Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2011-2012
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (17)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for English Learner progress are complex, give little indication of how long it takes English Learners to become reclassified as fluent, and do not measure the effectiveness of individual English Learner programs.
F2:
Many parents and community members do not understand the various English Learner programs.
F3:
The English Learner program information is not readily accessible on district websites.
F4:
Two-Way Immersion programs are not widely available in Santa Cruz County.
F5:
Two-Way Immersion programs are beneficial to native English speakers who want to become fluent in multiple languages.
F6:
Portions of the descriptive material made available by the Pajaro Valley Unified School District describing the Dual-Language Immersion program are inconsistent or incomplete, which could be misleading to parents trying to decide on the best program for their children.
F7:
Collaboration and communication between Head Start and the elementary schools would be beneficial to English Learners making the transition to kindergarten.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Even though it is not mandated by the state, in order to monitor historical trends and validate improvements made to programs, districts should consider tracking long term English Learner results by program and make the information available on district websites for review by parents, the Board of Trustees, and the community. The data should track all English Learners and follow them until they leave the district. This longitudinal data would allow the following information to be published by instructional program: ● Time to Reclassification (RFEP) ● Long term achievement levels (from STAR testing) ● Long term achievement level “gap” between English Learners, RFEPs, and English Only ● High school graduation and dropout rates
R2:
Districts should make the following information available on their English Learner web pages: ● An easy-to-understand description of the programs offered by the district, with
R3:
Districts should consider starting or expanding Two-Way Bilingual Immersion programs.
R4:
Information on Two-Way Bilingual Immersion programs should be made available to parents of English speakers.
R5:
The next version of Pajaro Valley Unified School District’s pamphlets, slide sets, video, and websites should revise the Dual-Language Immersion information to: ● Use consistent terminology throughout the district. For example, the district refers to a “Dual-Language Immersion” program, and Alianza (which provides the program) calls it “Two-Way Bilingual Immersion.” ● Update the description of how the waiver process works, as applied to Alianza, to clarify that neither the annual waiver, nor the need for at least 20 approved waivers by parents, is applicable because of Alianza’s status as a charter school. ● The “English Learner Programs” pamphlet should more clearly distinguish the differences between Late-Exit “Developmental” Bilingual, and Two-Way Bilingual Immersion.
R6:
The districts should develop agreements for collaboration with the appropriate Head Start agencies to better align and take advantage of the school readiness efforts of Head Start.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for English Learner progress are complex, give little indication of how long it takes English Learners to become reclassified as fluent, and do not measure the effectiveness of individual English Learner programs.
F2:
Many parents and community members do not understand the various English Learner programs.
F3:
The English Learner program information is not readily accessible on district websites.
F4:
Two-Way Immersion programs are not widely available in Santa Cruz County.
F5:
Two-Way Immersion programs are beneficial to native English speakers who want to become fluent in multiple languages.
F6:
Portions of the descriptive material made available by the Pajaro Valley Unified School District describing the Dual-Language Immersion program are inconsistent or incomplete, which could be misleading to parents trying to decide on the best program for their children.
F7:
Collaboration and communication between Head Start and the elementary schools would be beneficial to English Learners making the transition to kindergarten.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Even though it is not mandated by the state, in order to monitor historical trends and validate improvements made to programs, districts should consider tracking long term English Learner results by program and make the information available on district websites for review by parents, the Board of Trustees, and the community. The data should track all English Learners and follow them until they leave the district. This longitudinal data would allow the following information to be published by instructional program: ● Time to Reclassification (RFEP) ● Long term achievement levels (from STAR testing) ● Long term achievement level “gap” between English Learners, RFEPs, and English Only ● High school graduation and dropout rates
R2:
Districts should make the following information available on their English Learner web pages: ● An easy-to-understand description of the programs offered by the district, with
R3:
Districts should consider starting or expanding Two-Way Bilingual Immersion programs.
R4:
Information on Two-Way Bilingual Immersion programs should be made available to parents of English speakers.
R5:
The next version of Pajaro Valley Unified School District’s pamphlets, slide sets, video, and websites should revise the Dual-Language Immersion information to: ● Use consistent terminology throughout the district. For example, the district refers to a “Dual-Language Immersion” program, and Alianza (which provides the program) calls it “Two-Way Bilingual Immersion.” ● Update the description of how the waiver process works, as applied to Alianza, to clarify that neither the annual waiver, nor the need for at least 20 approved waivers by parents, is applicable because of Alianza’s status as a charter school. ● The “English Learner Programs” pamphlet should more clearly distinguish the differences between Late-Exit “Developmental” Bilingual, and Two-Way Bilingual Immersion.
R6:
The districts should develop agreements for collaboration with the appropriate Head Start agencies to better align and take advantage of the school readiness efforts of Head Start.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
96 findings
F1:
The Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for English Learner progress are complex, give little indication of how long it takes English Learners to become reclassified as fluent, and do not measure the effectiveness of individual English Learner programs.
F2:
Many parents and community members do not understand the various English Learner programs.
F3:
The English Learner program information is not readily accessible on district websites.
F4:
Two-Way Immersion programs are not widely available in Santa Cruz County.
F5:
Two-Way Immersion programs are beneficial to native English speakers who want to become fluent in multiple languages.
F6:
Portions of the descriptive material made available by the Pajaro Valley Unified School District describing the Dual-Language Immersion program are inconsistent or incomplete, which could be misleading to parents trying to decide on the best program for their children.
F7:
Collaboration and communication between Head Start and the elementary schools would be beneficial to English Learners making the transition to kindergarten.
F8:
Parrish, Tom et al. 2006. “Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K-12.” American Institutes for Research and WestEd, January 24. Accessed April 18, 2012. http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/227Reportb.pdf
F9:
Slavin, Robert et al. 2010. “Reading and Language Outcomes of a Five-Year Randomized Evaluation of Transitional Bilingual Education.” John Hopkins University and Success for All Foundation, January. Accessed April 18, 2012. http://www.edweek.org/media/bilingual_pdf.pdf
F10:
United States Health and Human Resources (Office of Head Start). “History of Head Start.” Accessed April 13, 2012. http://transition.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/history-of-head-start
F11:
United States Health and Human Resources (Office of Head Start). “Head Start Program Fact Sheet - Fiscal Year 2010.” Accessed April 13, 2012. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/fy2010.html
F12:
California Head Start. “Head Start/Early Head Start in California Data Report.” Accessed April 13, 2012. http://caheadstart.org/facts.html
F13:
California Department of Education, “BRIDGES Newsletter.” Accessed April 13,
F14:
California Department of Education (DataQuest), “Santa Cruz - Num. and Percent of Students Redesignated to FEP (with district data) - 2010-11.” Accessed April 25, 2012. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cbeds2.asp?cYear=2010- 11&Enroll=on&PctEL=on&PctFEP=on&PctRe=on&cChoice=CoProf2&TheCounty=44% 2CSANTA%25255ECRUZ
F15:
California Department of Education (DataQuest), “Home Page.” Accessed April 25,
F16:
CDE, EdSource and FCMAT (Ed-Data), “Home Page.” Accessed April 25, 2012. http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Pages/Home.aspx
F17:
CDE, EdSource and FCMAT (Ed-Data). “Pajaro Valley Unified - Profile of District - Students - 2010-11.” Accessed April 27, 2012. http://www.ed- data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdData Classic/profile.asp?tab=1&level=06&ReportNumber=16&County=44&fyr=1011&District= 69799
F18:
CDE, EdSource and FCMAT (Ed-Data). “Santa Cruz Elementary - Profile of District - Students - 2010-11.” Accessed April 27, 2012. http://www.ed- data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdData Classic/profile.asp?tab=1&level=06&ReportNumber=16&County=44&fyr=1011&District= 69815
F19:
CDE, EdSource and FCMAT (Ed-Data). “Santa Cruz High - Profile of District - Students - 2010-11.” Accessed April 27, 2012. http://www.ed- data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdData Classic/profile.asp?tab=1&level=06&ReportNumber=16&County=44&fyr=1011&District= 69823
F20:
CDE, EdSource and FCMAT (Ed-Data). “Live Oak Elementary - Profile of District - Students - 2010-11.” Accessed April 27, 2012. http://www.ed- data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdData Classic/profile.asp?tab=1&level=06&ReportNumber=16&County=44&fyr=1011&District= 69765
F21:
California Department of Education. 2011. “2011–12 CELDT Information Guide.” September. Accessed April 27, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/documents/celdtinfoguide1112.pdf
F22:
Bedolla, Lisa and Rodriguez, Rosaisela. 2011. “Classifying English Learners: Is the CELDT too blunt an instrument?" Center for Latino Policy Research, UC Berkeley. September 13. Accessed April 2, 2012. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2m74v93d
F23:
Olsen, Laurie. 2010. “Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept Promise of Educational Opportunity for California’s Long Term English Learners.” Californians Together. Accessed April 2, 2012. http://www.californianstogether.org/docs/download.aspx?fileId=227
F24:
Education Week. 2011. “English-Language Learners.” June 16. Accessed April 2,
F25:
Pajaro Valley Unified School District. 2008. “Master Plan for Services to English Learners.” June 25. Accessed April 2, 2012. http://www.pvusd.k12.ca.us/departments/English-Learner- Services/documents/Master_Plan_for_Services_to_English_Learners.pdf
F26:
California Department of Education. 2012. “Facts about English Learners in California - CalEdFacts.” March 8. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
F27:
California Department of Education. 2006. “English Learners in California Frequently Asked Questions.” August 21. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/elfaq.doc
F28:
Hunemorder, Rebecca. 2005. “Early-exit bilingual education.” Personal website. November 27. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.hunemorder/early-exit_bilingual_education
F29:
Hunemorder, Rebecca. 2005. “Late-exit bilingual education.” Personal website. November 27. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.hunemorder/late-exit_bilingual_education
F30:
Hunemorder, Rebecca. 2005. “Two-way bilingual education.” Personal website. November 27. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.hunemorder/two-way_bilingual_education
F31:
California Department of Education. 2002. “Two-Way Bilingual Immersion: Improving Educational Opportunities for All Students.” January 11. Accessed May 12,
F32:
California Department of Education. 2011. “2010-11 California TWBI Program Directory (spreadsheet).” November 7. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/ip/documents/twowaylist1011.xls
F33:
Magee, Maureen. 2012. “Learning in multiple languages.” U-T San Diego. January
F34:
Su, Eleanor. 2012. “Dual-language school programs growing in popularity.” U-T San Diego, March 22. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/mar/22/dual-language-school-programs- growing-in-popularit/?page=1#article
F35:
San Diego County Office of Education. 2010. “World Language Plan.” March 29. Accessed May 12, 2012. http://www.sdcoe.net/lret2/els/pdf/WLPlan_All_web.pdf
F36:
Cuda-Kroen, Gretchen. 2011. “Being Bilingual May Boost Your Brain Power.” NPR, April 4. Accessed April 2, 2012. http://www.npr.org/2011/04/04/135043787/being- bilingual-may-boost-your-brain-power
F37:
Jha, Alok. 2011. “Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power.” The Guardian, February 18, 2011. Accessed May 12, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power- multitasking
F38:
Kucher, Karen. 2011. “Chula Vista school’s turnaround turns heads.” U-T San Diego. November 21. Accessed May 12, 2012. http://www.4sd.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/21/chula-vista-schools-turnaround- turns-heads/?ap&page=3
F39:
California Department of Education. “2010–11 Title III Accountability Report Information Guide.” July 2011. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3/documents/infoguide1011.pdf
F40:
Superior Court of California for the City and County of San Francisco. 2005. “Case Number: CPF-05-505334 - Coachella Valley Unified School District ... vs State of California.” Filed June 1. Clause 38. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.californianstogether.org/docs/download.aspx?fileId=43
F41:
California Department of Education. 2011. “Title III Accountability 101.” September
F42:
U.S. Department of Education. 2010. “Title III Accountability: Behind the Numbers.” May. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/behind- numbers.pdf
F43:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - Title III Accountability Reports - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/t3/t3r.aspx?cds=44697990000000&yr=2010- 11&submit1=Submit
F44:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City Elementary - Title III Accountability Reports - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/t3/t3r.aspx?cds=44698150000000&yr=2010- 11&submit1=Submit
F45:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - Title III Accountability Reports - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/t3/t3r.aspx?cds=44698230000000&yr=2010- 11&submit1=Submit
F46:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - Title III Accountability Reports - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/t3/t3r.aspx?cds=44697650000000&yr=2010- 11&submit1=Submit
F47:
California Department of Education. 2011. “2011 Adequate Yearly Progress Report Information Guide.” August. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypinfoguide11.pdf
F48:
California Department of Education. 2012. “Title III Accountability Update.” March
F49:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - English Learners by Language and Grade - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang3.asp?cSelect=4469799-- PAJARO+VALLEY+UNIFIED&cChoice=LepbyLang3&cYear=2010- 11&cLevel=District&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
F50:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - English Learners by Language and Grade - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang3.asp?cSelect=4469765-- LIVE+OAK+ELEMENTARY&cChoice=LepbyLang3&cYear=2010- 11&cLevel=District&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
F51:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City Elementary - English Learners by Language and Grade - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang3.asp?cSelect=4469815-- SANTA+CRUZ+CITY+ELEMENTARY&cChoice=LepbyLang3&cYear=2010- 11&cLevel=District&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
F52:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - English Learners by Language and Grade - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang3.asp?cSelect=4469823-- SANTA+CRUZ+CITY+HIGH&cChoice=LepbyLang3&cYear=2010- 11&cLevel=District&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
F53:
Santa Cruz City Schools. 2012. “Expected Benchmarks Matrix for English Learners.” April 9.
