the district’s business. (7) Generate and implement a new financial business plan that includes: • a fee structure that guarantees that all operational expenses can be met, • an immediate assessment on all property owners to fund a capital improvement fund and a reserve fund, • a long range plan to increase revenues incrementally to continue to build the capital improvement and reserve funds, and 188 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 • the implementation of all recommendations made by the County Auditor- Controller’s office in the recent public report of December 2009 titled County of Santa Cruz Report on Agreed-Upon Procedures of the Lompico County Water District For the Period June 30, 2005 through June 30, 2008. Addressing all the recommendations in (R2) would be daunting. It is unclear whether the current or future boards of directors will have the ability, knowledge, and strength-of-purpose to accomplish these tasks in a time frame that will prevent LCWD from financial or infrastructure collapse. The Grand Jury highly recommends that LCWD evaluate an immediate merger with SLVWD (R1). Doing so will not necessarily be less expensive than the changes suggested in R2 but could prevent the failure of the water system. Response: Lompico County Water District Board of Directors – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS, PROBABLY NOT POSSIBLE Perhaps if the board five years ago had been made aware of the district’s situation, they could have made the corrections necessary to survive. The current board is working to resolve financial, management and structural problems.
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 & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Find the response grid that appears near the end of each Grand Jury report, look for the row with the name of the entity you represent, and then only respond to those Findings and/or Recommendations listed on that row.
Related Recommendations (1)
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
F2:
Provide the title and page number from the Grand Jury report.
Related Recommendations (1)
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. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Penal Code § 933.05 1) For purposes of subdivision (b) of § 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: a) The respondent agrees with the finding. b) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. 2) For purposes of subdivision (b) of § 933, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action; b) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation; c) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report; or d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 3) 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. 4) 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. 5) 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. 6) A Grand Jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the Grand Jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F3:
Provide the date of your response.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F4:
For Findings a. Provide a copy the original Finding. b. Respond with one of the following: i. AGREE. ii. PARTIALLY AGREE (specify and explain disagreement). iii. PARTIALLY DISAGREE (specify and explain disagreement). iv. DISAGREE (specify and explain disagreement).
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F5:
For Recommendations a. Provide a copy the original recommendation. b. Respond with one of the following: i. Has been implemented. ii. Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future (specify expected implementation date). iii. Requires further analysis (specify the type of analysis required and the expected completion date, not to exceed six months) iv. Will not be implemented (either because it is not warranted or is unreasonable; please include an explanation).
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F6:
If responding to more than one report, respond to each in a separate document or on separate pages of one document.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
If responding to more than one report, respond to each in a separate document or on separate pages of one document.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
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. Instructions to Respondents 2008-2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Where to Respond
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
27 findings
F1:
CHKS analysis, as reported in the chart below, shows that the number of SVUSD fifth graders who ever used alcohol had increased by 15 percentage points in less than three years. The findings also indicate that fewer fifth graders had the perception that alcohol is bad in 2007 compared to 2004. California Healthy Kids Survey Data for SVUSD Percentages for Fall 2004 and Spring 2007 for Students in Grades 5 SVUSD Fifth Grade Fall 2004 Spring 2007 CA Healthy Kids Survey Ever used alcohol 25% 40% Perception Alcohol is Bad 74% 48% No Response Required
F2:
The CHKS analysis for SVUSD seventh, ninth, and eleventh graders is reported in the chart below. The statistics indicate that using alcohol once in life, during the last 30 days, and being drunk at school had slightly increased from 2004 to 2007. In 2007, fifty percent of eleventh grade students reported being sick from using alcohol as compared to 41 percent in 2004. However, the perception that alcohol is bad remains high through the surveyed years. California Healthy Kids Survey Data for SVUSD Percentages for Fall 2004 and Spring 2007 for Students in Grades 7, 9, and 11 Grade 7 Grade 9 Grade 9 Grade 11 Grade 11 Fall Fall CHKS Fall Spring Spring Spring 2004 2004 2004 2007 2007 2007 Once in life 14% 12% 37% 36% 61% 65% 18% 35% Last 30 days 5% 11% 22% 38% Drunk-school 9% 18% 1% 1% 13% 22% Sick - alcohol 3% 5% 19% 22% 41% 50% 2% 9% 22% Binge 30 days 2% 12% 20% Alcohol is Bad 94% 95% 89% 93% 91% 95% 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses No Response Required Community agencies administered the 2007 Youth Survey that confirmed the CHKS findings. Scotts Valley teens were included in the surveys. The results indicated that county teens and families demonstrated high cultural acceptance of alcohol and drugs and that many parents believe alcohol is not a problem. Findings included: Students have easy access to alcohol and other drugs from social and • commercial sources. Santa Cruz County ranked sixth highest out of 58 counties in the state for • binge drinking. Seventy-three percent of youth report receiving alcohol from adults they • know. Sixty-six percent of adults believe parental intervention would have no impact • on alcohol consumption by underage youth. When high-risk youth are suspended or expelled for using alcohol, they do not receive any intervention services. No Response Required
F3:
SVUSD has a board policy on alcohol and other drugs that clearly defines the parameters for a comprehensive plan for prevention and intervention. However, the district has not coordinated the development of the plan as outlined in the policy.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
SVUSD officials should provide leadership, direction, and support to schools, parents, students, and community to launch a united effort aimed at reducing the life- threatening behaviors associated with teen drinking. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED As demonstrated in the responses above, the district has taken the lead in coordinating support from law enforcement, non-profit agencies and the business community to respond to this community-wide problem.
R3:
The student wellness policy in SVUSD should be expanded to include other health- related issues such as intervention and prevention of alcohol and drug use among Scotts Valley students. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED "The intervention and prevention of alcohol and drug use among Scotts Valley students" is already thoroughly addressed in Board Policy 5131.6 (a-d) Alcohol and Other Drugs and accompanying Administrative Regulations. The Student Wellness Policy BP 5030 specifically cites BP 5131.6 as an essential component. The district follows the policy recommendations of the California School Boards Association by adopting the two policies separately, as do most school districts in the state.
R4:
The SVUSD Board of Education should acknowledge the alcohol problem among teens and prioritize the development of a comprehensive plan as stipulated in Board Policy and Regulations 5131 (a-d) Alcohol and Other Drugs. The plan should incorporate proven evidence-based strategies that provide assistance to students with alcohol and drug problems. A coalition of school staff, parents, students, and outside agencies should be organized to develop and monitor the comprehensive plan. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED The district has repeatedly acknowledged that alcohol use among teens is a serious problem, that it is the role of the district to have a district-wide program to address this, and that data on effectiveness of programs and interventions should be regularly reviewed. The district maintains a comprehensive array of coordinated, evidence- based services and involves the entire school community in planning and review. As directed in BP 5131.6, the district uses a scientifically based prevention curriculum, Too Good for Drugs, which has been recognized as a model program by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. This program is supplemented by instruction throughout the grades in decision making and resiliency skills. Students are made aware of district and school site expectations for students' healthful behaviors through such means as student handbooks and rules, discussions in classrooms at the beginning of each school year, and assemblies throughout the year. Discussion by parents, staff, students and community members occur in various ways at each school site, including by groups of staff and community members in development of annual improvement goals for site safety plans and Single Plans for Student Achievement. Intervention is provided at each site through district counseling programs, supplemented by more intensive counseling when necessary by a Youth Service counselor. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Comparison of the 2007 CHKS data with 2009 CHKS data (percent of Scotts Valley High students compared to national percentages) suggest that the district programs are effective in some areas, although not in all, in reducing risky student alcohol behaviors. 9th Grade 2009 11th Grade 2009 9th Grade 2007 11th Grade 2007 SVHS SVHS SVHS Nation SVHS Nation Nation Nation 67% 79% 36% 67% 45% 65% 76% 56% Ever drink alcohol? 22% 36% 25% 37% 38% 46% 36% 53% Drink alcohol in past 30 days? 22% 29% 50% 37% Ever been drunk? - - - - 17% 24% 13% 22% _ _ Ever drunk/high at school? 90% 91% 97% 95% - - - Believe frequent use of alcohol is harmful? Interestingly, the outcomes of the survey are generally positive in most alcohol- related areas surveyed for students who are currently in Grade 11 at Scotts Valley High; they are less positive for incoming 9th graders, indicating that perhaps more attention needs to be paid at the middle school level rather than at the high school level, as suggested by the Grand Jury.
