Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2012-2013
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 (18)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The current SSP Advisory Group is composed of city and county employees as well as those working in the drug and rehabilitation community, with no members from the general public who can add a community perspective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SSP Advisory Group should include members of the general public, including at least one rehabilitated injection drug user. (F1)
F2:
The SSP leadership creates an atmosphere of poor communication and a lack of transparency by not holding public meetings or forums for community input.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SSP should hold public meetings or forums to encourage dialog and address community concerns. (F2, F3)
F3:
The SSP provides an abundance of information on its webpage but does not have an avenue for public dialog.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SSP should hold public meetings or forums to encourage dialog and address community concerns. (F2, F3)
F4:
The SSP currently operates without a budget or permanent staff, which hinders the success of program goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should allocate funds for a permanent budget for the SSP to function as mandated per SSP Policy and Procedures. (F4)
F5:
The SSP needle exchange site on Emeline Street is a confined shared space, making it difficult to provide all services to those in need.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The HSA should devote more time and resources to community outreach to promote rehabilitation and counselling of SSP clients. (F5, F6)
F6:
Limited hours, space, and staff hamper referrals to counseling, treatment, and support programs, reducing the number of people receiving assistance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The HSA should devote more time and resources to community outreach to promote rehabilitation and counselling of SSP clients. (F5, F6)
F7:
The strict one-to-one needle exchange policy can’t be followed as the SSP policy prohibits the actual physical counting of syringes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The SSP should stop using the “one-to-one” terminology to describe their needle exchange policy. (F7)
F8:
Some injection drug users don’t travel to SSP exchange sites, thus preventing them from receiving assistance from other health programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The HSA should implement a mobile needle exchange unit to increase access to SSP services. (F8, F9)
F9:
The community is at risk with syringes found in public and private spaces throughout the county.
Related Recommendations (4)
R6:
The HSA should implement a mobile needle exchange unit to increase access to SSP services. (F8, F9)
R7:
The HSA should post hazardous waste signs with a single contact number for advice or reporting, available 24/7, in areas where syringes are commonly found. (F9, F10)
R8:
The HSA should install and maintain Sharps containers in bathrooms in high needle-use public areas. (F9, F11)
R9:
The SSP should coordinate specific clean-up events throughout the county on a regular basis and report such efforts in their biennial and annual reports. (F9, F12)
F10:
Without posted signage explaining how to report hazardous waste, the public is confused as to whom to notify or what action to take about found, discarded syringes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The HSA should post hazardous waste signs with a single contact number for advice or reporting, available 24/7, in areas where syringes are commonly found. (F9, F10)
F11:
There are only three county syringe disposal kiosks, limiting access to proper disposal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The HSA should install and maintain Sharps containers in bathrooms in high needle-use public areas. (F9, F11)
F12:
There is no combined syringe clean-up effort between local agencies to protect the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The SSP should coordinate specific clean-up events throughout the county on a regular basis and report such efforts in their biennial and annual reports. (F9, F12)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
County medical staff in 2012 at the Main Jail did not follow accepted standards of care in treating an inmate with complications arising from intravenous opiate abuse.
F2:
There was inadequate communication between Dominican Hospital and the Main Jail medical staff regarding a critical change in diagnostic information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
CFMG and Dominican Hospital should create a formal protocol by which a CFMG contact person at the Main Jail is directly notified of any changes to an inmate’s medical record at Dominican Hospital. (F2, F3)
F3:
CFMG’s current procedures may fail to detect diagnostic updates by Dominican Hospital under certain situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
CFMG and Dominican Hospital should create a formal protocol by which a CFMG contact person at the Main Jail is directly notified of any changes to an inmate’s medical record at Dominican Hospital. (F2, F3)
F4:
CFMG staff failed to identify and treat symptoms of methadone overdose.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
CFMG should modify its detoxification protocols and training procedures to enable its staff to recognize and treat cases of methadone overdose. (F4)
F5:
CFMG staff at the Main Jail has insufficient oversight and treatment facilities for inmates confined in ‘O’ Unit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
CFMG should maintain a higher level of monitoring in the Main Jail’s ‘O’ Unit, which should contain at least one hospital bed with monitoring equipment and video/audio surveillance accessible by medical staff. (F5)
F6:
Corrections Bureau and CFMG policies differ over when to call CFMG staff for intake screening of inebriated individuals at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Corrections Bureau policy should align with CFMG policy calling for CFMG staff to examine all inmates brought into the Main Jail who are inebriated or detoxing to any degree. (F6, F7)
F7:
Corrections Bureau staff at the Main Jail made incorrect judgements regarding the use of monitored housing for inebriated or impaired individuals.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
Corrections Bureau policy should align with CFMG policy calling for CFMG staff to examine all inmates brought into the Main Jail who are inebriated or detoxing to any degree. (F6, F7)
R7:
CIT staff at the Main Jail should be involved in the final determination of monitoring and housing requirements for inmates with mental health conditions. (F7)
R8:
CIT staff should be available, in person or by phone, 24 hours a day at the Main Jail to participate in mental health screening, inmate classification decisions, and inmate treatment. (F7, F8)
F8:
The availability of CIT staff is not adequate for the proper determination of an inmate’s needs for immediate mental health medication and monitoring during intake at the Main 16 Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
CIT staff should be available, in person or by phone, 24 hours a day at the Main Jail to participate in mental health screening, inmate classification decisions, and inmate treatment. (F7, F8)
F9:
During the period covered by our investigations, CIT had inadequately documented procedures and lax medical record keeping for the mental health care of inmates at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
CIT should complete a comprehensive procedural manual of CIT protocols and practices to enable new staff members to perform their jobs without the need for excessive guidance. (F9)
F10:
Corrections Bureau regulations for the frequency of cell inspections and the enforcement of rules governing items permitted in cells have not been consistently followed by Corrections Bureau staff at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Corrections Bureau should have regulations regarding inmate behavior posted in all Main Jail housing units and ensure that these regulations are consistently enforced by every CO. (F10) 17
F11:
During the period covered by our investigations, Corrections Bureau protocols and screening practices for individuals entering the Main Jail were insufficient for the interception of illegal drugs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Corrections Bureau should apply Main Jail screening protocols equally to all visitors. (F11)
F12:
CFMG has an extensive catalog of best practices based on decades of experience that are detailed in CFMG protocol manuals and maintained through regular training, review, and audits.
F13:
The addition of a Compliance Officer to the Corrections Bureau staff, and a new regime of accountability, should result in an improvement in regulation compliance and enforcement at the Main Jail.
F14:
CIT record keeping procedures and treatment protocols are undergoing a much needed process of review and improvement.
F15:
CIT has established an improved protocol for gradually transitioning inmates under mental health watch in ‘O’ Unit back into the general population.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Based on our investigation and the comments made at the public forums, it appears that the permit process requires excessive staff time and creates unnecessary foot traffic to the Department counters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Department should continue to streamline the county building code amendments, with a target completion date of June, 2014.
F2:
Some Santa Cruz County building code amendments are difficult for both staff and clients to navigate, which leaves the code open to interpretation by individual staff members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Department should allow routine OTC permits to be applied for, paid for, and printed out in the applicant’s home or office.
F3:
The new cost recovery fee called Construction Unpermitted-Recovery Enforcement Costs (CUREC) will potentially bring more people to the Planning Department for permits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Planning Department should adopt a set policy for Zoning and Building Code interpretations.
F4:
Inconsistency of provided information, most often concerning Zoning and Building code interpretation, exists between members of Planning staff and results in frustration between staff and the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Planning Department should adopt the Minor Exceptions Provisions into the code.
F5:
The Planning Department was not able to provide us with clear documentation that supported that it was meeting its mandate to be revenue-neutral.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Planning Department should adopt a system to analyze data and track performance.
F6:
The online fee estimator is not the same as the official fee calculator used by Building and Safety staff. The two forms use different terminology.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Planning Department should have the web fee estimator match the one used at the Building Counter.
F7:
The information provided in the Zoning Prescreen is not binding; it fails to warn the applicant that interpretation could change later.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Planning Department should include a disclaimer on the Zoning Prescreen indicating the nonbinding nature of the document.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Santa Cruz County Office of Education does not have a policy for setting reserve limits other than the 3% minimum reserve required by the state.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SCCOE Board of Trustees should adopt a policy establishing parameters for the amount of a reserve to maintain and should align resources to strategic priority areas.
F2:
SCCOE does not have a policy governing the allocation of surplus funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SCCOE Board of Trustees should establish well-defined procedures and policies regarding financial support to school districts. The procedures and policies should include guidelines for requesting, disbursing, and utilizing services.
F3:
SCCOE has provided consistent and significant financial support to the districts. This financial support, however, is not subject to written procedures and policies for requesting, disbursing, and utilizing funds.