F54:
Hayward Unified School District. “Master Plan for English Language Learners.” Chapter 6. Accessed April 2, 2012. http://www.haywardell.org/chapters
F55:
Santa Cruz County Office of Education. 2009. “All Succeed with Access to Preschool (ASAP) Plan.” June 30. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/superintendent/asap.pdf
F56:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - English Only - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69799-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=180
F57:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - RFEP - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69799-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=8
F58:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - English Learner - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69799-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
F59:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City Elementary - English Only - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69815-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=180
F60:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City Elementary - RFEP - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69815-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=8
F61:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City Elementary - English Learner - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69815-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
F62:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - English Only - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69823-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=180
F63:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - RFEP - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69823-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=8
F64:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - English Learner - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69823-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
F65:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - English Only - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012.
F66:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - RFEP - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69765-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=8
F67:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - English Learner - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69765-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
F68:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Ceiba College Prep - Pajaro Valley Unified - English Learner - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed May 25, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69799- 000&lstSchool=0117804&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
F69:
Beacon Education Network. “Ceiba Public Schools – Teachers.” Careers tab video. Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.beaconed.org/
F70:
California Department of Education. 2011. “2009-10 First Annual Report on Dropouts in California Using the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and Other Available Data.” Accessed April 2, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/documents/sbdropoutrpt911.doc
F71:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2009-10.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CohortRates/CRByProgram.aspx?Agg=D&Topic=Dropo uts&TheYear=2009-10&cds=44697990000000&RC=District&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
F72:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2009-10.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CohortRates/CRByProgram.aspx?Agg=D&Topic=Dropo uts&TheYear=2009-10&cds=44698230000000&RC=District&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
F73:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2009-10.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CohortRates/CRByProgram.aspx?Agg=D&Topic=Dropo uts&TheYear=2009-10&cds=44697650000000&RC=District&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
F74:
Karoly, Lynn. 2007-2012. “California Preschool Study.” RAND. Accessed April 28,
F75:
California State Auditor. 2005. “Department of Education: School Districts’ Inconsistent Identification and Redesignation of English Learners Cause Funding
F76:
Norm Gold Associates. 2007. “Pajaro Valley Unified School District - English Learner Programs Evaluation - Final Report.” February 14. Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.pvusd.k12.ca.us/Departments/English-Learner- Services/documents/PVUSDELPrgrmEvalFinalReport.pdf
F77:
Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center. “Head Start.” Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.scccc.org/child-and-family-development/head-start
F78:
Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center. “Early Head Start.” Accessed May 24,
F79:
Santa Cruz County Office of Education. “California Central Migrant Head Start web page.” Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/ed_services/migrant_headstart.html
F80:
California Department of Education. “Title III Accountability Data Files - 2010-11 Research Files.” Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3/t3datafiles.asp
F81:
U.S. Department of Education. “No Child Left Behind.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
F82:
California Department of Education. “Economic Impact Aid.” Accessed May 28,
F83:
California Department of Education. “NCLB Title III, Immigrant and LEP Programs.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/ca/nclbtitleIII.asp
F84:
California Department of Education. “No Child Left Behind: Title I, Pts. A & D & ARRA.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/ca/nclbtitlei.asp
F85:
U.S. Department of Education. “No Child Left Behind, Accountability and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/ayp203/edlite-index.html
F86:
California Department of Education. “Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Results.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/
F87:
California Department of Education. “California English Language Development Test (CELDT).” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/
F88:
California Department of Education. “District-level English Learner Advisory Committee.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/delac.asp
F89:
California Department of Education. “English–Language Arts Content Standards for California Public Schools.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/elacontentstnds.pdf
F90:
California Department of Education. “English Learner Advisory Committee.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/elac.asp
F91:
California Department of Education. “English language development (ELD).” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://pubs.cde.ca.gov/tcsii/ch2/eld.aspx
F92:
Hunemorder, Rebecca. 2005. “Content-based English as a Second Language.” Personal website. November 27. Accessed May 28, 2012. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.hunemorder/content-base_esl_
F93:
California Department of Education. “Single Plan for Student Achievement.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/le/singleplan.asp
F94:
National Dual Language Consortium. “Types of Dual Language Programs.” Accessed June 2, 2012. http://www.dual-language.org/what_is1.htm
F95:
California Department of Education. “Our Mission.” Accessed June 9, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/index.asp
F96:
California Department of Education. “Academic Performance Index (API).” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/ Resources ● Santa Cruz County Office of Education o Website: http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/ ● Pajaro Valley Unified School District ○ Website: http://www.pvusd.net/ ○ Archived website: http://www.pvusd.k12.ca.us/ ○ English Learners: http://www.pvusd.net/els ○ School Facts: http://pajarovalley.schoolwisepress.com/home/ ○ School improvement plans: http://www.pvusd.net/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1311502328844 ● Santa Cruz City Schools ○ Website: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/ ○ English Learners: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/education- services/academic-equity-and-categorical-programs.html ○ School facts: http://santacruzcity.schoolwisepress.com/home/
Additional Recommendations
96
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Even though it is not mandated by the state, in order to monitor historical trends and validate improvements made to programs, districts should consider tracking long term English Learner results by program and make the information available on district websites for review by parents, the Board of Trustees, and the community. The data should track all English Learners and follow them until they leave the district. This longitudinal data would allow the following information to be published by instructional program: ● Time to Reclassification (RFEP) ● Long term achievement levels (from STAR testing) ● Long term achievement level “gap” between English Learners, RFEPs, and English Only ● High school graduation and dropout rates
R2:
Districts should make the following information available on their English Learner web pages: ● An easy-to-understand description of the programs offered by the district, with
R3:
Districts should consider starting or expanding Two-Way Bilingual Immersion programs.
R4:
Information on Two-Way Bilingual Immersion programs should be made available to parents of English speakers.
R5:
The next version of Pajaro Valley Unified School District’s pamphlets, slide sets, video, and websites should revise the Dual-Language Immersion information to: ● Use consistent terminology throughout the district. For example, the district refers to a “Dual-Language Immersion” program, and Alianza (which provides the program) calls it “Two-Way Bilingual Immersion.” ● Update the description of how the waiver process works, as applied to Alianza, to clarify that neither the annual waiver, nor the need for at least 20 approved waivers by parents, is applicable because of Alianza’s status as a charter school. ● The “English Learner Programs” pamphlet should more clearly distinguish the differences between Late-Exit “Developmental” Bilingual, and Two-Way Bilingual Immersion.
R6:
The districts should develop agreements for collaboration with the appropriate Head Start agencies to better align and take advantage of the school readiness efforts of Head Start.