F4:
From elementary to high school, SVUSD site administrators reported that they review CHKS results and measure its accuracy compared to actual student issues and performance that they observe and handle on a daily basis. At the elementary and middle schools, the CHKS information is evaluated against actual student behaviors on campus to determine the validity of student answers. If there is a discrepancy between the CHKS survey and experience, the information in question is included in the annual site survey administered by the school. No Response Required
F5:
Administrators at the high school review the CHKS findings. However the administration does not make the information available to staff members who work closest to students. These staff members were not involved in prevention and intervention planning. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – DISAGREES On March 5, 2008, a training in recognizing symptoms of teen drug use was provided to the staff of Scotts Valley High School, with participation required of all personnel. The training included trends in teen drug use and a presentation and discussion of the findings from the 2007 California Healthy Kids Survey. In addition, the results of the CHKS are discussed and considered at all school sites, including the high school, in the development of the sites' School Safety Plan and the Single Plan for Student Achievement. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
SVUSD should develop a better understanding of the reliability and relevance of CHKS information. In addition, an analysis of the county, state, and national trends would add a broader perspective from which to view the magnitude of the teen drinking problem in the district. CHKS results from county organizations should be available for review by teachers, counselors, parents, and students. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED The district disagrees that it lacks "understanding of the reliability and relevance of the CHKS information." District personnel have worked with the County Office of Education to implement the survey and plan for county-wide analysis and press conferences to increase public awareness of the key findings. Administrators review district-level CHKS data, discuss it with staff, use the data when developing the site safety plans, and provide instruction and appropriate interventions to lessen risky student behaviors, including use of alcohol. This includes a comparison to county and state data, as provided in the reports received from WestEd, Ind. SVUSD was the first school district in Santa Cruz County to share the CHKS results in public with the Board of Trustees. CHKS results continue to be presented to the public at a 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses regularly scheduled meeting of the Board following the receipt of the aggregated data. Data are presented by principals to their site staffs and are a basis for development of each site's school safety plan and, as such, are reviewed by each site's School Site Council made up of parents, staff and students.
R9:
All staff members who teach or counsel 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. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS The district agrees with the recommendation. Reduced staffing and funding have limited additions we can make to curriculum and services at this time. The district and high school administration are in the process of investigating county agency resources to see what would be reasonable for our schools to use.
F6:
District and site administrators were asked if they thought the CHKS information was a reliable assessment of student alcohol use. All site administrators agreed that alcohol usage is a problem and that the statistics were important in identifying student perceptions and trends. However district administration did not believe the CHKS results were relevant and should not be used to determine if an issue is important or not. District officials felt the data was unreliable because the children taking the survey did not need the results for grades or for themselves; therefore they were not honest in their answers. Further, district administration believes teen alcohol use is a "community problem" which needs to be resolved by the community rather than the district. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – DISAGREES This summary by the Grand Jury does not accurately reflect the opinion of district administration or the comments district administrators made to Grand Jury members. The administration does recognize that students use alcohol, that it is a community problem, and that schools are an essential partner in the community response to the problem. The administration recognizes the importance of data provided by the CHKS, and makes use of survey findings in assessing needs and developing student services. Research shows that in anonymous, confidential surveys (like the CHKS) there is a high degree of validity in student answers—even with sensitive questions (O'Malley, Johnston, Bachman & Schulenberg, 2002). A few students may under- report any given behavior, but there are also those who will over-report instead, resulting in a balancing out. However, the introduction of WestEd's Technical Report of the CHKS data stresses the need to utilize multiple sources of information: "It is important to interpret these results with caution. Results can be significantly impacted by response rates, the type of parental consent used (passive or active), gender differences, regional variations and other issues.... The CHKS is only one of many data sources." Other data include information from law enforcement, counseling and intervention professionals, parents and students. District personnel analyze CHKS data, discuss it with staff, and provide instruction and appropriate interventions to lessen risky student behaviors, including use of alcohol, based in part on CHKS responses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
SVUSD should develop a better understanding of the reliability and relevance of CHKS information. In addition, an analysis of the county, state, and national trends would add a broader perspective from which to view the magnitude of the teen drinking problem in the district. CHKS results from county organizations should be available for review by teachers, counselors, parents, and students. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED The district disagrees that it lacks "understanding of the reliability and relevance of the CHKS information." District personnel have worked with the County Office of Education to implement the survey and plan for county-wide analysis and press conferences to increase public awareness of the key findings. Administrators review district-level CHKS data, discuss it with staff, use the data when developing the site safety plans, and provide instruction and appropriate interventions to lessen risky student behaviors, including use of alcohol. This includes a comparison to county and state data, as provided in the reports received from WestEd, Ind. SVUSD was the first school district in Santa Cruz County to share the CHKS results in public with the Board of Trustees. CHKS results continue to be presented to the public at a 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses regularly scheduled meeting of the Board following the receipt of the aggregated data. Data are presented by principals to their site staffs and are a basis for development of each site's school safety plan and, as such, are reviewed by each site's School Site Council made up of parents, staff and students.
F7:
Elementary and middle school administrators in SVUSD have appropriately addressed the needs of students and introduced programs to deal with the many facets of student wellness. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F8:
SVUSD Board Policy 5131.6 (a-d) and Administrative Regulation 5131.6 (a-b) clearly define a comprehensive process for developing district programs related to alcohol and other drugs, but the Jury found no evidence that substantiates the existence of a district-developed comprehensive program to comply with Board Policy 5131.6. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – DISAGREES The Policy is as described. Information and documentation were provided to the Grand Jury in November, 2008, at both the district and site levels to show the existence of a comprehensive program to comply with Board Policy. The heart of the program is a research-based program, Too Good For Drugs (TGFD), taught to all students in kindergarten through ninth grade. This program is supplemented by resiliency-themed lessons in literature in all grades and supported in science and physical education classes at all sites, where students learn the physiological consequences of drug and alcohol abuse. Mandatory assemblies for all students and staff at the secondary sites center around the dangers of drug and alcohol use; presenters include students and staff, community members, and officers from the Scotts Valley Police Department and the California Highway Patrol. Additional interventions and supports for individual students and groups are provided by counselors at all levels and by a Youth Services Counselor at the secondary level funded jointly by the district and the Scotts Valley Rotary Club. The Scotts Valley Police Department provides DARE training for fifth grade students. City and county agencies provide regular assemblies to make students aware of the consequences of risky behaviors.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
SVUSD officials should provide leadership, direction, and support to schools, parents, students, and community to launch a united effort aimed at reducing the life- threatening behaviors associated with teen drinking. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED As demonstrated in the responses above, the district has taken the lead in coordinating support from law enforcement, non-profit agencies and the business community to respond to this community-wide problem.
R3:
The student wellness policy in SVUSD should be expanded to include other health- related issues such as intervention and prevention of alcohol and drug use among Scotts Valley students. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED "The intervention and prevention of alcohol and drug use among Scotts Valley students" is already thoroughly addressed in Board Policy 5131.6 (a-d) Alcohol and Other Drugs and accompanying Administrative Regulations. The Student Wellness Policy BP 5030 specifically cites BP 5131.6 as an essential component. The district follows the policy recommendations of the California School Boards Association by adopting the two policies separately, as do most school districts in the state.
