Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2013-2014
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (11)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
Counselors and psychiatrists are not readily available for existing and potential mental health clients.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
HSA should improve client access to mental health services by increasing available counseling hours for psychologists and psychiatrists at the Emeline facility. (F1)
F2:
The lack of implementation of electronic health records (EHR) hampers mental health service to clients.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
HSA should use Electronic Health Records (EHR) for all mental and medical health services. (F2)
R3:
HSA should use EHR to perform quantitative evaluations of program effectiveness. (F2, F3)
F3:
Quantitative evaluation of the success of Prop 63 programs is extremely challenging without the implementation of an EHR.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
HSA should use EHR to perform quantitative evaluations of program effectiveness. (F2, F3)
F4:
The apparent lapses of direct communication between the Advisory Board, HSA, and the Board of Supervisors impedes the Advisory Board’s goals of effective advocacy for clients and advising HSA concerning Prop 63 funded mental health programs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
HSA should regularly attend the Mental Health Advisory Board meetings and should respond directly to the concerns raised. (F4)
R5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should quickly and clearly communicate to HSA all issues that come before the Board. (F4)
F5:
The mandated stakeholder meetings are not successfully attracting participation by county residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
HSA should publicize mental health programs and promote them in a way that will educate and engage the larger community. (F5)
F6:
Five vacancies on the 11member Advisory Board left it ineffective for months during our investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should fill all Advisory Board vacancies in a timely manner. (F6)
F7:
The Board lacks consistent standards to evaluate the performance of the District Manager.
F8:
SLVWD consistently fails to provide timely meeting minutes or post important information on the District’s website.
F9:
SLVWD makes it difficult for ratepayers to obtain public records from the District Office by requiring prior approval from the District Manager.
F10:
State water rights evaluations will delay the prospective start date of the Regional Water Transfer Project.
F11:
Without modification, the SCWD Tait Street treatment facility is not large enough to accommodate the needs of the Regional Water Transfer Project.
F12:
Officials in SCWD and SqCWD have not given sufficient consideration to a regional recycling plant.
F13:
A water recycling facility would allow for injection wells to either help recharge the aquifer or to build a barrier against seawater intrusion.
F14:
Because there is no detailed groundwater model of the Purisima basin, it is difficult to do the studies and research needed to protect the aquifer.
F15:
Private pumpers have unregulated access to water and do not contribute financially to aquifer protection efforts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Basin Implementation Group should establish a Replenishment District for the Purisima aquifer. (F15)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The loopholes in Santa Cruz County procurement policies such as the Exceptions to the Competitive Process and Sole Source Requests in the PPM allow some professional service contracts to originate, or to be continually renewed, without competition.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The General Services Department should exclude expert and professional services from the Exceptions to the Competitive Process clause of the PPM. (F1)
R2:
The policies and procedures manuals of the County Administrative Office should require an RFP process for the renewal of all multiyear professional service contracts. (F1)
R3:
In the event of a sole source request for a professional service, the County Administrative Office should ensure that criteria identified in the “Justification for Sole Source, Sole Brand, or Standardization” form are strictly applied. (F1, F2)
F2:
Based on the documentation that we were provided, the Grand Jury could not determine that the sole source provision was correctly applied.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In the event of a sole source request for a professional service, the County Administrative Office should ensure that criteria identified in the “Justification for Sole Source, Sole Brand, or Standardization” form are strictly applied. (F1, F2)
F3:
As the result of errors in the CAL categorization, numerous contracts did not receive appropriate Board of Supervisors review.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County Administrative Office should list the dollar amount and the percentage change from the prior year for each contract in the CAL. This list should be ranked based on the percentage change. (F3)
F4:
The CAL Section II allowable percentage increase has not been changed in more than 20 years. It remains at 10%, a much higher rate than the CPI.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The County Administrative Office should modify Section II of the CAL to use an inflationary index set by the BoS instead of the current 10% allowance. (F4)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should set an inflationary index such as the CPI + 3% as the threshold for annual contract review in Section II of the CAL. (F4)
F5:
It is difficult for the general public to access professional service contracts on the Santa Cruz County website because the website is neither intuitive nor complete.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The County Administrative Office should create a central repository containing all County professional service contracts on the Santa Cruz County website that can be easily located and searched by the general public. (F5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Board of Directors has not been acting on the Material Weaknesses or Control Deficiencies listed in each audit for the last five years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Directors should direct the staff to correct Material Weaknesses and Deficiencies before the following year’s audit and provide a review of the corrections to the Board.