R7:
Greene, Jay. 1998. “A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education.” The Thomas Rivera Policy Institute. March 2. Accessed March 18, 2012. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/biling.pdf
R8:
Parrish, Tom et al. 2006. “Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K-12.” American Institutes for Research and WestEd, January 24. Accessed April 18, 2012. http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/227Reportb.pdf
R9:
Slavin, Robert et al. 2010. “Reading and Language Outcomes of a Five-Year Randomized Evaluation of Transitional Bilingual Education.” John Hopkins University and Success for All Foundation, January. Accessed April 18, 2012. http://www.edweek.org/media/bilingual_pdf.pdf
R10:
United States Health and Human Resources (Office of Head Start). “History of Head Start.” Accessed April 13, 2012. http://transition.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/history-of-head-start
R11:
United States Health and Human Resources (Office of Head Start). “Head Start Program Fact Sheet - Fiscal Year 2010.” Accessed April 13, 2012. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/fy2010.html
R12:
California Head Start. “Head Start/Early Head Start in California Data Report.” Accessed April 13, 2012. http://caheadstart.org/facts.html
R13:
California Department of Education, “BRIDGES Newsletter.” Accessed April 13,
R14:
California Department of Education (DataQuest), “Santa Cruz - Num. and Percent of Students Redesignated to FEP (with district data) - 2010-11.” Accessed April 25, 2012. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cbeds2.asp?cYear=2010- 11&Enroll=on&PctEL=on&PctFEP=on&PctRe=on&cChoice=CoProf2&TheCounty=44% 2CSANTA%25255ECRUZ
R15:
California Department of Education (DataQuest), “Home Page.” Accessed April 25,
R16:
CDE, EdSource and FCMAT (Ed-Data), “Home Page.” Accessed April 25, 2012. http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Pages/Home.aspx
R17:
CDE, EdSource and FCMAT (Ed-Data). “Pajaro Valley Unified - Profile of District - Students - 2010-11.” Accessed April 27, 2012. http://www.ed- data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdData Classic/profile.asp?tab=1&level=06&ReportNumber=16&County=44&fyr=1011&District= 69799
R18:
CDE, EdSource and FCMAT (Ed-Data). “Santa Cruz Elementary - Profile of District - Students - 2010-11.” Accessed April 27, 2012. http://www.ed- data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdData Classic/profile.asp?tab=1&level=06&ReportNumber=16&County=44&fyr=1011&District= 69815
R19:
CDE, EdSource and FCMAT (Ed-Data). “Santa Cruz High - Profile of District - Students - 2010-11.” Accessed April 27, 2012. http://www.ed- data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdData Classic/profile.asp?tab=1&level=06&ReportNumber=16&County=44&fyr=1011&District= 69823
R20:
CDE, EdSource and FCMAT (Ed-Data). “Live Oak Elementary - Profile of District - Students - 2010-11.” Accessed April 27, 2012. http://www.ed- data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdData Classic/profile.asp?tab=1&level=06&ReportNumber=16&County=44&fyr=1011&District= 69765
R21:
California Department of Education. 2011. “2011–12 CELDT Information Guide.” September. Accessed April 27, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/documents/celdtinfoguide1112.pdf
R22:
Bedolla, Lisa and Rodriguez, Rosaisela. 2011. “Classifying English Learners: Is the CELDT too blunt an instrument?" Center for Latino Policy Research, UC Berkeley. September 13. Accessed April 2, 2012. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2m74v93d
R23:
Olsen, Laurie. 2010. “Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept Promise of Educational Opportunity for California’s Long Term English Learners.” Californians Together. Accessed April 2, 2012. http://www.californianstogether.org/docs/download.aspx?fileId=227
R24:
Education Week. 2011. “English-Language Learners.” June 16. Accessed April 2,
R25:
Pajaro Valley Unified School District. 2008. “Master Plan for Services to English Learners.” June 25. Accessed April 2, 2012. http://www.pvusd.k12.ca.us/departments/English-Learner- Services/documents/Master_Plan_for_Services_to_English_Learners.pdf
R26:
California Department of Education. 2012. “Facts about English Learners in California - CalEdFacts.” March 8. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
R27:
California Department of Education. 2006. “English Learners in California Frequently Asked Questions.” August 21. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/elfaq.doc
R28:
Hunemorder, Rebecca. 2005. “Early-exit bilingual education.” Personal website. November 27. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.hunemorder/early-exit_bilingual_education
R29:
Hunemorder, Rebecca. 2005. “Late-exit bilingual education.” Personal website. November 27. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.hunemorder/late-exit_bilingual_education
R30:
Hunemorder, Rebecca. 2005. “Two-way bilingual education.” Personal website. November 27. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.hunemorder/two-way_bilingual_education
R31:
California Department of Education. 2002. “Two-Way Bilingual Immersion: Improving Educational Opportunities for All Students.” January 11. Accessed May 12,
R32:
California Department of Education. 2011. “2010-11 California TWBI Program Directory (spreadsheet).” November 7. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/ip/documents/twowaylist1011.xls
R33:
Magee, Maureen. 2012. “Learning in multiple languages.” U-T San Diego. January
R34:
Su, Eleanor. 2012. “Dual-language school programs growing in popularity.” U-T San Diego, March 22. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/mar/22/dual-language-school-programs- growing-in-popularit/?page=1#article
R35:
San Diego County Office of Education. 2010. “World Language Plan.” March 29. Accessed May 12, 2012. http://www.sdcoe.net/lret2/els/pdf/WLPlan_All_web.pdf
R36:
Cuda-Kroen, Gretchen. 2011. “Being Bilingual May Boost Your Brain Power.” NPR, April 4. Accessed April 2, 2012. http://www.npr.org/2011/04/04/135043787/being- bilingual-may-boost-your-brain-power
R37:
Jha, Alok. 2011. “Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power.” The Guardian, February 18, 2011. Accessed May 12, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power- multitasking
R38:
Kucher, Karen. 2011. “Chula Vista school’s turnaround turns heads.” U-T San Diego. November 21. Accessed May 12, 2012. http://www.4sd.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/21/chula-vista-schools-turnaround- turns-heads/?ap&page=3
R39:
California Department of Education. “2010–11 Title III Accountability Report Information Guide.” July 2011. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3/documents/infoguide1011.pdf
R40:
Superior Court of California for the City and County of San Francisco. 2005. “Case Number: CPF-05-505334 - Coachella Valley Unified School District ... vs State of California.” Filed June 1. Clause 38. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.californianstogether.org/docs/download.aspx?fileId=43
R41:
California Department of Education. 2011. “Title III Accountability 101.” September
R42:
U.S. Department of Education. 2010. “Title III Accountability: Behind the Numbers.” May. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/behind- numbers.pdf
R43:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - Title III Accountability Reports - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/t3/t3r.aspx?cds=44697990000000&yr=2010- 11&submit1=Submit
R44:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City Elementary - Title III Accountability Reports - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/t3/t3r.aspx?cds=44698150000000&yr=2010- 11&submit1=Submit
R45:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - Title III Accountability Reports - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/t3/t3r.aspx?cds=44698230000000&yr=2010- 11&submit1=Submit
R46:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - Title III Accountability Reports - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/t3/t3r.aspx?cds=44697650000000&yr=2010- 11&submit1=Submit
R47:
California Department of Education. 2011. “2011 Adequate Yearly Progress Report Information Guide.” August. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypinfoguide11.pdf
R48:
California Department of Education. 2012. “Title III Accountability Update.” March
R49:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - English Learners by Language and Grade - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang3.asp?cSelect=4469799-- PAJARO+VALLEY+UNIFIED&cChoice=LepbyLang3&cYear=2010- 11&cLevel=District&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
R50:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - English Learners by Language and Grade - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang3.asp?cSelect=4469765-- LIVE+OAK+ELEMENTARY&cChoice=LepbyLang3&cYear=2010- 11&cLevel=District&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
R51:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City Elementary - English Learners by Language and Grade - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang3.asp?cSelect=4469815-- SANTA+CRUZ+CITY+ELEMENTARY&cChoice=LepbyLang3&cYear=2010- 11&cLevel=District&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
R52:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - English Learners by Language and Grade - 2010-11.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang3.asp?cSelect=4469823-- SANTA+CRUZ+CITY+HIGH&cChoice=LepbyLang3&cYear=2010- 11&cLevel=District&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
R53:
Santa Cruz City Schools. 2012. “Expected Benchmarks Matrix for English Learners.” April 9.
R54:
Hayward Unified School District. “Master Plan for English Language Learners.” Chapter 6. Accessed April 2, 2012. http://www.haywardell.org/chapters
R55:
Santa Cruz County Office of Education. 2009. “All Succeed with Access to Preschool (ASAP) Plan.” June 30. Accessed April 28, 2012. http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/superintendent/asap.pdf
R56:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - English Only - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69799-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=180
R57:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - RFEP - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69799-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=8
R58:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - English Learner - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69799-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
R59:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City Elementary - English Only - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69815-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=180
R60:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City Elementary - RFEP - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69815-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=8
R61:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City Elementary - English Learner - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69815-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
R62:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - English Only - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69823-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=180
R63:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - RFEP - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69823-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=8
R64:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - English Learner - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69823-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
R65:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - English Only - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012.
R66:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - RFEP - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69765-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=8
R67:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - English Learner - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69765-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
R68:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Ceiba College Prep - Pajaro Valley Unified - English Learner - STAR Test Results - 2011.” Accessed May 25, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2011&lstTestTy pe=C&lstCounty=44&lstDistrict=69799- 000&lstSchool=0117804&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
R69:
Beacon Education Network. “Ceiba Public Schools – Teachers.” Careers tab video. Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.beaconed.org/
R70:
California Department of Education. 2011. “2009-10 First Annual Report on Dropouts in California Using the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and Other Available Data.” Accessed April 2, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/documents/sbdropoutrpt911.doc
R71:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Pajaro Valley Unified - Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2009-10.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CohortRates/CRByProgram.aspx?Agg=D&Topic=Dropo uts&TheYear=2009-10&cds=44697990000000&RC=District&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
R72:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Santa Cruz City High - Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2009-10.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CohortRates/CRByProgram.aspx?Agg=D&Topic=Dropo uts&TheYear=2009-10&cds=44698230000000&RC=District&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
R73:
California Department of Education (DataQuest). “Live Oak Elementary - Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2009-10.” Accessed April 28, 2012. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CohortRates/CRByProgram.aspx?Agg=D&Topic=Dropo uts&TheYear=2009-10&cds=44697650000000&RC=District&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
R74:
Karoly, Lynn. 2007-2012. “California Preschool Study.” RAND. Accessed April 28,
R75:
California State Auditor. 2005. “Department of Education: School Districts’ Inconsistent Identification and Redesignation of English Learners Cause Funding
R76:
Norm Gold Associates. 2007. “Pajaro Valley Unified School District - English Learner Programs Evaluation - Final Report.” February 14. Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.pvusd.k12.ca.us/Departments/English-Learner- Services/documents/PVUSDELPrgrmEvalFinalReport.pdf
R77:
Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center. “Head Start.” Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.scccc.org/child-and-family-development/head-start
R78:
Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center. “Early Head Start.” Accessed May 24,
R79:
Santa Cruz County Office of Education. “California Central Migrant Head Start web page.” Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/ed_services/migrant_headstart.html
R80:
California Department of Education. “Title III Accountability Data Files - 2010-11 Research Files.” Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3/t3datafiles.asp
R81:
U.S. Department of Education. “No Child Left Behind.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
R82:
California Department of Education. “Economic Impact Aid.” Accessed May 28,
R83:
California Department of Education. “NCLB Title III, Immigrant and LEP Programs.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/ca/nclbtitleIII.asp
R84:
California Department of Education. “No Child Left Behind: Title I, Pts. A & D & ARRA.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/ca/nclbtitlei.asp
R85:
U.S. Department of Education. “No Child Left Behind, Accountability and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/ayp203/edlite-index.html
R86:
California Department of Education. “Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Results.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://star.cde.ca.gov/
R87:
California Department of Education. “California English Language Development Test (CELDT).” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/
R88:
California Department of Education. “District-level English Learner Advisory Committee.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/delac.asp
R89:
California Department of Education. “English–Language Arts Content Standards for California Public Schools.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/elacontentstnds.pdf
R90:
California Department of Education. “English Learner Advisory Committee.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/elac.asp
R91:
California Department of Education. “English language development (ELD).” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://pubs.cde.ca.gov/tcsii/ch2/eld.aspx
R92:
Hunemorder, Rebecca. 2005. “Content-based English as a Second Language.” Personal website. November 27. Accessed May 28, 2012. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.hunemorder/content-base_esl_
R93:
California Department of Education. “Single Plan for Student Achievement.” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/le/singleplan.asp
R94:
National Dual Language Consortium. “Types of Dual Language Programs.” Accessed June 2, 2012. http://www.dual-language.org/what_is1.htm
R95:
California Department of Education. “Our Mission.” Accessed June 9, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/index.asp
R96:
California Department of Education. “Academic Performance Index (API).” Accessed May 28, 2012. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/ Resources ● Santa Cruz County Office of Education o Website: http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/ ● Pajaro Valley Unified School District ○ Website: http://www.pvusd.net/ ○ Archived website: http://www.pvusd.k12.ca.us/ ○ English Learners: http://www.pvusd.net/els ○ School Facts: http://pajarovalley.schoolwisepress.com/home/ ○ School improvement plans: http://www.pvusd.net/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1311502328844 ● Santa Cruz City Schools ○ Website: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/ ○ English Learners: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/education- services/academic-equity-and-categorical-programs.html ○ School facts: http://santacruzcity.schoolwisepress.com/home/
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The building departments of the County of Santa Cruz, and the Cities of Watsonville, Capitola, Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley, do not consistently communicate with Environmental Health Services (EHS) to identify known soil contamination sites during the building permit application process.