R4:
The SVUSD Board of Education should acknowledge the alcohol problem among teens and prioritize the development of a comprehensive plan as stipulated in Board Policy and Regulations 5131 (a-d) Alcohol and Other Drugs. The plan should incorporate proven evidence-based strategies that provide assistance to students with alcohol and drug problems. A coalition of school staff, parents, students, and outside agencies should be organized to develop and monitor the comprehensive plan. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED The district has repeatedly acknowledged that alcohol use among teens is a serious problem, that it is the role of the district to have a district-wide program to address this, and that data on effectiveness of programs and interventions should be regularly reviewed. The district maintains a comprehensive array of coordinated, evidence- based services and involves the entire school community in planning and review. As directed in BP 5131.6, the district uses a scientifically based prevention curriculum, Too Good for Drugs, which has been recognized as a model program by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. This program is supplemented by instruction throughout the grades in decision making and resiliency skills. Students are made aware of district and school site expectations for students' healthful behaviors through such means as student handbooks and rules, discussions in classrooms at the beginning of each school year, and assemblies throughout the year. Discussion by parents, staff, students and community members occur in various ways at each school site, including by groups of staff and community members in development of annual improvement goals for site safety plans and Single Plans for Student Achievement. Intervention is provided at each site through district counseling programs, supplemented by more intensive counseling when necessary by a Youth Service counselor. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Comparison of the 2007 CHKS data with 2009 CHKS data (percent of Scotts Valley High students compared to national percentages) suggest that the district programs are effective in some areas, although not in all, in reducing risky student alcohol behaviors. 9th Grade 2009 11th Grade 2009 9th Grade 2007 11th Grade 2007 SVHS SVHS SVHS Nation SVHS Nation Nation Nation 67% 79% 36% 67% 45% 65% 76% 56% Ever drink alcohol? 22% 36% 25% 37% 38% 46% 36% 53% Drink alcohol in past 30 days? 22% 29% 50% 37% Ever been drunk? - - - - 17% 24% 13% 22% _ _ Ever drunk/high at school? 90% 91% 97% 95% - - - Believe frequent use of alcohol is harmful? Interestingly, the outcomes of the survey are generally positive in most alcohol- related areas surveyed for students who are currently in Grade 11 at Scotts Valley High; they are less positive for incoming 9th graders, indicating that perhaps more attention needs to be paid at the middle school level rather than at the high school level, as suggested by the Grand Jury.
F9:
SVUSD introduced revised Board Policy 5144.1 (a-d) Suspension and Expulsion/Due Process in April 2007. The policy has a zero-tolerance clause that was intended to help eliminate the lax attitude toward alcohol and drug usage by students. Under this policy first-time alcohol or drug offenders are suspended for five days. Students who violate the policy twice are recommended for expulsion. Parents are contacted and the police may be involved depending upon the circumstances. When a suspended student returns to school, at least one counseling session is mandatory. A voluntary eight-week after-school program is available. Some school personnel voiced the opinion that the zero-tolerance approach was very punitive and that the school district did not have many alternatives to suspension/expulsion. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – PARTIALLY DISAGREES The zero tolerance approach as defined in BP 5144.1 applies explicitly to "serious offenses in accordance with state and federal law. This approach makes the removal of potentially dangerous students from the classroom a top priority...." The district has a zero-tolerance policy with regard to drug use only in that students found using drugs on campus are suspended. It is the philosophy of the district that drug-free campuses are critical to students' safety and learning. Participation in the eight-week counseling program is not voluntary; this program is a requirement for students suspended for drug use. The program is also available on a volunteer basis for 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses students who self-refer or who are referred by their parents to participate in drug use counseling. It should also be noted that the California Education Code requires the
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
SVUSD should have a suspension reduction policy linked to intervention programs to reduce the number of students suspended for alcohol use and to engage students in a common-sense approach to addressing alcohol and drug issues. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED In its 2001-02 Report, the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury found that "Despite the state-mandated 'zero-tolerance' policy, school officials have not been able to provide a drug-free environment for students" (2001-2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report, "Substance Abuse in Santa Cruz County High Schools: Consequences and Responsibility," Conclusion 2). The Grand Jury recommended that "Santa Cruz County high school administrations should explore more effective and realistic ways to enforce the state-mandated 'zero-tolerance' policy regarding drugs on campus" ("Substance Abuse," Recommendation 2). While the district lacks the internal and external resources to provide a suspension alternatives program, its existing counseling intervention program is specifically designed to decrease continued and accelerated alcohol and other drug use by students that would result in additional suspensions and expulsions. Current district policy accomplishes the goal of ensuring campus safety without resulting in a disproportionately high rate of student suspensions and expulsions. According to 2004-2008 data from the California Department of Education Safe and Healthy Kids Program Office, Scotts Valley students represented approximately 7.2% of the total county enrollment, but make up only 3.1% of the total number of suspensions for violence and drug-related offenses and 0.6% of expulsions for violence and drug-related offenses. SVUSD as Enrollment Violence/Drug Total percentage Expulsion Suspension Expulsion Suspension of the County 2007-08 6.9% 6.7% 0.8% 0.4% 5.6% 2006-07 7.1% 0.9% 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% 2005-06 7.3% 4.4% 0.5% 3.0% 0.6% 2004-05 7.4% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 7.2% 3.1% 0.6\% 2.3% 0.5% Four Year Average The district has taken a proactive stance to prevent drug use and abuse, and to intervene quickly and positively. As the data above indicate, suspensions and expulsions are low relative to other districts in the county in part because of the district's prevention and intervention programs.
F10:
Scotts Valley City Council adopted a Social Host Ordinance in November 2008. The ordinance allows law enforcement to hold accountable the host of a gathering where alcohol is served to, consumed by, or in possession of minors. Fines for hosting such gatherings can range from $250 to $1,000 in a twelve month period. Response: Scotts Valley Police Department – AGREES
F11:
Scotts Valley Police Department no longer provides a School Resource Officer (SRO) on the high school campus. The role of the SRO is to deter crime activity on campus and be accessible to students to create a positive relationship as well as act as a mentor. District and site officials stated that they would like to have a law enforcement officer return to the high school campus. Response: Scotts Valley Police Department – AGREES Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – PARTIALLY AGREES The school district remains firmly supportive of returning an SRO at the high school campus. This important position was funded by the district through use of categorical and grant funds. The SRO was eliminated due to understaffing at the Police Department, and school district resources for the position were redirected to pay for campus supervisors. The district is in ongoing communication with the Police Department and will work to reestablish the SRO position as soon as police staffing allows.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
SVUSD should work with Scotts Valley Police Department to reinstate the School Resource Officer to the high school campus when budgetary restrictions allow. Response: Scotts Valley Police Department – HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE AGREES - This has not been implemented, but will be in the future. The Scotts Valley Police Department and Scotts Valley Unified School District are both committed to reinstating a School Resource Officer (SRO) at the high school as soon as staffing and budgets allow. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE The School Resource Officer is vacant not because of "budgetary restrictions," but because the Scotts Valley Police Department (SVPD) is temporarily understaffed. It is the intent of the district and the SVPD to reinstate the position when conditions allow. The district continues to enjoy an excellent partnership with the SVPD. The officers provide a regular positive presence on district campuses, are always available to site personnel and students when needed, provide Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) programs at school sites, support drug abuse resistance assemblies, and support Red Ribbon Week on district campuses. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F12:
SVHS school officials indicated that the lack of surveillance cameras at the high school limits the ability to detect student alcohol use on campus. Instead, the school uses the following methods to curtail the use of alcohol and drugs on campus: Three aides supervise the campus and parking lots. • The principal and assistant principal assist with supervision. • The campus is closed during school to prevent students from leaving campus. • Students have no lockers. • Five breathalyzers are used to monitor students at special events such as • dances. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District - PARTIALLY AGREES 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses While the methods currently in place to curtail alcohol use on campus may not be as effective as surveillance cameras, they nevertheless demonstrate the district's commitment to make the best use of existing resources. The most recent data from the CHKS show that although 25% of Scotts Valley 9th graders and 36% of 11th graders have used alcohol in the past month, only 5% of 9th graders and 1\% of 11th graders report using alcohol on school property during that time. The district intends to continue to aggressively monitor and deter student alcohol and other drug use on campus.