F2:
The PVWMA minutes and agenda materials fail to document whether the Administrative/Finance Committee has been forwarding or initiating any discussion regarding the Material Weaknesses or Control Deficiencies in their audit
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board should direct the Administrative/Finance Committee to include discussion of auditor-reported Material Weaknesses or Deficiencies of any type in its annual recommendations to the Board.
F3:
The Agency’s 2011-12 audit shows the PVWMA Long Term Debt to be over $41 million, which does not appear to comply with Section 511 of their Agency Act limiting outstanding debt to $300,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board should address the apparent conflict between the Agency’s current debt and the limits set in the Agency Act.
F4:
The Grand Jury’s investigation revealed numerous instances of Agency failure to properly define and carry out roles of staff and Board of Directors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board should employ a qualified CPA to conduct a full forensic examination of the Agency financial records and procedures, and submit a report to the Board recommending changes guiding the Board to exert the financial oversight for its required fiduciary responsibility.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
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
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 & 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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Custody Alternatives Program (CAP) is vital to decreasing jail overcrowding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Chief Deputy of Corrections should consider expanding the CAP Program in order to decrease future 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Chief Deputy of Corrections should complete and adopt written guidelines for eligibility for CAP.
F3:
There are no written guidelines to follow when an individual violates the terms of CAP.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Chief Deputy of Corrections should establish guidelines to follow when an individual violates the terms of CAP.
F4:
There are few statistics on how well CAP is working.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Chief Deputy of Corrections should establish a program to determine how successfully 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Probation Department should improve communication with law enforcement agencies to facilitate placing a hold on probation 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 sentenced to county jail instead of state prison increase, jail populations will likely expand.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F2:
The process for obtaining referrals to these programs is cumbersome.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Probation Department should contract with an independent data analyst to help determine which programs are the most effective.
F3:
There are no written guidelines for inmate program eligibility.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F4:
Further post-release services for ex-inmates are needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Probation Department should institute a policy outlining qualifying criteria, time requirements, and referral conduits for obtaining services.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
The Partnership should allocate additional funding for post-release programs.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Lack of Main Jail capacity for 647(f) violators often leads to release without booking, arraignment, adjudication into SIP, or admission into treatment.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Sheriff should ensure that the Main Jail reserves 3 to 6 beds for the booking and assessment of SIPeligible 647(f) violators. (F1)
R5:
The Sheriff should explore jail space alternatives using Rountree beds or modular buildings either at the Main Jail or Rountree to satisfy the incustody requirements for inclusion in SIP. (F1, F2)
R6:
HSA should fund a fulltime SIP case manager. (F1, F3)
F2:
No Sobering Center is available to provide an alternative to the Main Jail for offenders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Sheriff should explore jail space alternatives using Rountree beds or modular buildings either at the Main Jail or Rountree to satisfy the incustody requirements for inclusion in SIP. (F1, F2)
F3:
The current halftime SIP case manager cannot initiate contact with those in custody in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
HSA should fund a fulltime SIP case manager. (F1, F3)
F4:
The present low rate that the county pays for treatment beds has caused delays in SIP clients being placed into recovery programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
HSA should fund treatment beds at a more competitive rate. (F4)
F5:
There is insufficient funding for SLE programs for SIP clients.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The SIP Steering Committee should modify SIP to include mandatory SLE placement after treatment. (F5, F6)
R8:
HSA should fund more SLE space for SIP clients. (F5)
F6:
The current SIP 306090 day treatment schedule is not long enough to adequately treat alcoholism.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The SIP Steering Committee should modify SIP to extend treatment times. (F6)
R4:
The SIP Steering Committee should modify SIP to include mandatory SLE placement after treatment. (F5, F6)
F7:
All parties to the SIP agreement (Board of Supervisors, HSA, Sheriff’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, District Attorney's Office, Corrections Department, Capitola Police Department, Scotts Valley Police Department, Santa Cruz City Police Department) have not implemented any solutions to address the impact of jail overcrowding on SIP.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All parties to the SIP agreement should create a plan with measurable steps to ensure that SIP can function effectively by the end of 2014. (F7)