F2:
Public access to the Environmental Health Database is unnecessarily limited because it is only available by visiting or calling the EHS office.
F3:
With the exception of the county’s LORI Property Disclosure Statement, nowhere in the examination of city and county building permits was the issue of existing or possible soil contamination brought to the attention of the applicant.
F4:
City of Capitola. 2012. City of Capitola Application For Building Permit. Accessed May 19, 2012. http://www.ci.capitola.ca.us/capcity.nsf/vLookup/buildingpermitapp/$file/buildingpermita pp.pdf
F5:
City of Watsonville. 2012. Building Permit Application. Accessed May 19, 2012. http://growinwatsonville.com/building_permit.pdf
F6:
City of Scotts Valley. 2012. Scotts Valley Building Permit Application. Accessed May 19, 2012. http://www.scottsvalley.org/downloads/building/A_New_Building_Permit_Application.pdf
F7:
County of Santa Cruz. 2012. County of Santa Cruz Building Permit Application. Accessed May 19, 2012. http://www.sccoplanning.com/pdf/bldg/bp_app2.pdf
F8:
County of Santa Cruz, Environmental Health Services. Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Accessed April 11, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/eh/HM/HM01000.htm
F9:
State of California. Code of Regulations, Title 27, Division 1, Subdivision 4, Chapter
F10:
Santa Cruz County. 2012. County Code, Chapter 7.100. Accessed May 21, 2012, http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/santacruzcounty/
F11:
California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker web page. Accessed May 21, 2012. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
F12:
State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor web page. Accessed May 21, 2012. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
F13:
County of Santa Cruz. Geographic Information Systems web page. Accessed May 21, 2012. http://www.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/Departments/GeographicInformationSystemsGIS.aspx
F14:
County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency, Environmental Health Services Division. 2012. Santa Cruz County Site Mitigation List. Accessed June 13, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/eh/HM/scc_site_mitigation_list.pdf
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The building departments of the County of Santa Cruz and of the cities of Watsonville, Capitola, Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley should establish a procedure with Environmental Health Services to identify known soil contamination sites during the building permit application process.
R2:
Environmental Health Services should make the Environmental Health Database available as an online geographic resource within the existing Santa Cruz County Geographic Information Systems database. Environmental Health Services should also provide their department phone number as a link on the GeoTracker website.
R3:
Building departments should make property owners and developers aware that the Environmental Health Database lists known soil contamination sites, as a routine step in the building permit application process.
R4:
Environmental Health Services and the building departments should notify applicants that the identification of contaminated soils on their property may impact the building permit process.
R5:
Environmental Health Services and the building departments should develop a soil contamination advisory statement, such as the sample given below, and incorporate that statement and information into the building permit application process. Sample: Property owners or their agents can find a list of all known contaminated soil sites by viewing the Geotracker, Santa Cruz County Site Mitigation List websites, and/or by contacting the Environmental Health Services at (831) 454-2022 and asking if their property is on the list of known contaminated sites. The identification of contaminated soils on the property may impact the building permit process.
R6:
City of Scotts Valley. 2012. Scotts Valley Building Permit Application. Accessed May 19, 2012. http://www.scottsvalley.org/downloads/building/A_New_Building_Permit_Application.pdf
R7:
County of Santa Cruz. 2012. County of Santa Cruz Building Permit Application. Accessed May 19, 2012. http://www.sccoplanning.com/pdf/bldg/bp_app2.pdf
R8:
County of Santa Cruz, Environmental Health Services. Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Accessed April 11, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/eh/HM/HM01000.htm
R9:
State of California. Code of Regulations, Title 27, Division 1, Subdivision 4, Chapter
R10:
Santa Cruz County. 2012. County Code, Chapter 7.100. Accessed May 21, 2012, http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/santacruzcounty/
R11:
California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker web page. Accessed May 21, 2012. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
R12:
State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor web page. Accessed May 21, 2012. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
R13:
County of Santa Cruz. Geographic Information Systems web page. Accessed May 21, 2012. http://www.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/Departments/GeographicInformationSystemsGIS.aspx
R14:
County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency, Environmental Health Services Division. 2012. Santa Cruz County Site Mitigation List. Accessed June 13, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/eh/HM/scc_site_mitigation_list.pdf
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
When a special district fails due to neglect or poor practice, the financial burden falls upon the county taxpayers.
F2:
When problems in special districts occur, there is no clear cooperative path of response for addressing those problems.
F3:
LAFCO underutilizes reviews that would allow for early problem detection and evaluation of independent special districts.
F4:
LAFCO has the ability and the responsibility (per Government Code Section 56430) to do service reviews at least every five (5) years; however, they are not being completed in a timely or effective manner.
F5:
LAFCO asserts that a general lack of funding prevents the performance of proactive and comprehensive service reviews, yet they selectively pursue funding for other purposes.
F6:
LAFCO, external agencies, and citizens have conflicting interpretations of the scope and frequency of service reviews for special districts.
F7:
White, Kimberly. 2011. “Former Lompico Water District manager charged with filing false reports.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 30. Accessed April 12, 2012. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/rss/ci_17736538?source=rss
F8:
California State Controller. 2010. Annual Report. “Financial Transactions Concerning Special Districts of California.” Sacramento, CA. http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD- Local/LocRep/districts_reports_0910_specialdistricts.pdf
F9:
Capitol Public Finance Group, LLC. 2009. News Bulletin. January. Accessed May 11,
F10:
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Government Code 56000; 56425; 56428; 56430. Accessed April 30, 2012. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
F11:
Assembly Committee on Local Government. 2010. “Guide to The Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.” November. Sacramento, CA. http://www.calafco.org/docs/CKH/2010_CKH_Guide.pdf
F12:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2005. Countywide Service Review. Accessed April 25, 2012. http://www.santacruzlafco.org/CSR.html
F13:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2007. Minutes. December 5. Accessed May 11, 2012. http://www.santacruzlafco.org/pages/agenda/20080109materials/12-5- 07%20mintues.pdf
F14:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2012. Memorandum from Executive Officer, LAFCO, to LAFCO Commissioners. “Re Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2012, with Attachments.” February 29.
F15:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2012. E-mail correspondence between LAFCO personnel and Grand Jury. May 15.
F16:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2011. “Schedule of fees and deposits.” August 4. Accessed May 4, 2012. http://www.santacruzlafco.org/Library/2011%20fees%20and%20deposits.pdf
F17:
Lompico Citizens Advisory Committee. 2011. “Review of Proposed Merger.” Lompico Facts: Interview with LAFCO Executive Officer. June 3. Posted August 28. Accessed April 5, 2012. https://sites.google.com/site/lompicofacts/news/interviewwithpatrickmccormickexecutive officerlocalagencyformationcommissionlafco
F18:
San Diego County LAFCO. “Municipal Service Review Guidelines.” Accessed April 30, 2012. http://www.sdlafco.org/document/Msrguidelines.pdf
F19:
Contra Costa County LAFCO. “Municipal Service Review Guidelines.” Accessed April 30, 2012. http://www.contracostalafco.org/municipal_service_reviews.htm
F20:
Senate Local Government Committee. 2003. “It’s Time to Draw the Line: A Citizen’s Guide to LAFCOs.” 2nd ed. Sacramento, CA. http://www.sbclafco.org/other_publications/TimetoDrawLine.pdf
F21:
Bookwalter, Genevieve. 2010. “Bonny Doon residents file suit against LAFCO seeking their own fire district.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, August 17. Accessed April 30,
F22:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2012. Public hearing meeting packet. March 7. Meetings Santa Cruz LAFCO monthly meetings, March 2012 and April 2012.
Additional Recommendations
22
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Once a problem is identified within a special district, LAFCO should proactively conduct a thorough service review of that district, with the aid of state and county agencies.
R2:
To protect the public interest, the Board of Supervisors should work with LAFCO to initiate special reviews that adequately examine the effectiveness of service delivery, especially when unaddressed chronic problems are discovered.
R3:
LAFCO should adopt policies to ensure proactive service reviews are completed, to safeguard the proper functioning of a district. These reviews should be in addition to, and independent of, sphere of influence studies.
R4:
LAFCO should budget adequately for professional services to conduct proactive service reviews, and maintain sufficient reserves for unanticipated service reviews of special districts.
R5:
Service reviews should be designed as diagnostic assessments with recommendations to the special district, County Board of Supervisors, and LAFCO Commissioners, in order to pinpoint, make transparent, and preemptively resolve special district problems.