F13:
County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Alcohol and Drug Services personnel indicated that when high-risk youth who use alcohol are suspended or expelled they receive minimal prevention services. Therefore the County has implemented alternatives to suspension and expulsion that have reaped more favorable results. For example, the Seven Challenges program introduced in Santa Cruz City Schools is a reduction-of-suspension option that allows students an early return to the classroom by participation in the program. The program keeps students attending school and engaged in academic work. In addition, the district can claim average daily attendance funding for those students rather than lose the funding when students are suspended. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – PARTIALLY DISAGREES As stated in the response to Findings #8 and #9 above, Scotts Valley High does have a program that provides prevention services to reduce at-risk behaviors that might lead to suspensions and expulsions, as well as an intervention program for students suspended for alcohol or other drug use. This program, Assessment. Information. Management (AIM), is provided by Youth Services. AIM is an eight-week program similar to the Seven Challenges program mentioned above that teaches student about abuse, addiction and dependence, and increases their awareness of the physical, emotional and social risks and consequences of using alcohol and drugs. Additional information about the program is attached (Attachment A, pages 25 and 26 of this report). SVUSD does not provide an "in-house suspension" option similar to that provided by the County to the Santa Cruz School District due to lack of resources and the low rate of student suspensions compared to other districts in the county. The high school has instituted other county programs, however, including Teen Peer Court and Real DUI Court in School (including an evening Town Hall Community meeting). Students have participated individually or as an entire student body, as appropriate to the activity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
SVUSD should have a suspension reduction policy linked to intervention programs to reduce the number of students suspended for alcohol use and to engage students in a common-sense approach to addressing alcohol and drug issues. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED In its 2001-02 Report, the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury found that "Despite the state-mandated 'zero-tolerance' policy, school officials have not been able to provide a drug-free environment for students" (2001-2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report, "Substance Abuse in Santa Cruz County High Schools: Consequences and Responsibility," Conclusion 2). The Grand Jury recommended that "Santa Cruz County high school administrations should explore more effective and realistic ways to enforce the state-mandated 'zero-tolerance' policy regarding drugs on campus" ("Substance Abuse," Recommendation 2). While the district lacks the internal and external resources to provide a suspension alternatives program, its existing counseling intervention program is specifically designed to decrease continued and accelerated alcohol and other drug use by students that would result in additional suspensions and expulsions. Current district policy accomplishes the goal of ensuring campus safety without resulting in a disproportionately high rate of student suspensions and expulsions. According to 2004-2008 data from the California Department of Education Safe and Healthy Kids Program Office, Scotts Valley students represented approximately 7.2% of the total county enrollment, but make up only 3.1% of the total number of suspensions for violence and drug-related offenses and 0.6% of expulsions for violence and drug-related offenses. SVUSD as Enrollment Violence/Drug Total percentage Expulsion Suspension Expulsion Suspension of the County 2007-08 6.9% 6.7% 0.8% 0.4% 5.6% 2006-07 7.1% 0.9% 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% 2005-06 7.3% 4.4% 0.5% 3.0% 0.6% 2004-05 7.4% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 7.2% 3.1% 0.6\% 2.3% 0.5% Four Year Average The district has taken a proactive stance to prevent drug use and abuse, and to intervene quickly and positively. As the data above indicate, suspensions and expulsions are low relative to other districts in the county in part because of the district's prevention and intervention programs.
F14:
SVHS students who have been suspended for alcohol or drug use can meet with a certified counselor two days a week for individual sessions and after-school group sessions. The counselor is only required to see students who have been suspended. All other counseling is voluntary on the student's part. The Scotts Valley Rotary Club sponsors the counseling program. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – DISAGREES 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Students who have been suspended on drug-related charges MUST attend the Rotary Club sponsored sessions offered by the Youth Services counselor. Other students MAY attend the sessions through parents, staff or self referral.
F15:
The elementary schools no longer have a district-hired counselor. The position was eliminated as part of a budget reduction during the 2007-2008 school year. Administrators and staff have assumed many of the duties of the counselor and each elementary school has an intern from John F. Kennedy University to provide counseling for twelve students each week. Site administrators believe having a counselor is important because it is easier for students to speak honestly to a third party, rather than to teachers or the principal. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – PARTIALLY AGREES Counselors provide important services to students and are provided and funded by the district as described above. Site administrators believe having a counselor is important not necessarily "because it is easier for students to speak honestly to a third party" but because counselors have specialized training to meet severe social/emotional needs and have more time to spend with the students in a counseling capacity than do administrators or classroom teachers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
SVUSD should find innovative ways to expand counseling services at the elementary level. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses When funding was cut back last year, the district developed a partnership with JFK University to provide district-funded counseling interns for the elementary schools. The district continues to investigate options, and is severely restricted by the lack of resources.
F16:
SVHS administrators stated that they have not implemented peer counseling and conflict resolution programs that engage students in problem solving and decision making. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – PARTIALLY AGREES Instruction on strategies for positive social relationships and conflict resolution are part of the curriculum throughout the grade levels; specific lessons are part of the Too Good For Drugs curriculum. Additional peer counseling training has not been provided at the secondary sites in part because of limited resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
SVHS should involve students in self-help strategies such as peer counseling and conflict resolution, as well as countywide programs such as Friday Night Live and the Together for Youth collaborative. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District - REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS Staff is currently investigating the availability of community resources and will implement those that are available and appropriate. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F17:
The SVUSD leaves the implementation of alcohol and drug programs primarily to site administration and as a result, programs offered vary widely throughout the district. The suspension/expulsion policy is one of the few district-wide strategies to address alcohol and drug use among students. Per district officials, other priorities such as student achievement, special education, and budgetary challenges take precedence over the development of prevention and intervention programs. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – DISAGREES SVUSD provides a district-wide alcohol and drug abuse prevention program, as described above. Suspension and expulsion are a necessary component to ensure the safety of all students and promote a campus environment conducive to learning. The district recognizes that preventing alcohol and drug use is itself a critical element in advancing student achievement. While the district does face unprecedented budgetary 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses challenges, it continues to demonstrate its commitment to alcohol and other drug prevention and intervention.
F18:
SVUSD elementary and middle schools have a variety of programs in place to address alcohol and drug use. The activities are based at schools and include programs that address self esteem, empowerment, resilience, learning styles, and conflict resolution. The district-adopted curriculum Too Good for Drugs is used at all levels. No Response Required
F19:
The high school offers a ninth -grade health class that addresses drug and alcohol issues. The course incorporates the Too Good for Drugs curriculum and other resources provided by the teacher. Too Good for Drugs has three core components: one curriculum for ninth and tenth- grade students, another for eleventh and twelfth-grade students, and staff development for educators. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – AGREES
Related Recommendations (2)
R10:
SVHS should incorporate the Too Good for Drugs program into the core curriculum for tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade students. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED While this might be an appropriate recommendation if time were available, the need to focus on State Standards in all the core courses and to meet the mandates of the International Baccalaureate curriculum leave little or no time to teach additional 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses lessons or programs. Instead, teachers incorporate the tenets of drug abuse prevention curriculum when appropriate in physical education classes, science, history and English.
R11:
SVHS should consider offering more health classes especially for eleventh and twelfth grade students to bridge learning with life experiences. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Because of severe budget restrictions, many current courses at the high school level are averaging between 35 and 40 students. To provide additional elective courses in this financial climate would raise class sizes in required courses and is neither realistic nor advisable.