Findings & Recommendations
3 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.
Additional Recommendations
5
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.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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
F2:
Many parents and community members do not understand the various English Learner programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
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
F3:
The English Learner program information is not readily accessible on district websites.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Districts should consider starting or expanding Two-Way Bilingual Immersion programs.
F4:
Two-Way Immersion programs are not widely available in Santa Cruz County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Information on Two-Way Bilingual Immersion programs should be made available to parents of English speakers.
F5:
Two-Way Immersion programs are beneficial to native English speakers who want to become fluent in multiple languages.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F7:
Collaboration and communication between Head Start and the elementary schools would be beneficial to English Learners making the transition to kindergarten.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
When a special district fails due to neglect or poor practice, the financial burden falls upon the county taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F2:
When problems in special districts occur, there is no clear cooperative path of response for addressing those problems.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F3:
LAFCO underutilizes reviews that would allow for early problem detection and evaluation of independent special districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
LAFCO should budget adequately for professional services to conduct proactive service reviews, and maintain sufficient reserves for unanticipated service reviews of special districts.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F6:
LAFCO, external agencies, and citizens have conflicting interpretations of the scope and frequency of service reviews for special districts.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 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]
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Custody Alternatives Program (CAP) is vital to decreasing jail overcrowding.
F2:
There are presently insufficient written criteria for the selection of inmates for CAP. However, during the course of our investigation, jail personnel indicated to us they are developing additional policies and procedures.
F3:
There are no written guidelines to follow when an individual violates the terms of CAP.
F4:
There are few statistics on how well CAP is working.
F5:
There is a difference of opinion between police officers in the field and the Probation Department regarding the timely processing of PRCS violators.
F6:
As of April 1, 2013, AB 109 appears not to have resulted in critical jail overcrowding in Santa Cruz County. However, as the length of sentences and the number of inmates AB 109 – A Year in Review 15 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2012-2013 sentenced to county jail instead of state prison increase, jail populations will likely expand.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Chief Deputy of Corrections should consider expanding the CAP Program in order to decrease future jail overcrowding.
R2:
The Chief Deputy of Corrections should complete and adopt written guidelines for eligibility for CAP.
R3:
The Chief Deputy of Corrections should establish guidelines to follow when an individual violates the terms of CAP.
R4:
The Chief Deputy of Corrections should establish a program to determine how successfully CAP is working.
R5:
The Probation Department should improve communication with law enforcement agencies to facilitate placing a hold on probation violators.
R6:
The Probation Department should contract with an independent data analyst to help determine the effectiveness of the County’s AB 109 implementation.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
At the time of our investigation, there did not appear to be an independent third- party analysis of data to determine the effectiveness of programs using AB 109 funding.
F2:
The process for obtaining referrals to these programs is cumbersome.
F3:
There are no written guidelines for inmate program eligibility.
F4:
Further post-release services for ex-inmates are needed.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Although the treatment program contracts may not be fully utilized yet, Santa Cruz County should continue to give one-third of the AB 109 funding to treatment programs.
R2:
The Probation Department should contract with an independent data analyst to help determine which programs are the most effective.
R3:
The Probation Department should simplify the process of inmate referrals so that services can be administered fairly and expeditiously, and implement a system to track referrals to each program.
R4:
The Probation Department should institute a policy outlining qualifying criteria, time requirements, and referral conduits for obtaining services.
R5:
The Partnership should allocate additional funding for post-release programs. Breaking the Circle of Dependence 26 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2012-2013
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Board of Directors has not been acting on the Material Weaknesses or Control
F2:
The PVWMA minutes and agenda materials fail to document whether the
F3:
The Agency’s 2011-12 audit shows the PVWMA Long Term Debt to be over $41
F4:
The Grand Jury’s investigation revealed numerous instances of Agency failure to
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Directors should direct the staff to correct Material Weaknesses and
R2:
The Board should direct the Administrative/Finance Committee to include
R3:
The Board should address the apparent conflict between the Agency’s current debt
R4:
The Board should employ a qualified CPA to conduct a full forensic examination of
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Santa Cruz County Office of Education does not have a policy for setting
F2:
SCCOE does not have a policy governing the allocation of surplus funds.
F3:
SCCOE has provided consistent and significant financial support to the districts.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The SCCOE Board of Trustees should adopt a policy establishing parameters for
R2:
The SCCOE Board of Trustees should establish well-defined procedures and
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.