R6:
Sacramento County Grand Jury. 2011. “Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District: Legacy of Dysfunction.” May 16. Sacramento, CA. Accessed June 18, 2012. http://www.sacgrandjury.org/reports/10-11/RioLinda-Final%202011.pdf
R7:
White, Kimberly. 2011. “Former Lompico Water District manager charged with filing false reports.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 30. Accessed April 12, 2012. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/rss/ci_17736538?source=rss
R8:
California State Controller. 2010. Annual Report. “Financial Transactions Concerning Special Districts of California.” Sacramento, CA. http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD- Local/LocRep/districts_reports_0910_specialdistricts.pdf
R9:
Capitol Public Finance Group, LLC. 2009. News Bulletin. January. Accessed May 11,
R10:
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Government Code 56000; 56425; 56428; 56430. Accessed April 30, 2012. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
R11:
Assembly Committee on Local Government. 2010. “Guide to The Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.” November. Sacramento, CA. http://www.calafco.org/docs/CKH/2010_CKH_Guide.pdf
R12:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2005. Countywide Service Review. Accessed April 25, 2012. http://www.santacruzlafco.org/CSR.html
R13:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2007. Minutes. December 5. Accessed May 11, 2012. http://www.santacruzlafco.org/pages/agenda/20080109materials/12-5- 07%20mintues.pdf
R14:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2012. Memorandum from Executive Officer, LAFCO, to LAFCO Commissioners. “Re Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2012, with Attachments.” February 29.
R15:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2012. E-mail correspondence between LAFCO personnel and Grand Jury. May 15.
R16:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2011. “Schedule of fees and deposits.” August 4. Accessed May 4, 2012. http://www.santacruzlafco.org/Library/2011%20fees%20and%20deposits.pdf
R17:
Lompico Citizens Advisory Committee. 2011. “Review of Proposed Merger.” Lompico Facts: Interview with LAFCO Executive Officer. June 3. Posted August 28. Accessed April 5, 2012. https://sites.google.com/site/lompicofacts/news/interviewwithpatrickmccormickexecutive officerlocalagencyformationcommissionlafco
R18:
San Diego County LAFCO. “Municipal Service Review Guidelines.” Accessed April 30, 2012. http://www.sdlafco.org/document/Msrguidelines.pdf
R19:
Contra Costa County LAFCO. “Municipal Service Review Guidelines.” Accessed April 30, 2012. http://www.contracostalafco.org/municipal_service_reviews.htm
R20:
Senate Local Government Committee. 2003. “It’s Time to Draw the Line: A Citizen’s Guide to LAFCOs.” 2nd ed. Sacramento, CA. http://www.sbclafco.org/other_publications/TimetoDrawLine.pdf
R21:
Bookwalter, Genevieve. 2010. “Bonny Doon residents file suit against LAFCO seeking their own fire district.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, August 17. Accessed April 30,
R22:
Santa Cruz LAFCO. 2012. Public hearing meeting packet. March 7. Meetings Santa Cruz LAFCO monthly meetings, March 2012 and April 2012.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
It appears the City of Watsonville does not have a comprehensive, citywide cash handling policy.
F2:
In the absence of an overall cash-handling procedure, the handling of large amounts of cash paid out and received during the Strawberry Festival creates an unacceptable risk for misappropriation of funds.
F3:
The City of Watsonville may have failed to meet U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program objectives for the purchase of the fire truck.
F4:
With regards to the Grand Jury investigations reported on here, city staff responses to requests for information from the City Council or the public were too often incomplete, inaccurate, or not provided in a timely manner.
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The City of Watsonville should develop comprehensive citywide cash handling policies and procedures. (The City of San Luis Obispo Cash Handling Policy is an excellent resource.[17])
R2:
The City of Watsonville should immediately implement interim procedures, in writing, for the handling and tracking of cash, prior to the 2012 Strawberry Festival.
R3:
The City of Watsonville should comply with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements for the use of Community Development Block Grants.
R4:
The City of Watsonville should improve the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of information provided to the City Council and the public.
R5:
The City Council should stipulate date specific response deadlines on requests to City staff for information.
R6:
City of Watsonville. 2011. “City of Watsonville City Council Meeting. Audio Recording. November 8, 2011.” Accessed May 24, 2011. http://www.ci.watsonville.ca.us/agendas/city_council_redevelopment/audio/110811.mp3
R7:
City of Watsonville. 2011. “City of Watsonville City Council meeting. City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting Packet, November 8, 2011.” . Accessed May 31, 2012. http://www.ci.watsonville.ca.us/agendas/city_council_redevelopment/110811/110811_p acket.pdf
R8:
City of Watsonville. 2011. “City of Watsonville City Council Meeting. CC Minutes. Regular City Council Meeting. December 13, 2011.” Accessed May 30, 2012. http://www.ci.watsonville.ca.us/agendas/city_council_redevelopment/minutes/c121311m in.pdf
R9:
Pimentel, Marc, Administrative Services Director. 2012. “Memorandum to Carlos J. Palacios, City Manager. January 5, 2012. ‘REPORT ON STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PAYMENT.’”
R10:
City of Watsonville. 2012. “City of Watsonville City Council Meeting. City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting Packet. January 10, 2012.” . Accessed May 30, 2012. http://www.ci.watsonville.ca.us/agendas/city_council_redevelopment/011012/racc_0110 12_packet.pdf
R11:
City of Watsonville. 2011. “Check No. 182454 dated July 27, 2011.”
R12:
City of Watsonville document. “Cash handling – Annual Watsonville Strawberry Festival (DRAFT - subject to change).”
R13:
Hays, William P., Assistant Finance Officer. 2003. “City of Watsonville Memorandum to All Finance Staff. March 14, 2003. ‘Summary of Major Cash and Check Controls (Revised 8/29/03).’”
R14:
Ohio Auditor of State. 2007. “Best Practices–Accountability for Public Money.” Volume 4, Issue 3, Fall 2007. Accessed May 30, 2012. http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/publications/bestpractices/BestPractices_Vol4Issue2_Fall 2007.pdf
R15:
City of Watsonville. 2008. “Community Development Block Grant - Consolidated Annual Performance Report - Program Year 2007,” dated September 26, 2008.
R16:
Jones, Donna. 2009. “Pay records show 27 Watsonville managers top $100,000.” Mercury News.com, May 27. Accessed May 24, 2012. http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_12456395?nclick_check=1
R17:
California Society of Municipal Finance Officers. 2007. “Cash Handling Policy - San Luis Obispo.” Accessed May 30, 2012. http://media.csmfo.org/archives/resources/1816.pdf
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The current practice of transporting inmates off site for certain medical procedures continues to present security issues and additional expense.
F2:
Uncompleted repairs to the Main Jail lobby are unsightly, unprofessional, and present potential safety hazards.
F3:
Juvenile Hall lacks an outside area for exercise and recreation. This is a longstanding deficiency for the facility and the incarcerated youth.
F4:
County Auditor Controller, 2011. “Final Budget 2010-2011 County of Santa Cruz. Budget Unit: 39/50/00 -- Human Services Dept/Community Services.” . Accessed June 16, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/AuditorBudget/2010- 2011/76-86.pdf
F5:
MacDonald, Scott. 2009. “Letter to County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors RE: Juvenile Hall Capital Facility Grant Proposal.” County of Santa Cruz Probation Department. April 21. Accessed July 16, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/bds/govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2009/20090421/PDF/025.pdf
F6:
California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation Corrections Standards Authority. 2011. “2010-2012 Biennial Inspection Report.” July 8.
F7:
County of Santa Cruz Grand Jury. 2011. “Responses to Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2010-2011.” Accessed July 16, 2012. http://www.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nHDrhLl3fI4%3d&tabid=895
F8:
California State Senate. 2007. “Senate Bill No. 81.” State of California. August 24. Accessed June 16, 2012. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0051- 0100/sb_81_bill_20070824_chaptered.pdf
F9:
Gale, Nat et al. “California Senate Bill No. 81.” Personal website. Accessed June 16,
F10:
Santa Cruz County Probation Department. “Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall.” Programs tab. Accessed June 13, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/prb/juvhall.asp
F11:
Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency. “Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.” Accessed June 13, 2012. http://www.santacruzhealth.org/cmhs/2children.htm
F12:
Santa Cruz County Probation Department. “Placement Prevention – Wraparound.” Accessed June 13, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/prb/wrap.asp
F13:
Santa Cruz County Office of Education. “Robert A. Hartman School.” Accessed June 13, 2012. http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/alt_ed/schools/robert_hartman.html#
F14:
California Board of Corrections. 2002. “Fire and Life Safety in Local Juvenile and Adult Detention Facilities.” June. Accessed June 16, 2012. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/csa/fso/docs/state_fire_marshal_guidelines.pdf Resources Correction Standards Authority - http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/csa/ Friends Outside - http://www.friendsoutside.org/about-friends-outside.htm Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office - http://www.scsheriff.com/ Santa Cruz County Probation Department - http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/prb/index.asp Robert Hartman School in Juvenile Hall - http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/alt_ed/schools/robert_hartman.html
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
In order to reduce staff and transportation costs, and to mitigate transportation security risks, the Sheriff’s Office should expand the scope of medical services provided at the Main Jail to adequately serve the jail population and prepare for inmate growth projections due to AB 109.
R2:
The Sheriff’s Office should immediately request funding from the Board of Supervisors to complete repairs of the Main Jail lobby.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should collaborate with all involved agencies to complete the design, permitting and construction of the already-funded multi-use recreational facility for Juvenile Hall.
R4:
County Auditor Controller, 2011. “Final Budget 2010-2011 County of Santa Cruz. Budget Unit: 39/50/00 -- Human Services Dept/Community Services.” . Accessed June 16, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/AuditorBudget/2010- 2011/76-86.pdf
R5:
MacDonald, Scott. 2009. “Letter to County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors RE: Juvenile Hall Capital Facility Grant Proposal.” County of Santa Cruz Probation Department. April 21. Accessed July 16, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/bds/govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2009/20090421/PDF/025.pdf
R6:
California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation Corrections Standards Authority. 2011. “2010-2012 Biennial Inspection Report.” July 8.