F20:
County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Alcohol and Drug Program, the United Way, and Santa Cruz County Office of Education have a variety of programs available to districts throughout the county to assist with curbing teen alcohol use. The County has actively solicited districts to participate in evidence-based programs, many of which are offered through grant funds. Programs include: Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol, Seven Challenges, Responsible Alcohol Merchant Awards, Friday Night Live, Project CURB, Teen Peer Court and Town Hall Meetings. No Response Required
F21:
Santa Cruz City Schools district is currently implementing the Seven Challenges program at Santa Cruz High School and is expanding the program to all other high schools in the district next year. No Response Required
F22:
Districts throughout the county have the opportunity to participate in the Together for Youth Collaborative. No Response Required
F23:
The Scotts Valley Police Department provides Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) to the elementary, middle and high school students in SVUSD. The program is taught by a police officer and provides a series of classroom lessons that 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses teach student how to resist peer pressure and live productive, drug-free and violence- free lives. In addition, the police department sponsors Red Ribbon Week held the last week of October. The Red Ribbon Week campaign asks students to pledge a drug free life through drug education and prevention activities. Response: Scotts Valley Police Department – PARTIALLY AGREES The Scotts Valley Police Department provides D.A.R.E. instruction to Elementary and Middle School Students, but not high school students. The Scotts Valley Police Department does provide a Lieutenant who teaches a Regional Occupation Program (R.O.P.) criminal justice class at Scotts Valley High School.
F24:
At the time of the interviews, high school administrators and staff members were unfamiliar with programs and services within the County that assist with prevention and intervention of alcohol and drug use among students. Since the Grand Jury's interview with the administration at Scotts Valley High School (SVHS), two DUI sentencing hearings were held on campus. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – PARTIALLY AGREES The staff were not fully aware of all programs available through county agencies; however, staff are familiar with, and make use of, many programs available through outside agencies. Staff have contacted agencies noted in the Grand Jury report to request information about resources available to the district. In addition to the two DUI sentencing hearings, which were scheduled prior to the Grand Jury interview, a Town Hall meeting was held for parents on the subject of teen alcohol abuse in cooperation with law enforcement and other non-profit agencies. Students participate in Peer Court and Friday Night Live activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
SVUSD and SVHS should utilize county and outside agency resources that assist students with alcohol and other drug prevention and intervention. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED The district has taken advantage of resources such as Youth Services counseling, the DUI Court in School program, and Friday Night Live student activities. In addition, the district has worked with the City of Scotts Valley, which adopted a Social Host Ordinance in November, 2008, and the Scotts Valley Police Department to support prevention and intervention services. In addition to district-supported counseling services, the Scotts Valley Rotary Club provides funding to maintain intervention counseling for students at risk of drug use and abuse. The district has taken steps to learn more about county resources and to implement them when possible and appropriate to meet identified needs. The district is currently participating in a North County initiative called Reduction of Alcohol Abuse Program (RAAP), the purpose of which is to obtain grant funding for additional counseling services to reduce youth alcohol abuse through effective prevention and early intervention programs.
F25:
San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District recently held a town hall meeting for parents about teen alcohol abuse on February 26, 2009. County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Alcohol and Drug Program sponsored the event. No Response Required
F26:
A Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge, the Mayor of Scotts Valley, the Chief of Police of Scotts Valley, the Santa Cruz County Office of Education, the County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Alcohol and Drug Program, and approximately fifteen parents, students, and staff attended a Town Hall meeting on April 28, 2009 at SVHS. No Response Required 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F27:
Student leaders facilitated the town hall meeting and presented recent student responses on the Scotts Valley Youth Survey administered in April 2009 at SVHS. Highlights from the study indicate the following: • 52.1% of youth ages 14-18 get access to alcohol fairly easily. 46.9% get alcohol from friends over 21. • 31.6% get alcohol from home without parental knowledge. • 56.2% drink alcohol at parties without parent/adults in the home. • 44.7% believe alcohol helps them feel comfortable in social situations. • 41.5% state alcohol is used to relieve boredom. • 38% state alcohol makes it easier to deal with stress or to relax. • No Response Required Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 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.
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F3:
In 2009 the County relies on substantially the same hardware, although software upgrades and revisions have been implemented in the intervening years. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY DISAGREES The County has utilized the same IBM Mainframe hardware and software platform for the last 8 years. However, other hardware (Windows servers) has continued to be replaced on a cycle based on manufacturer end of life support (normally every 4-5 years). Furthermore the County has moved towards virtual servers (VMWare) on IBM blades which lower the cost of ownership and ease replacement cycle impacts on existing software applications.
F4:
Currently only two ISD employees are thoroughly trained and familiar with operating and supporting the mainframe. Both employees are eligible for retirement. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DISAGREES ISD has 6 mainframe programmers and 6 operators that support the mainframe environment. Each of those mainframe programmers is skilled in different business applications, and some cross-support is in place. While half of the mainframe programmers are eligible for retirement, none have indicated they plan to retire before migrating their primary application off the mainframe.
F5:
On April 1, 2007, IBM stopped offering support for mainframes such as the County's 7060-H50. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DISAGREES IBM ended support of the MVS operating system for 7060_H50 on April 1, 2007. The County has never run MVS on their mainframe systems. Currently, the County is fully licensed and supported for both hardware and software for the existing mainframe platform that is in place.
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." Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors - AGREES ISD has started work on a Continuity of Government plan with a tentative schedule of completion in three years. This is much larger than an IT disaster recovery plan and will involve most departments at the County. 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
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®). Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES In 2007, Planning began using the Code Enforcement module of the Hansen application. All new Code Enforcement cases were entered into Hansen exclusively. Old cases remained in ALUS as did Planning and Building Permits. So, while two systems are in use currently, there is no dual-entry and data is only stored in one system. When Hansen goes into production with the remaining modules, data from ALUS will be migrated to Hansen. At that time, ALUS will be retired and Hansen will become the one and only system used. The production release date is currently scheduled for the end of calendar year 2009.
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES In fiscal years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the County's IT mainframe migration strategy called for 8 mainframe business applications to be migrated off of the mainframe. The District Attorney's system was migrated off the mainframe in 2003. In 2009, the Budget system, owned by the CAO but used by all departments, was migrated to a web-based application. The Payroll/Personnel system was migrated to a web-based application in 2009. The Sheriff's Records and Jail Management systems are currently slated to be migrated off the mainframe in fall of 2009. The Probation Department's Case Management System is also planned to migrate off the mainframe by the end of 2009. The Planning Department will complete its migration in 2009. For more details on the Planning Department's applications, see also the answer to question 7. The new Property Tax system, used by the Auditor, Assessor and Tax Collector, is the third and final phase of the project plan and will be moved into production by 2011. The General Ledger and Purchasing systems will be the last applications to be migrated off the mainframe, dependent on County resources to pay for and implement the project.
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) 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) • Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES The Recorder's system was replaced on July 20, 2009. It was not a mainframe application.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should provide the resources necessary to allow Information Services Department to complete migration off the mainframe on schedule. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED The current mainframe migration projects fully utilize the available ISD staff. While ISD would appreciate more staffing we are fully aware of the financial exigencies facing the County.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should monitor ISD progress to ensure adherence to the migration schedule. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED ISD has been reporting status on the Property Tax System to the Board of Supervisors and currently reports status on all projects to department heads every quarter.
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors - AGREES
F11:
ISD is working toward being mainframe-independent within four years. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES The County's mainframe migration plan currently has Board-approved plans and funding for migrating eight applications off of the mainframe. In fiscal year 2008-09, two applications were migrated off the mainframe to web-based solutions. In 2009- 10, an additional six migration projects have been funded and five applications are currently scheduled to be replaced. The remaining project is entering its third and final phase and is targeted to be migrated off the mainframe in 2011. The few remaining applications on the mainframe do not currently have project plans or funding sources to replace them. Nonetheless, ISD and the County remained committed to the goal of mainframe independence.
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. Information Services Department – Stagnation or Migration? 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses No Response Required Conclusions
F1965:
Migration: A change from one hardware or software technology to another or moving data from one storage system to another (data migration). Application: In computer science, an application is a computer program designed to help people perform a certain type of work. Depending on the work for which it was designed, an application can manipulate text, numbers, graphics, or a combination of these elements. Some application packages offer considerable computing power by focusing on a single task, such as word processing; others, called integrated software, offer somewhat less power but include several functions. Findings 1. 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 2. 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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES 3. In 2009 the County relies on substantially the same hardware, although software upgrades and revisions have been implemented in the intervening years. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY DISAGREES The County has utilized the same IBM Mainframe hardware and software platform for the last 8 years. However, other hardware (Windows servers) has continued to be replaced on a cycle based on manufacturer end of life support (normally every 4 – 5 years). Furthermore the County has moved towards virtual servers (VMWare) on IBM blades which lower the cost of ownership and ease replacement cycle impacts on existing software applications.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The following are the California State marijuana laws: • 11357a: possess concentrated marijuana (hashish)- felony • 11357b: possess less than one ounce of marijuana- infraction • 11357c: possess more than one ounce of marijuana- misdemeanor • 11357d: possess marijuana specific circumstances- misdemeanor • 11357e: possess marijuana specific circumstances- misdemeanor • 11358: cultivation of marijuana- felony • 11359: possess marijuana for sale- felony • 11360a: transportation of marijuana over 28.5 grams- felony • 11360b: give/transport marijuana/hashish under one ounce- misdemeanor • 11361b: furnish, et cetera, minor with marijuana- felony
F2:
The Santa Cruz County District Attorney uses the equivalent of one Assistant District Attorney (salary about $108,000/year plus benefits) to prosecute marijuana-related offenses. In 2007 the District Attorney filed 31 misdemeanor and 114 felony charges for marijuana offenses; in 2008 those numbers were 45 and 132.
F3:
The Santa Cruz Narcotics Enforcement Team employs two detectives (salary about $101,000/each/year, plus benefits) and one sergeant (salary about $136,000/year including 14 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 overtime, plus benefits). About 40 percent of the task force’s time is spent on marijuana offenses, for a total of $135,200 in salaries and benefits. Calculation: $101,000 * 2 = $202,000 + $136,000 = $338,000 * .40 = $135,200
F4:
The table below shows the number of marijuana charges filed in the four incorporated cities in the County in 2007 and 2008. California Capitola Santa Cruz Scotts Valley Watsonville State Laws 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 11357a 3 4 17 31 1 7 3 3 11357b 53 28 302 545 40 32 105 233 11357c 7 5 7 13 3 3 3 4 11357d 1 5 1 11357e 22 37 5 14 13 11358 1 6 2 10 2 3 2 11359 1 2 34 48 1 2 10 10 11360a 8 17 1 1 11360b 9 13 1 1 3 11361b 1 5 Totals 65 45 403 724 47 52 139 269
F5:
The approximate amount of officer time required in Capitola to process each marijuana-related case is as follows: • 11357a: 85 minutes • 11357b: 61 minutes • 11357c: 76 minutes • 11358, 11359, 11360: major cases lasting several hours to several days
F6:
Using the amount of officer time required in F5 for Capitola and applying that figure to the charges filed in all four cities, we calculate that for the three offenses 11357a, 11357b, and 11357c, a total of 567 officer hours were spent in 2007 and 947 officer hours were spent in 2008 to process these marijuana related cases.
F7:
1,500 inmates in California State prisons are there for marijuana-only offenses, and the cost per inmate is roughly $50,000 per year. This puts the annual cost of incarceration of marijuana-only offenders in State prisons at $75 million. The number of marijuana-only related offenders in Santa Cruz County jails is unknown as the County computer system does not list marijuana-related offenses as a separate category.
F8:
Approximately $200 million is spent annually in California to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate marijuana offenders. (This figure includes the $75 million from F7 above.) Allocating that cost to Santa Cruz County on a per capita basis would result in annual costs of $1.36 million. The Fiscal Impact of the Legalization of Cannabis ∫ 15 Calculation: CA population of approximately 38 million people Santa Cruz County population of 260 thousand people or 0.68 percent 0.68 percent of $200 million = $1.36 million in annual costs Revenue Findings
F9:
The Santa Cruz Narcotics Enforcement Team seized approximately $150,000 in cash and property in 2008 and approximately $370,000 in cash and property in 2009. The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department received a $30,000 grant in 2009 from the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) under the Federal Domestic Cannabis Eradication and Suppression Program (DCESP) specifically to pay for overtime hours, training, and the purchase of equipment specific to marijuana-related crime enforcement.
F10:
Santa Cruz County collects an unknown amount of revenue from marijuana-related fines; revenue is unknown because it is not tracked on a per offense basis. The fine for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana (11357b) is up to $270. However, since the County system doesn’t track fines per offense and since the fine amounts vary, the Grand Jury cannot estimate the current revenue for pot offenses.
F11:
Based upon our assumptions about legalization and taxes, the State of California would collect approximately $400 million in additional sales tax revenue; the Counties would collect about $990 million in excise tax revenue. The State of California would collect additional income tax revenue from people working in the cultivation, production, and sales of marijuana.
F12:
The County of Santa Cruz hypothetically would receive $129,200 in marijuana sales tax revenue from the state. This number was calculated with an assumption of 19 million ounces of annualized statewide consumption allocated on a per capita basis to Santa Cruz County with a minimum sale price of $100 per ounce. Calculation: CA population of approximately 38 million people Santa Cruz County population of 260 thousand people or 0.68% 0.68% of 19 million ounces = 129,200 ounces * $100/ounce 1% of sales tax revenue is returned to the County Sales tax to Santa Cruz County of $129,200
F13:
The County of Santa Cruz hypothetically would receive $6.46 million in marijuana excise tax revenue if the County collected $50 per ounce. This number was calculated with an assumption of 19 million ounces of annualized statewide consumption allocated on a per capita basis to Santa Cruz County. Calculation: CA population of approximately 38 million people Santa Cruz County population of 260 thousand people or 0.68% 0.68% of 19 million ounces = 129,200 ounces $50 per ounce * 129,200 ounces = $6.46 million excise tax 16 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 Conclusions C1. Although the federal government recently announced that it would no longer prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with State laws, it has continued to enforce its laws on non-medical marijuana activities. To the extent that the federal government continued to enforce existing federal laws, it would inhibit the legal cultivation, sales, and use of marijuana in California even if the State legalized it for recreational purposes. C2. Santa Cruz County spends considerable resources, roughly $1.36 million based upon statewide estimates, enforcing existing marijuana laws through law enforcement, the courts, and jails. If marijuana were legal, it could result in savings to our local government by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated, reducing the associated time and costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses, and also the handling of related criminal cases in the court system. Costs associated with new marijuana regulations and the County’s collection of excise taxes are unknown. C3. Legalizing marijuana may result in the reduction of County revenues from fines for marijuana infractions, and it could reduce the cash and property seized by the Santa Cruz Narcotics Enforcement Team. It is unlikely that the county would receive another DCESP grant from the DEA. The County could impose additional fines and fees associated with a new law, but the net monetary effect is unknown. C4. The State of California would realize additional revenues from sales taxes generated by retail sales of legal marijuana. Some of those sales taxes, $129,200 based on the assumptions in this report, would come back to the County. The State also could realize additional income tax revenue from people involved in the business of marijuana cultivation, production, and sales. Santa Cruz County would derive some indirect benefit if the State were in better financial health as a result of marijuana legalization and taxation. Finally, Santa Cruz County would gain direct monetary benefit, $6.46 million based upon the assumptions in this report, from a $50 per ounce excise tax. The chart on the next page provides a summary of the Grand Jury’s calculations to provide a net estimated increase in revenue to Santa Cruz County of over $7.5 million if marijuana were legalized for recreational use. C5. It seems clear that, legal or not, millions of ounces of marijuana are going to be smoked each year in California. The Fiscal Impact of the Legalization of Cannabis ∫ 17 Changes in Revenues and Costs Associated With the Legalization of Marijuana Inc/(Dec) In Revenues (Inc)/Dec In Costs Revenues: Sales Tax: Price per ounce $ 100 Estimate # of ounces to be sold 19,000,000 Total Sales $1,900,000,000 Santa Cruz County population as a % of total CA population 0.68% Sales attributed to Santa Cruz County $ 12,920,000 Santa Cruz County portion of sales tax 1.00% Sales tax to Santa Cruz County $ 129,200 $ 129,200 Excise Tax: Estimated # of ounces to be sold 19,000,000 Santa Cruz County population as a % of total CA population 0.68% # of ounces attributable to Santa Cruz County 129,200 Estimated excise tax per ounce $ 50 Excise tax to Santa Cruz County $ 6,460,000 $ 6,460,000 Revenue lost: Loss of fines related to marijuana $ Unknown Loss of DCESP Grant $ (30,000) Estimated Cash and property seized based on 2008 actual – no longer available $ (370,000) Costs: Amount spent annually in CA to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate marijuana offenders $ 200,000,000 Allocate to Santa Cruz County based on CA population 0.68% Estimated cost savings to Santa Cruz County $ 1,360,000 $ 1,360,000 Additional possible costs related to legalized marijuana: Licensing and collection of taxes, etc $ Unknown Others $ Unknown ____________ Net Estimated Increase in Revenue to Santa Cruz County $ 7,549,200 18 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010
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 PVUSD would be $9,400,000 short for 2008-2009 and $17,500,000 short for 2009- 2010 if cuts and adjustments were not made. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES PVUSD staff stated the projected savings generated would be $159,000 over five years as the projected by Keenan and Associates in the report dated March 6, 2008. The power point presentation to the board March 12, 2008 listed projected savings by year. Yr 1: $50,794 Yr. 2: 40,546 Yr. 3: 30,672 Yr. 4: 21,349 Yr. 5: 15,867 The projection was that an estimated 12 employees would take advantage of the SERP, there were more than 12 employees that would qualify.