R7:
County of Santa Cruz Grand Jury. 2011. “Responses to Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2010-2011.” Accessed July 16, 2012. http://www.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nHDrhLl3fI4%3d&tabid=895
R8:
California State Senate. 2007. “Senate Bill No. 81.” State of California. August 24. Accessed June 16, 2012. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0051- 0100/sb_81_bill_20070824_chaptered.pdf
R9:
Gale, Nat et al. “California Senate Bill No. 81.” Personal website. Accessed June 16,
R10:
Santa Cruz County Probation Department. “Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall.” Programs tab. Accessed June 13, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/prb/juvhall.asp
R11:
Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency. “Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.” Accessed June 13, 2012. http://www.santacruzhealth.org/cmhs/2children.htm
R12:
Santa Cruz County Probation Department. “Placement Prevention – Wraparound.” Accessed June 13, 2012. http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/prb/wrap.asp
R13:
Santa Cruz County Office of Education. “Robert A. Hartman School.” Accessed June 13, 2012. http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/alt_ed/schools/robert_hartman.html#
R14:
California Board of Corrections. 2002. “Fire and Life Safety in Local Juvenile and Adult Detention Facilities.” June. Accessed June 16, 2012. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/csa/fso/docs/state_fire_marshal_guidelines.pdf Resources Correction Standards Authority - http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/csa/ Friends Outside - http://www.friendsoutside.org/about-friends-outside.htm Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office - http://www.scsheriff.com/ Santa Cruz County Probation Department - http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/prb/index.asp Robert Hartman School in Juvenile Hall - http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/alt_ed/schools/robert_hartman.html
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Traffic congestion on Highway 1 corridor is problematic.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Transportation sections of all county and city general plans should be written by Regional Transportation Commission staff.
F2:
Local jurisdictions do not implement the regional transportation plan created by the RTC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The local jurisdictions should review the transportation sections developed by RTC staff for adequacy every two years and RTC staff should be required to revise when necessary. Back to the Future ∫ 37
F3:
Lack of consensus between the local jurisdictions and the RTC staff obstructs the coordination of the local transportation plans with the Regional Transportation Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The RTC should develop cost estimates and pursue stable funding sources to implement recommendations one and two.
F4:
Each agency’s General Plan is an integrated document that includes housing and transportation as elements. There is no mandated link between the local agency’s General Plans and the Regional Transportation Plan.
F5:
No consistent long-term funding source is currently available for RTC planning.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Please use the electronic Adobe PDF Response Form provided to you for your responses. There is one form page provided for each Finding and Recommendation. Be sure to save any changes you make to the form.
R2:
For Findings, indicate one of the following responses and provide the required additional information: • AGREE with the Finding, • PARTIALLY AGREE or PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding and specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons therefore, or • DISAGREE with the Finding and provide an explanation of the reasons therefore.
R3:
For Recommendations select one of the following actions and provide the required additional information: • HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED, with a summary regarding the implemented action, • HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE, with a timeframe or expected date for implementation, • REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for that analysis or study; this timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report, • WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. If you have questions about the response report, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454- 2099 or by sending an e-mail to grandjury@co.santa-cruz.ca.us. How and Where to Respond
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found no evidence of any conflict of interest between PVUSD insurance related vendors and PVUSD employees or trustees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
PVUSD Board of Trustees should act more independently of the administration when reviewing and approving significant contracts and vendors.
F2:
It appears that the PVUSD Board of Trustees has relied heavily on the administration for information and recommendations on vendor selection and contract approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
PVUSD should include in their purchasing process an Internet background check on prospective vendors, relating to litigation or other issues.
F3:
During the initial interviews, PVUSD Board of Trustees and administrators appeared to be unaware of ongoing litigation concerning Keenan & Associates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
PVUSD should review their purchasing process and identify possible changes that would increase the number of qualified bids.
F4:
The services that Keenan & Associates provide PVUSD go beyond an advisory and consultative capacity for health benefits to also include brokering a wide variety of insurance, prescription management, early retirement planning and administration of several JPA’s.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
PVUSD should consider the nature of the issues raised in the Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint to determine if they apply to their district. Following that, they should exercise clause 4-D in the Medical, Dental and Vision Consulting Services contract, to review both total direct and indirect compensation received by Keenan & Associates and the potential impact to PVUSD’s overall costs. Pajaro Valley Unified School District Insurance Vendor Selection ∫ 59
F5:
Even though PVUSD requested proposals from five qualified vendors for Medical, Dental and Vision Consulting Services, and followed California Code and district purchasing policies, the process does not appear to encourage multiple bids.
F6:
The Medical, Dental and Vision Consulting Services contract discloses that Keenan & Associates receives direct compensation from PVUSD and indirect compensation from brokered vendors, which is a conflict in that it diminishes the incentive for Keenan & Associates to always recommend vendors offering PVUSD the best deals.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The overcrowded conditions of Santa Cruz County Main Jail will be exacerbated with the transfer of state prisoners back to their originating county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Conversion of the Blaine Street Facility into a transitional housing facility or consolidation with another facility should be considered.
F2:
Rountree and Blaine facilities are not fully utilized with respect to capacity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Office should perform a cost-benefit analysis of re-opening the housing portion of the minimum security facility at Rountree to reduce overcrowding at the Main Jail.
F3:
Security, staff and vehicles are required to transport inmates to the Main Jail for medical/dental needs due to limited medical services at the Rountree Facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Office should perform a cost-benefit analysis of providing medical services at Rountree, such as staffing a physician assistant, nurse practitioner or a physician on site, versus the current need for secured transportation costs and associated risks.
F4:
The lack of sophisticated dental equipment at the Main Jail requires secure transportation to off-site facilities for those inmates requiring more complex dental work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Sheriff’s Office should perform a cost-benefit analysis of the acquisition and installation of more sophisticated dental equipment for the Main Jail versus the current method of securely transporting inmates off-site for dental care. 70 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010
F5:
There are no program performance assessment tools, which prevents staff from evaluating the effectiveness of the educational programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Sheriff’s Office should implement a mechanism to track the effectiveness of educational programs within the 2011-12 fiscal year.
F6:
Due to a lack of consistent communication from jail personnel, not all inmates are aware of reentry programs offered at the time of their release.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Based upon analysis of the tracking data, the Sheriff's Office should modify their existing educational programs where warranted or consider implementing successful educational programs in use in other jurisdictions, such as Santa Barbara County.
F7:
There are inadequate programs and resources to assist inmates in their reentry into society, such as job skill training, treatment programs, counseling, and transitional housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Inmates should be better informed of post-release resources, such as job skill training, treatment programs, counseling, and transitional housing.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
Santa Cruz County should perform a cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of additional programs and resources to assist inmates in their re-entry into society.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The purchasing procedure used by the City to buy the fire truck appears ad hoc and incomplete. It bypasses commonly used financial controls that would protect the buyer and provide accountability of public officials.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City should adopt a “best practices” government procurement policy. The California Society of Municipal Finance Officers is a particularly useful resource for the development of such a policy.[25]
F2:
The fire truck transaction appears suspect due to contradictory documents.
F3:
The City Manager has not provided the City Council with regular updates that reflect changes in the fire truck transaction in the three years since the issuance of the payment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City Manager should make regular reports to the City Council, in open session, regarding the performance of significant contracts, i.e., $50,000 or greater.
F4:
The City of Watsonville Community Development Department issues land use and building permits without consideration of the presence of hazardous materials or recorded land use restrictions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
In collaboration with EHS, the City of Watsonville Community Development Department should develop a procedure to alert staff to the presence of hazardous materials on a site prior to the issuance of land use or building permits. Airport Investigation The Watsonville Municipal Airport is a lightning rod issue and is very divisive in the Watsonville community. Many Watsonville residents, including several members of the City Council, see no value in the Airport and would like it converted to affordable housing. On the other side are business leaders, the Watsonville Pilots Association, the Farm Bureau, and others, who support retaining the full capabilities of the Airport. The divisiveness of this issue is even underscored internally within the City. In direct contrast to the City Council majority opinion, the Airport’s benefits to the community, including economic, are touted and well documented on the City’s Economic Development Website “Watsonville Municipal Airport.”[39] Over the past five years, costly litigation over land use issues in areas surrounding the Airport has exceeded $1.2 million of limited City funds. The City is now embarking on a project to re- adopt its 2030 General Plan[40] to address deficiencies found by the California Superior Court.[41] 20 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2010-2011 With the City facing a pending budget deficit of $1.9 million, the Grand Jury believes the City Council should have a full public discussion of the airport issues and potential costs, solutions, and compromises, before proceeding down the path of another round of costly litigation. The Grand Jury has found that on matters concerning the Airport, the City Government has failed to act in a manner that is transparent, and failed to make decisions based on complete and accurate information. A chronology of events relating to the Airport over the past six years is as follows: 1. A 2005-2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Investigation was prompted by the City Council’s adoption of Resolution 74-05[42] on April 12, 2005, which amended the City’s Airport Master Plan 2001-2020, in anticipation of the adoption of the WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 General Plan.[40] The Grand Jury report titled, “Watsonville Municipal Airport: Headed for a Crash,”[43] is informative and mostly still pertinent today. The following paragraphs are from this report (bolds and underlines added for emphasis): Watsonville Municipal Airport is a valuable asset to the City of Watsonville and to the entire County of Santa Cruz. While land-use planning around most airports is monitored by regional commissions specializing in airport issues, a unique loophole in California State law permits the Watsonville City Council to serve in this capacity for the airport. The airport's existence is now threatened because the city is meeting its mandated housing goals by planning housing developments in airport safety zones, which could lead to increased noise complaints and untold liability in the event of an accident. The airport is economically valuable to the city, providing steady employment, business opportunities, a substantial tax base, and drawing business and recreational visitors. Strategically, the Airport is a key asset in low frequency but high impact disaster relief efforts, as was demonstrated following the Loma Prieta earthquake. Before any irrevocable decisions are made, the benefits of the airport to the entire region must be carefully evaluated through the formation of an independent Airport Land Use Commission. Such a commission will provide an opportunity for community input and to make impartial land use decisions more frequently to protect this critical regional resource. The Watsonville Municipal Airport was constructed by the Navy during World War II on land purchased by, and incorporated into, the City of Watsonville. In 1947 the airport was transferred back to the city for $1 provided the land would be used as an airport in perpetuity. Initial construction consisted of two runways, both built to military specifications that make them suitable for use by heavy aircraft such as C-130s and business jets. Two runways are needed to accommodate weather variations. The primary runway, Runway 2-20, is the longest and can be City of Watsonville ∫ 21 used ninety-four percent of the time. The shorter runway, Runway 8-26, can be used ninety-eight percent of the time and is necessary not only for wind variations, but particularly in summer fog conditions. 