Related Recommendations (1)
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED The SERP was analyzed for the benefit of savings and the district employees.
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES Associate Superintendent prepared the item and Superintendent approved the item for the board packet. The appropriate protocols for submitting and approving resolutions were followed.
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – PARTIALLY AGREES The appropriate protocols for the adoption of resolutions were followed. The projected savings were supplied to the board, without the individual salary data which was not presented for reasons of confidentiality.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
PVUSD administrators should provide the PVUSD Board with all documents related to projected cost savings prior to approving a SERP. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED The projected savings were presented to the board. The board was made aware of criteria and annual estimated annual savings as well as the net savings for the five years.
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES The Board authorized the two positions in Resolution 07-08-22 dated March 12, 2008 to administer and execute the plan. This included, executing documents and authorizing the contract. A Tale of a SERP 49 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - DISAGREES The flyer was mailed to eligible managers only.
F9:
Twelve employees submitted the proper paperwork and met the established criteria to receive the retirement incentive. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - DISAGREES While all employees were subordinate to the Superintendent, all of the employees other than the Associate Superintendent, Business and the Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources were directly supervised by someone other than the Superintendent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
PVUSD Board should eliminate the procedure that allows a subordinate employee to authorize a benefit for a supervisor. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District –HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED This was not the intent of the subordinate processing paperwork.
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
PVUSD Board should include all benefits and compensation, including a SERP, as part of a contracted employee’s employment agreement. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED All Certificated employees are under contract. District does not know year to year when it may offer a SERP.
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - DISAGREES The PVUSD officials showed that the savings for the FIRST year was $46,000. The Keenan document stated an estimated savings over FIVE years of $159,000. At the time when the district officials were asked for the savings amount only ONE year had past therefore only one year of savings could be calculated. A Tale of a SERP 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
Related Recommendations (1)
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED This activity was performed the Grand Jury misinterpreted the information that was provided for them.
F13:
A financial analysis of the projected savings compared to the actual savings was not shared with the Board of Education. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES The savings for the first year after the SERP had not been shared with the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED This activity was performed the Grand Jury misinterpreted the information that was provided for them.
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES The county was not involved in the offer of the SERP to Management Employees. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education – PARTIALLY AGREES The Santa Cruz County Office of Education disagrees with the statement made by the PVUSD that the County Office of Education was informed about the SERP. We do agree with the second sentence in the Finding that officials at the county office stated they were not involved in the SERP offered by PVUSD and would only be involved if the SERP were part of a fiscal recovery plan or a payment agreement with employee bargaining units. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education has no role in reviewing or approving district Supplemental Early Retirement Programs; however, the role of the County Office of Education does include submitting retirement information in district matters of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS). Even in those cases, the role is not one of approval but rather submitting the retirement information and that only in the case of PERS. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education had no role in PVUSD’s SERP early retirement program of which this action was directed. Under fiscal oversight statutes (collectively referred to as AB 1200), the Santa Cruz County Office of Education does have a responsibility to review certain elements that involve added costs to districts if the district is under fiscal stress. The PVUSD at the time the SERP was granted had a positive certification. Even if not under fiscal stress, any agreements that are made between the district and a PERS recognized bargaining unit must be disclosed and the Santa Cruz County Office of Education must be provided the information as to the costs, if any, and it must also be disclosed to the public prior to board action. The 2007-2008 PVUSD budget was approved in August of 2007 by the Santa Cruz County Office of Education and the referenced First Interim Report for that year was filed by the district and received a positive certification in January, 2008. A positive certification is defined as an interim budget report that, based upon current projections, certifies the district will meet its financial obligations for the current fiscal year and subsequent two fiscal years. A Tale of a SERP 51 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses In April of 2008, the district filed the required Second Interim Report and it was assigned a negative certification. One of the solutions the district proposed was to offer a supplemental early retirement option through a third party vendor, Keenan and Associates. They are among one of several vendors that work with school districts to craft such programs. By their very nature, these are programs that are offered with certain criteria in place with a stipulated timeframe. The decision to implement them is contingent upon projected cost savings. These preliminary reports only serve to define the possible eligibles not the actual outcome. The final actual application submitted determines the financial feasibility after the close of the application period. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education’s role is only to acknowledge that the district is using this program as a projected cost reduction strategy. It is within the purview of the district board to approve such strategies.
Related Recommendations (1)
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED This was discussed prior to the offering of the first SERP. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education – HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE The Santa Cruz County Office of Education will communicate with all school districts with the request that, as such agreements are contemplated, the Santa Cruz County Office of Education should be informed. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education will have no role in the ultimate implementation or approval except to comment, if it is deemed necessary, within the fiscal oversight responsibilities of the County Office of Education. The approval and implementation role is the responsibility of the local district school board. A Tale of a SERP 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
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. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education – AGREES The Santa Cruz County Office of Education was not aware of the final offering to administrators. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education is not aware of other instances in which a retired or interim employee was provided such a benefit in the past. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (3)
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE A Tale of a SERP 53 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Upon other offerings of a SERP if there is an interim involved the board will have a chance to confer before offering it.
R5:
PVUSD Board should develop a board policy regarding any future practices of awarding a SERP to a retired, interim employee. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Board Policy is not warranted in this situation. Board will review before offering to an interim in the future.
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. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED This was discussed prior to the offering of the first SERP. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education – HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE The Santa Cruz County Office of Education will communicate with all school districts with the request that, as such agreements are contemplated, the Santa Cruz County Office of Education should be informed. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education will have no role in the ultimate implementation or approval except to comment, if it is deemed necessary, within the fiscal oversight responsibilities of the County Office of Education. The approval and implementation role is the responsibility of the local district school board. A Tale of a SERP 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES Purchasing Division salary and expenditures include more than purchase order tasks. The Purchasing Division work involving contracts account for the vast majority of county spending through the process of bidding, legal review and processing of payments. Purchase orders account for a significant spend, but not the major dollars that contracts represent. Other tasks performed by the Purchasing Division include Living Wage tracking/reporting, Master Contract Agreements and bidding of other department contracts and surplus property disposal.