2. During the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury’s 2005-2006 term, several additional airport actions occurred, which were not included in the report. (cid:190) An April 21, 2006, letter to the City of Watsonville from the California Department of Transportation (DOT),[44] included the following statements: “It is our position that Resolution 74-05 should be invalidated,” (bold and underlined for emphasis) and “If the City of Watsonville does not intend to implement the State’s request in complying with the State Aeronautics Act, please consider the subject letter as a request for an administrative appeal.” The City took no action on this letter. (cid:190) On May 23, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 114-06 (CM),[45] certifying the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 General Plan, and Resolution 115-06 (CM),[46] adopting the WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 General Plan and Findings. These resolutions incorporated the disputed Resolution 74-05[42] into the General Plan, despite the DOT’s position. 3. Since the Grand Jury Report was issued in June of 2006, additional activities concerning the airport have taken place. (cid:190) Two cases were filed and litigated: “Santa Cruz County Superior Court CV 154571, Watsonville Pilots Association et al., v. City of Watsonville, et al.,”[47] and “Santa Cruz County Superior Court CV 154572, Friends of Buena Vista, et al., v. the City of Watsonville et al.,”[48] (cid:190) On March 21, 2008, the Court “issued a statement of decision,” signed by Superior Court Judge Paul P. Burdick, in favor of the plaintiffs in both cases. (cid:190) On May 2, 2008, the Santa Cruz County Superior Court “entered judgment” for the plaintiffs, and issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate,[49] “YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED...to set aside the certification of the Environmental Impact Report...and all your decisions, approvals and findings for the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan.” A key provision of the Writ is, 3. You are prohibited from implementing the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan or Resolution 74-05 (bold and underlined for emphasis) or basing any action on or engaging in any activity pursuant to the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan or Resolution 74-05, unless and until the environmental review and the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan and Resolution 74-05 are revised to comply with the Court’s Statement of Decision, and California law, including but not limited to its statutes and regulations known as the California Aeronautics Act, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines and the Court is satisfied that you have complied with this peremptory writ of mandamus by way of a return to the writ.[49] (cid:190) The City of Watsonville appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District on June 26, 2008. 22 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2010-2011 (cid:190) On March 15, 2010, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District denied the City's appeal,[50] required it to follow the trial court’s Peremptory Writ of Mandate, and further required the City to develop a Compliant Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. (cid:190) From interviews and documents provided by the City,[51] the Grand Jury discovered the City was required by the Court to pay $691,837.84 to the plaintiffs for their legal fees. The City also paid $442,346.10 to its own attorneys for the defense of the suit, for a total expenditure of $1,134,183.94. 4. While these legal actions were underway, the Planning Commission received an application for a permit for a commercial building to be located next to the airport. On August 4, 2008, the Planning Commission approved a special use permit for a 43,389 square foot light industrial building on Jennings Drive. The project became known as “Lawton.” The approval followed discussion and review of the information in the form of a Memorandum provided by City Staff. However, the City Staff failed to provide the following information to the Planning Commission: (cid:190) The Memorandum to the Planning Commission[52] makes no mention of the Writ of Mandate[49] affecting the property, which states, “You are prohibited from implementing the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan or Resolution 74-05.” (bold and underlined for emphasis) (cid:190) The Memorandum mentions “A Mitigated Negative Declaration,” but does not include the original negative declaration letter from the DOT,[53] which cites the Superior Court decision, and includes the statement, “Portions of the project site appear to be within the Safety Zones 1, 2, 3, and 6 for the Watsonville Municipal Airport.” (cid:190) A City letter attempted to mitigate the negative declaration,[54] but their letter had not been accepted by the DOT by the date of the meeting. This fact was not communicated to the Planning Commission by the City staff. Subsequent to this meeting, the DOT issued a letter[55] which includes the statement, “We further request that the Negative Declaration not be approved.” (cid:190) The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting[56] include the statements, “Commissioner Martinez...” (Planning Commissioner at that time) “...noted the close proximity of the Airport to the project,” and “Principal Planner Boyle stated the proposed use is allowable in Zone 6 and is consistent in both General Plans.” Planner Boyle’s statements fail to inform the Commission of the DOT claims that the project is in Zones 1, 2, 3 and 6, or of the Writ of Mandate which prohibits the implementation of the WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 General Plan. It is not possible to know how the Planning Commission would have acted if they had received full information. They may have elected to approve the permit, they may have denied it, or they may have continued the matter and requested further information. The Watsonville Pilots Association and others subsequently filed suit[57] to stop the project, since it was in direct violation of the Peremptory Writ of Mandate issued on May 2, 2008. The Lawton City of Watsonville ∫ 23 Project was eventually dropped by the applicant due to the suit, and the City of Watsonville and the Watsonville Pilots Association negotiated a settlement to the suit. From interviews and documents provided by the City,[51] the Grand Jury discovered the City paid $48,000 to the plaintiffs for their legal fees. The City also paid $12,048.78 to its own attorneys for the defense of the suit for a total expenditure of $60,048.78. To summarize, ● In the first lawsuit, the city ended up paying $1.134 million in legal fees ● In the second lawsuit, the City settled and ended up paying another $60 thousand in legal fees.
F5:
No permit application review procedure exists at the Community Development Department to identify known documented hazardous materials sites.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
City Staff with purchasing authority and responsibility should receive adequate training to successfully execute contracts and process transactions. City of Watsonville ∫ 17 Environmental Health Investigation The Grand Jury discovered that the City of Watsonville has no policies or procedures in place to check for environmental hazards for any given development site prior to the issuance of land use or building permits. Most of the pertinent documents related to this investigation may be reviewed in various locations throughout the EnviroStor web page for “PG&E, WATSONVILLE #1 MGP (44490007).”[36] The site investigated is located at 618 Main Street in Watsonville. Extensive past environmental investigations have identified hazardous residues in the soil resulting from historical operations at the site. The contaminants identified in the reports are known to cause cancer or birth defects and include polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons, arsenic, and hexavalent chromium. It was also determined that, as a result of the contamination, the “groundwater presents an unacceptable threat to human health and safety.”[27][36] The site is located within the historic footprint of the Watsonville-1 Manufactured Gas Plant, which operated from 1871 until 1906. The plant used coal and oil to produce gas for lighting, heating and cooking. Some of the hazardous byproducts from the manufacturing process remain at the site. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) eventually took over ownership of the site and used it as a customer service facility until 1989, when it was leased to its present owner and converted into a restaurant (Jalisco).[36] The site was purchased by its present owner from PG&E on February 27, 2001, subject to a recorded “Covenant to Restrict Use Of Property, Environmental Restriction,” which was found to be “reasonably necessary to protect present or future human health or safety or protect the environment as a result of the presence on the land of hazardous materials as defined in Health & Safety Code section 25260.” The ongoing environmental investigation at the site is under the supervision and authority of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (Department).[27][28][36] The restrictions described in the Covenant include prohibited uses (residence, hospital, school or day care), prohibited activities (raising of food or extraction of groundwater for consumption) and requirements for soil management: 4.02 (a) “No activities that will disturb the soil (e.g., excavation, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement or mining) shall be allowed on the property without a Soil Management Plan and a Health and Safety Plan approved by the Department.” 4.02 (b) “Any contaminated soils brought to the surface by grading, excavation, trenching or back-filling shall be managed in accordance with all applicable provisions of state and federal law.” The Covenant further mandates an interim remedial measure to prevent the release of hazardous substances from the contaminated soil. This includes maintaining the current asphalt parking lot, commercial building and other structures on the property, which are referred to as the “Cap.” 18 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2010-2011 4.04 (a) “Activities that may disturb the Cap (e.g. excavation, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement, or mining) shall not be permitted on the Capped Property without prior review and approval by the Department.” Furthermore, sections 3.01 and 3.02 of the Covenant stipulate that the restrictions “run with the land,” and are “binding upon owners/occupants.” All owners and future owners of the property are required to adhere to the provisions of the Covenant.[27][36] The Grand Jury found that on two specific occasions, the Watsonville City Government failed to discover or provide information highlighting the fact that there are hazardous materials present on the site. On June 18, 2007, the City of Watsonville issued a “Correction Notice,” due to the start of construction, without a permit, of a courtyard seating area at the site.[29][36] After the city issued the correction notice, all required applications and plans were submitted, permits were obtained, and building inspections were performed.[30] However, NO assessment of the land use restriction or presence of hazardous materials was considered. On March 4, 2008, the Watsonville Planning Commission approved a Special Use Permit allowing liquor sales and special events on an outdoor patio at the site. The staff report included the finding that “Jalisco’s Restaurant has operated in its present location for 19 years. An 800 square foot patio was added to the restaurant for food service in the summer of 2007.” The staff report failed to provide any information concerning the environmental hazards and risks on the site.[31] In 1996 the California Environmental Protection Agency designated Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services (EHS) as the "Certified Unified Program Agency" (CUPA) within the geographic boundaries of the County (including all four Cities). As the CUPA, EHS is responsible for enforcing State and Federal statutes and regulations as well as any applicable local ordinance.[32] However, since the City of Watsonville failed to discover the hazard or the land use restriction, EHS was not notified, and was unable to act in its capacity as the CUPA. EHS staff who were interviewed also stated that Watsonville City staff rarely contact them for advice or assistance. There are various databases available to the public online, that identify sites with known or suspected hazardous materials contamination. The Grand Jury easily found the site located at 618 Main Street listed on “EnviroStor,”[36] and “GeoTracker.”[38] EHS maintains a website with a link to known contaminated county sites, titled “Santa Cruz County ‘Site’ List.”[37] Nearly 700 county sites are identified on the list, including approximately 100 in the City of Watsonville alone. The site at 618 Main Street appears on the list and was also found in the “Fortis” document file maintained at EHS. The Watsonville Community Development Department staff first became aware the site was contaminated when they were interviewed by the Grand Jury. They were unaware of the land use restriction and the presence of hazardous materials on the site. They do not routinely make inquiries regarding these issues when processing permits. City of Watsonville ∫ 19 There was disagreement amongst the interviewees from different departments, commissions and the City Council as to whether the permit process needed to be revised to include a routine check of soil and groundwater contamination databases prior to issuance of a permit. It appears that the site construction activities permitted by the City of Watsonville caused an unauthorized release of hazardous materials. The Grand Jury notified EHS of a potential release; EHS subsequently referred the notification to the DTSC, the lead cleanup oversight agency.[33][34][36] The DTSC replied, “the disturbance of the soil...did not likely have any impacts on the public, workers who performed the construction, or the environment,” and that it would take no enforcement action at this time. However, it did direct that any future activities on the site that cause soil disturbance must be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Covenant.[35][36] Nevertheless, the Grand Jury maintains that the City of Watsonville permit procedures fail to recognize existing documented soil and groundwater contamination hazards that pose potential risks to public health and safety.