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – PARTIALLY DISAGREES The Purchasing Division has the expertise to determine the standard industry range for purchase orders and on this statement. We do not agree or disagree. We disagree with the costs provided to process a purchase order and disagree that the Santa Cruz County Cost Allocation Plan (the Plan) is able to provide information to calculate that cost. The Grand Jury based its calculations on information annually 28 For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses published in the Plan. The Plan’s purpose is to accumulate and allocate costs between departments. It does not provide enough information to determine a per unit purchase order cost, because tasks are not broken down in the Plan between processing Purchase Orders versus Contracts, Request for Proposals, or other work the Purchasing Division performs. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES Purchasing provided the Grand Jury with the referenced industry standard cost of a purchase order as an industry benchmark, not a goal (this figure was obtained from a study by the Institute of Supply Management). However, current estimates provided by the California Public Purchasing Officers suggests that a purchase order costs generally range between $50-$250 depending upon the dollar amount of the purchase and a specific agency’s processes associated with the production of a purchase order. The Cost Allocation Plan’s purpose is to accumulate and allocate costs between departments. It does not provide the necessary information for determining the per unit purchase order cost, because tasks are not broken down in the plan between processing Purchase Orders, contracts, Requests for Proposals, or other work performed by the Purchasing Department. Additionally, other Purchasing Division work tasks, such as Living Wage reporting, issuing complex requests for proposals, bids, qualifications, negotiations and verifying that orders are done within legal requirements, would need to be removed from an analysis of Purchasing Division expenses in order to find a more accurate figure for the processing of purchase orders.
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY DISAGREES There are different phases of the purchasing order process (see response #2). There are three independent computer systems (APS, FAMIS, ePO) that have limited interface capabilities for producing a purchase order. In addition, code enforcement activities related to Living Wage, green procurement and outsourcing restrictions all contribute to the limitations in reducing costs for the procurement process or to provide a cost/efficiency analysis.
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 restrictions such as the Living Wage Ordinance, and the Green Purchasing Requirement. The county cites these limitations as justification for some of the County imposed CAL-Card usage restrictions. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – AGREES We agree that the County has some restrictions related to purchasing. These restrictions have been adopted by the Board of Supervisors and are the same for Purchase Orders, CAL-Card purchases and Contracts.
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – PARTIALLY AGREES We agree with the purchase limits listed above and the general summary of spending restrictions. However, exceptions to these limits are allowed on a pre-approval basis including computer hardware/software purchases under $500. We disagree that the dollar limits and restrictions imposed by the County make the program less useful. Usefulness must be balanced with risk and cost effectiveness. The cost benefit derived by making purchases using a CAL-Card must be weighed against the cost and control benefit of having purchasing functions performed at the Purchasing or Departmental level where controls can be monitored more closely. For example, by restricting travel and registration payments on CAL-Cards, employees are required to process these items through travel or expenditure claims, therefore giving the appropriate additional oversight over these expenditures as the Department Head must approve the expense before it is paid. Services are a restricted category of expenditures for CAL-Cards. Services are not appropriate to be paid with a CAL-Card as it does not allow for the capturing of data necessary to complete the IRS 1099 forms. The County must issue a 1099 form to all vendors paid cumulatively more than $600 is a calendar year. The fewer controls that are in place, the greater the risk of fraud, waste or the misuse of funds. The General Services Department and Auditor-Controller’s Office reviews these controls and revises them periodically. For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES In any public sector purchasing process, established policies and procedures must balance acceptable risk, cost effectiveness and utility, and be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the auditing function of the specific government entity.
Related Recommendations (1)
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 33 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will review current card limits and determine if any changes in those restrictions are 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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS Both the Auditor’s Office and the General Services Department plan to meet and examine the current policies and procedures, analyze the risk impact of increasing the thresholds, and then formulate a joint recommendation. Results of this effort will be part of the next County Policies and Procedures update at the end of 2009, as necessary.
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES Purchasing receives all rebates and uses them as an offset to the cost of general program administration. This offset is allocated through the cost allocation plan at a later time. Currently, there is no system in place to allocate the rebates directly to the client departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should automate CAL-Card billing and reconciliation to maximize rebates for on-time payments. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – REQURIES FURTHER ANALYSIS The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will review the current procedures and determine if any automation or procedural changes are possible to maximize the receipt of available rebates. The results of this review 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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will review the current procedures to determine whether any automation or procedural changes are possible to maximize the receipt of available rebates. The results of this review and any proposed changes will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in December 2009, when the County Policies and Procedures Manual is next updated.
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – PARTIALLY AGREES We agree that the reconciliation of the monthly CAL-Card invoice is paper based, the reconciliation requirements are based predominately upon requirements from the CAL-Card sponsoring bank. Departments can file any disputes related to charges online. Additionally, the receipts and supporting documents provided by the vendor when purchases are made with a CAL-Card are paper based. We disagree that the process is prohibitively complex and burdensome. These requirements are similar to those for reconciling other invoices a department receives; the invoice must have receipts attached and any error on the invoice must be resolved by the department or card holder. We agree that employees may be held personally financially responsible for their purchases and unresolved charges. These controls are necessary to safeguard the County against fraud, waste or abuse. For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 31 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
Related Recommendations (1)
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will review the current procedures and determine if simplification is possible. The results of this review and any proposed changes will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in December 34 For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses 2009 when the Board is next scheduled to hear updates to the County’s Policy and Procedure Manual. We currently require the departments to handle their questioned charges and returns, because they are the ones most knowledgeable about the transaction. Although some parts of the reconciliation process may be automated in the future, the department or employee making the purchases will still need to ultimately be responsible for the CAL-Card charges made. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will review the current procedures and determine if simplification is possible. The results of this review 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. The Auditor-Controller currently requires the departments to handle their questioned charges and returns, because they are the ones most knowledgeable about the transaction. Although some parts of the reconciliation process may be automated in the future, the department or employee making the purchases will still need to ultimately be responsible for the CAL-Card charges made.
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: Cards Year Transactions Total Dollars Issued 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) Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES
Related Recommendations (2)
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – REQURIES FURTHER ANALYSIS Both the Auditor’s Office and the General Services Department will re-examine current policies and procedures, analyze the risk impact of increasing the thresholds, and determine whether any change in those restrictions are warranted. Any benefits resulting from a change in those controls must be weighed against the risks associated with a lack of controls. Results of this effort will be part of the next County Policies and Procedures update at the end of 2009, as necessary.
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 Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Expenditures made on behalf of the County should be made according to the procedures established by the County based upon the most cost effective and appropriate method rather than personal incentives which might appear to influence the purchaser’s independence when selecting a vendor or method of payment. CAL- Card already institutes its own reward system by the use of rebates. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Expenditures made on behalf of the County are to be made according to the procedures established by the County based upon the most cost effective and appropriate method rather than personal incentives which might appear to influence the purchaser’s independence when selecting a vendor or method of payment. CAL- Card already institutes its own reward system through the use of rebates.
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – AGREES Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES 32 For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE The Purchasing Division will pursue this effort in their future work plan when staff have sufficient time to provide the necessary information and U.S. Bank’s schedule can accommodate the request.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
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. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Service vendors are not appropriate to be paid through the CAL-Card process with limited exceptions. CAL-Card does not have the capability of supporting 1099 reporting required by the IRS. The County must report service payments over $600 per vendor to the IRS annually. The County cannot capture vendor information from CAL-Card, other than manually, which would be cost prohibitive. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Due to 1099 required reporting, it is not appropriate for pay for service vendors using a CAL-Card. There are limited pre-approved exceptions when the vendor is a corporation and not subject to the County obtaining 1099 information.
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
* 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.