F6:
The full costs of litigation to justify future development surrounding the airport have not been disclosed to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City Council should have a public discussion regarding future development surrounding the airport, including full disclosure by City Staff of all issues and potential costs, solutions, and compromises, to avoid another round of costly litigation. This public discussion should be held prior to development of the revised City General Plan 2030. Redevelopment Agency Investigation The City Manager, the recently retired Director of Redevelopment and Housing, and other senior city executives, both elected and staff, have made many public statements[58][59][60] concerning the importance of redevelopment funds to the City of Watsonville. Their statements emphasize how damaging the elimination of the Watsonville Redevelopment Agency (WRDA) would be to the city. There has been much discussion of Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) since California Governor Brown’s recent proposal to eliminate them. The Grand Jury attempted to investigate the history of the WRDA to find quantifiable measures to evaluate its effectiveness, such as a list of projects undertaken; project costs and status; WRDA annual revenues and expenses; and bond obligations. The Grand Jury was never able to find this information. As of the start of our investigation, there was no publicly available information on the effectiveness of the WRDA. The Grand Jury reviewed the Watsonville “Redevelopment Housing Economic Development” website[61] and found none of the information we were attempting to obtain. Additional City websites were investigated for information concerning the WRDA. 24 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2010-2011 Several reports were found that contain partial information.[61][62][63][64][65] City Staff interviewees informed the Grand Jury there was no simple way to obtain this information. Interviewees were able to name only five or six WRDA completed projects over the nearly thirty-year life of the agency. We were also told that it would take an effort by staff to look through “paper files” to provide us with a list of WRDA projects over the past five years. In addition, some City Staff members were dismissive and contemptuous of the Grand Jury’s attempt to obtain such information. We investigated neighboring county and city governments’ RDA websites to see if the type of information we had requested of the City was available online. We found that the websites of the County of Santa Cruz,[66] the City of Santa Cruz[67] and the City of Morgan Hill[68] all contain excellent and easy-to-understand information that helps the public to understand the effectiveness of their RDAs.
F7:
The City has spent over $1 million in scarce funds on litigation resulting from attempts to increase development around the airport.
F8:
City Staff has repeatedly failed to provide complete and accurate information to the City Council, Planning Commission, and the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The City Manager should implement a process to ensure transparency, completeness and accuracy in the information provided to the City Council, City Commissions and the Public. City of Watsonville ∫ 27
F9:
It was not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the WRDA because adequate information is not provided to the public.
F10:
The City of Watsonville does not provide a publicly available summary of WRDA activities, revenues, or expenses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City of Watsonville should publish on its website, a current record of activities of the WRDA, including projects proposed, approved, in progress, and completed, along with related revenue, bond obligations and expense information. Manabe-Ow Investigation On October 26, 2010, the City Council passed resolution 174-10[69] approving the Manabe-Ow Specific Plan (MOSP)[70] amid a sea of sign-waving young citizens chanting, “We Need Jobs.”[71] The City considers the Manabe-Ow Project key to its strategy for employment, because it projects over 2,000 new jobs over the next twenty years. The project consists of the development of a 95-acre industrial area in the southern part of the City. “The MOSP represents the culmination of the City's extensive efforts to create a new job base for the community. The City of Watsonville has been actively pursuing a new industrial area to provide new jobs for the residents of the City for the past 15 years.”[72] The Grand Jury supports the City and citizens of Watsonville in their political processes, and does not have an opinion concerning the appropriateness of the Manabe-Ow Business Park project. The Grand Jury is concerned with the completeness and accuracy of background information regarding project financing that was provided by City Staff to the public, the Planning Commission and the City Council, prior to the passage of Resolution 174-10. At the October 26, 2010, City Council Meeting,[71] the Interim Community Development Director presented the Manabe-Ow Staff report.[72] Financing was not discussed at the City of Watsonville ∫ 25 meeting;[69] however, the report included several
F11:
The City Council failed to fully consider project costs prior to Manabe-Ow project approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The City Council should exercise due diligence and demand that it receives adequate information to make informed decisions. “Financial Management for Elected Officials: Questions to Ask,” published by the Institute for Local Governments is a useful resource.[26]
F12:
The City Staff misrepresented the plans to finance the Manabe-Ow project prior to the City Council’s approval in 2010.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The City Council should have a public discussion of the Manabe-Ow project with full disclosure of all funding options.
F13:
The City Staff favored securing WRDA funding to finance the project but withheld this information from the City Council and the public prior to project approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The City Council should have a public discussion of the Manabe-Ow project with full disclosure of all funding options.
F14:
City Staff withheld information regarding the requirement for legislative action to include the Manabe-Ow property in the WRDA prior to project approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The City Council should have a public discussion of the Manabe-Ow project with full disclosure of all funding options.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Tax Collector’s use of discretion in evaluating the reason to grant tax delinquency penalty cancellations appears inconsistent. Delinquent Property Tax Penalty Cancellations ∫ 45
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Tax Collector should create a form for taxpayers requesting the cancellation of tax penalties that includes the recommendations of the internal audit reports, an explanation of the Tax Code,[1][2][3] and the Tax Collector’s response (i.e. granted or denied and reason).
F2:
The filing system used in the Tax Collector’s Office does not allow tax penalty cancellation documents to be easily located.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
It should be compulsory for taxpayers to complete the new Waiver Form with supporting documentation when requesting a tax penalty cancellation.
F3:
No records are retained of denied requests for tax penalty cancellations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Tax Collector should maintain a separate file containing copies of records of all tax penalty cancellation applications, with associated documentation, whether denied or approved.
F4:
The Tax Collector’s Office does not appear to be consistently following the audit
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Tax Collector should broadly publicize the delinquent tax penalty cancellation process.
F5:
The Tax Collector’s Office staff has no written procedure to follow for the processing of penalty cancellations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County Auditor-Controller should add a review of tax penalty cancellations to the regular audit of the Tax Collector’s Office.
F6:
Information regarding delinquent tax penalty cancellation processes is not adequately publicized within the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Tax Collector should publish a semi-annual report documenting the number of requests and the dollar value of the cancelled tax penalties. The report should include a summary of reasons why tax penalties cancellations were approved and denied.
F7:
The new computer system has the capability to track details regarding tax penalty cancellations if requested by the Tax Collector or Auditor-Controller.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller Office should direct ISD to enable the new IT system to track tax penalty cancellation transactions, both granted and denied.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
The Tax Collector should act in a more transparent manner when applying the State Code. 46 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2010-2011
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury and Santa Cruz County Office of Emergency Services have no jurisdiction over PG&E. However, the County Board of Supervisors can request help from the Governor and from their state legislators to require that the California Public Utilities Commission uphold their state mandate, as the oversight body of PG&E: “to ensure the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at reasonable rates.”[5]
F2:
During the course of our investigation, the Santa Cruz County Office of Emergency Services made significant progress in coordinating the flow of essential emergency response information regarding pipeline safety to the appropriate agencies.
F3:
California Public Utilities Commission. 2011. “Report of the Independent Review Panel San Bruno Explosion, Revised Copy.” Last modified June 24, 2011. Accessed May 20, 2012. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/PGE-Investigating-Complaints-of-Gas-Smell-in- San-Bruno-102625569.html
F4:
California Public Utilities Commission. 2012. “California Public Utilities Commission.” Last modified January 1, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2012. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0941C3AF-08DA-40BD-8AAC- C79C5A2C9ACB/0/cpucoverview201201.pdf
F5:
State of California. 2007. “California Public Utilities Commission.” Last modified May 24, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2012. http://cpuc.ca.gov/PUC Resources Barnett, Jim. 2011. “NTSB Issues Urgent Safety Calls In Aftermath Of Pipeline Explosion.” CNN, January 3, 2011. Accessed April 12, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/03/ntsb.safety.pipeline/index.html?iref=allsearch California Public Utilities Commission. 2012. “Gas Pipeline Safety Update.” Last modified May 7, 2012. Accessed May 20, 2012. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BD8E8965-2472-44DA-8B29- C424622D1CB1/0/GasSafetyUpdate542012.pdf CNN Wire Staff. 2010. “Exploded Gas Pipeline Wasn’t On Utility’s List Of Risky Segments.” Last modified September 20, 2010. Accessed April 11, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/20/california.gas.pipeline/index.html?iref=allsearch CNN Wire Staff. 2011. “Utility Accepts Liability For 2010 California Pipeline Rupture.” Last modified December 13, 2011. Accessed April 5, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/california-pge- responsibility/index.html?iref=allsearch Duke, Alan. 2012. “Utility To Pay $70 Million For California Pipeline Rupture.” CNN, March 12, 2012. Accessed March 14, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/us/california-pge-settlement/index.html?iref=allsearch Greene, Jessica, and Preuitt, Lori. 2010. “PUC, PG&E Investigate Complaints of Gas Prior to Explosion.” NBC Universal Inc., September 11, 2010. Accessed December 6,
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County Board of Supervisors should request periodic updates on the condition and safety of PG&E gas pipelines in Santa Cruz County, urging the Governor and state legislators to demand that the CPUC improve their oversight of gas pipeline safety.
R2:
Laurie Ure. 2011. “NTSB Hits Pipeline Owner, Regulators In Deadly Blast.” Last modified August 30, 2011. Accessed May 20, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/30/california.pipeline.explosion/index.html?iref=allsearc h
R3:
California Public Utilities Commission. 2011. “Report of the Independent Review Panel San Bruno Explosion, Revised Copy.” Last modified June 24, 2011. Accessed May 20, 2012. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/PGE-Investigating-Complaints-of-Gas-Smell-in- San-Bruno-102625569.html
R4:
California Public Utilities Commission. 2012. “California Public Utilities Commission.” Last modified January 1, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2012. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0941C3AF-08DA-40BD-8AAC- C79C5A2C9ACB/0/cpucoverview201201.pdf
R5:
State of California. 2007. “California Public Utilities Commission.” Last modified May 24, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2012. http://cpuc.ca.gov/PUC Resources Barnett, Jim. 2011. “NTSB Issues Urgent Safety Calls In Aftermath Of Pipeline Explosion.” CNN, January 3, 2011. Accessed April 12, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/03/ntsb.safety.pipeline/index.html?iref=allsearch California Public Utilities Commission. 2012. “Gas Pipeline Safety Update.” Last modified May 7, 2012. Accessed May 20, 2012. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BD8E8965-2472-44DA-8B29- C424622D1CB1/0/GasSafetyUpdate542012.pdf CNN Wire Staff. 2010. “Exploded Gas Pipeline Wasn’t On Utility’s List Of Risky Segments.” Last modified September 20, 2010. Accessed April 11, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/20/california.gas.pipeline/index.html?iref=allsearch CNN Wire Staff. 2011. “Utility Accepts Liability For 2010 California Pipeline Rupture.” Last modified December 13, 2011. Accessed April 5, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/california-pge- responsibility/index.html?iref=allsearch Duke, Alan. 2012. “Utility To Pay $70 Million For California Pipeline Rupture.” CNN, March 12, 2012. Accessed March 14, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/us/california-pge-settlement/index.html?iref=allsearch Greene, Jessica, and Preuitt, Lori. 2010. “PUC, PG&E Investigate Complaints of Gas Prior to Explosion.” NBC Universal Inc., September 11, 2010. Accessed December 6,