Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2018-2019
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)
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The County Administrative Office lacks the resources necessary to be the sole administrator of major contracts such as the public defense contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 60 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to transfer responsibility for initiating and administering any major contract for delivery of services to County residents to a department or comparable organizational unit with the human resources to actively manage the contract. (F1) Published June 27, 2019 248 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F2:
Negotiating multi-year, fixed price contracts for public defender services has cost the County several millions of dollars and created a windfall for public defense contractors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should condition approval of any future proposal to pay a public defense contractor additional compensation, whether because a case involves special circumstances or otherwise, upon the presentation of evidence demonstrating that in the absence of additional compensation, the total compensation paid to the contractor would be inadequate. (F2)
F3:
No one person or department within County government knows exactly how much total compensation the County pays to the public defense contractors, because payment records commingle some fee payments with cost reimbursements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In the interest of transparency, the County Administrative Officer and the Auditor-Controller should work with Lawrence Biggam, the Watsonville landlord, and the Watsonville janitorial and utility providers to implement within the next six months an arrangement by which the County pays Mr. Biggam the amounts due to the Watsonville vendors and Mr. Biggam pays the Watsonville vendors. (F3)
F4:
The County’s portrayal of its public defense services is not transparent.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
In the interest of transparency, the Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a document directing County staff (a) to use the term “public defense” instead of “public defender” to refer to the services that private defense contractors and Criminal Defense Conflict Program panel attorneys provide, (b) to refrain from referring to a public defense contractor or any member of their staff as a public defender, deputy public defender, or other “defender,” and (c) to refer to Budget Unit 59 using a word that the County Administrative Officer has determined does not suggest that Budget Unit 59 is a department. (F4)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a request to the County’s public defense contractors and the Criminal Defense Conflict Program panel attorneys, with respect and no suggestion of criticism, to refrain from referring to themselves or any peer as a public defender, deputy public defender, or other “defender.” (F4)
F5:
The County’s accounting for separate overhead subsidies has for years caused the County to understate the compensation of the County’s public defense contractors in line-item budgets and in reports to the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (3)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not reimburse contractors for the cost of separate overhead items such as liability insurance, employee health insurance, or office space as one of the County’s obligations to the contractor. (F5, F6)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not provide goods or services to contractors in lieu of cash. (F5, F6)
R8:
The County Administrative Office and the Auditor-Controller should find a way to present the actual cost of the compensation paid to each public defense contractor on the County budget, beginning with the 2019–2020 fiscal year. (F5)
F6:
The County’s duty to fund public defense services does not require the County to provide public defense contractors with free office space.
Related Recommendations (3)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not reimburse contractors for the cost of separate overhead items such as liability insurance, employee health insurance, or office space as one of the County’s obligations to the contractor. (F5, F6)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not provide goods or services to contractors in lieu of cash. (F5, F6)
R9:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to require, within the next 60 days, the public defense contractors to sign a customary use agreement with the County and, in the case of the alternative public defense contractors, pay reasonable compensation to the County for the use of the space. (F6) Published June 27, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 249
F7:
When the County provides free office space to a contractor, the Controller’s Office does not know to ask whether the cost of the office space should be included in the contractor’s compensation for tax purposes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Auditor-Controller should within the next 60 days take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the County is reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the provision of office space, utilities, and janitorial services in Watsonville to the public defense contractors, as the law requires. (F7)
F8:
The County’s contract policies and standard forms are not integrated with each other, are difficult to use, are not available to the public, are incomplete, and in some cases are poorly written.
Related Recommendations (15)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12)
R12:
The Policies and Procedures Manual should include a statement identifying the policies and procedures that have been promulgated by the authority of the Board of Supervisors, citing the source of the authority for the Board of Supervisors to adopt the policies and procedures, and describing in reasonable detail the procedure for amending or revising the policies and procedures. (F8)
R13:
The County should present the online version of the Policies and Procedures Manual in a manner comparable to the online version of the County Code. (F8)
R14:
The Policies and Procedures Manual should include a “readability policy” (i.e., a statement that County policies and contracts should be understandable by the County employees who can reasonably be expected to have to use or understand them) to appear at the beginning of the Policies and Procedures Manual and apply to each Title of the Policies and Procedures Manual. (F8)
R15:
A County readability policy should include a requirement to the effect that (a) each paragraph of a policy or contract must have a unique reference number, (b) each paragraph of a policy or contract must have a descriptive heading, (c) each paragraph of a policy or contract should address only one idea, (d) any requirement of a policy or contract to do something must identify a party or person as being responsible for doing the thing, and (e) the organization of any policy or contract should be predictable. (F8)
R16:
The County Administrative Office and the Auditor-Controller should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to rewrite the provisions of Policies and Procedures Manual Title I Section 300 in accordance with a County readability policy and move the provisions into an appropriate place or places in the Policies and Procedures Manual Title III Section 100. (F8)
R17:
The County Administrative Office should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to integrate the Policies and Procedures Manual with the County’s contract templates, including department-specific templates. (F8)
R18:
The County Administrative Office should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to ensure that the County’s contract templates and contract rules are consistent with each other. (F8) Published June 27, 2019 250 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R19:
The County Administrative Office should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to include in the Policies and Procedures Manual a section that contains most of the County’s rules concerning the form and substance of a contract and that identifies the locations of any additional rules concerning the form and substance of a contract. (F8)
R20:
The County’s contract rules should identify, or have a procedure for identifying, an individual who, with respect to each contract, will be responsible for ensuring that the County’s contract rules are followed. (F8)
R21:
The County’s contract rules should (a) provide for a checklist of the County’s rules concerning the form and substance of a contract, which should remain in the contract’s electronic file, on which the person responsible for the contract, with respect to each such rule, certifies that the contract complies, states that the rule is inapplicable with an explanation why, or explains how the contract does not comply and why and (b) require the CAO Analyst to confirm that the checklist is complete, that any exceptions are appropriate, and that the reasons for any exceptions are sufficiently documented. (F8)
R22:
The County’s contract rules should include a policy (a price justification policy) that (a) applies to appropriations above an amount to be specified in the price justification policy (e.g., more than $300,000), (b) defines acceptable ways to evaluate cost, (c) requires that, when a contract is forwarded to the CAO Analyst, the department also submit a memo demonstrating that using one of the acceptable ways to evaluate cost establishes that the cost is justified, and (d) if possible, records the CAO Analyst’s acceptance of the cost justification memo on the SCZCM1000 Report. (F8)
R23:
The County’s contract rules should require that, for each service contract, the appropriate department has a written plan for measuring the performance of the contract that includes, as appropriate (a) one or more reports that the contractor will submit to the County, (b) other ways that the County will measure performance, (c) a description of how the department will analyze the performance data, and (d) a description of how the department will use the analysis. (F8)
R24:
The County’s contract rules should require that, with respect to any contract that provides for payments for different purposes, the department work with the Controller’s Office, at the time of contract initiation and each amendment or renewal, to agree upon a set of code phrases to distinguish one payment from the other, require the contractor to identify the appropriate code phrase on the contractor’s invoices, and instruct the Controller’s staff to include the appropriate code phrase in the description of the payment. (F8)
R25:
The duties of the Clerk of the Board with respect to contracts should include, in addition to verifying that all required signatures are present, confirming that the agreement is properly dated, that each page is numbered, and that there are no blank spaces in the document (other than for initials). (F8) Published June 27, 2019 2018-19 Consolidated Final Report with Responses 251
F9:
The County’s public defense contracts violated written County policies without consequences.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12)
F10:
Standard forms are an excellent way to implement some County policies, but they must be used to be effective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12)
F11:
County leaders misinterpret the meaning of County Counsel’s approval of a contract “as to form.”
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12)
R26:
The County should change County Counsel’s certification on a contract from “Approved as to Form” to a phrase that is less likely to mislead anyone about the function of County Counsel, such as “County Counsel has advised the initiating department with respect to this Agreement.” (F11)
F12:
The County lost potentially valuable information when the County destroyed copies of contracts with, and reports submitted by, the public defense contractors.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12)
R27:
The County’s contract rules should require the County to retain all records pertaining to the services of a contractor until such time as the County’s record retention policies permit the destruction of all the records. (F12)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R59:
They were not. After examining the work papers for Schedule 9, the Grand Jury prepared Figure 18, the Grand Jury’s understanding of the County’s public defense services. F igure 18: The Grand Jury’s Understanding of the County’s Unit 59 Budget Source: Schedule 9 work papers;
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The County Administrative Office lacks the resources necessary to be the sole administrator of major contracts such as the public defense contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 60 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to transfer responsibility for initiating and administering any major contract for delivery of services to County residents to a department or comparable organizational unit with the human resources to actively manage the contract. (F1)
F2:
Negotiating multi-year, fixed price contracts for public defender services has cost the County several millions of dollars and created a windfall for public defense contractors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should condition approval of any future proposal to pay a public defense contractor additional compensation, whether because a case involves special circumstances or otherwise, upon the presentation of evidence demonstrating that in the absence of additional compensation, the total compensation paid to the contractor would be inadequate. (F2)
F3:
No one person or department within County government knows exactly how much total compensation the County pays to the public defense contractors, because payment records commingle some fee payments with cost reimbursements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In the interest of transparency, the County Administrative Officer and the Auditor-Controller should work with Lawrence Biggam, the Watsonville landlord, and the Watsonville janitorial and utility providers to implement within the next six months an arrangement by which the County pays Mr. Biggam the amounts due to the Watsonville vendors and Mr. Biggam pays the Watsonville vendors. (F3)
F4:
The County’s portrayal of its public defense services is not transparent.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
In the interest of transparency, the Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a document directing County staff (a) to use the term “public defense” instead of “public defender” to refer to the services that private defense contractors and Criminal Defense Conflict Program panel attorneys provide, (b) to refrain from referring to a public defense contractor or any member of their staff as a public defender, deputy public defender, or other “defender,” and (c) to refer to Budget Unit 59 using a word that the County Administrative Officer has determined does not suggest that Budget Unit 59 is a department. (F4)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a request to the County’s public defense contractors and the Criminal Defense Conflict Program panel attorneys, with respect and no suggestion of criticism, to refrain from referring to themselves or any peer as a public defender, deputy public defender, or other “defender.” (F4)
F5:
The County’s accounting for separate overhead subsidies has for years caused the County to understate the compensation of the County’s public defense contractors in line-item budgets and in reports to the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (3)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not reimburse contractors for the cost of separate overhead items such as liability insurance, employee health insurance, or office space as one of the County’s obligations to the contractor. (F5, F6)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not provide goods or services to contractors in lieu of cash. (F5, F6)
R8:
The County Administrative Office and the Auditor-Controller should find a way to present the actual cost of the compensation paid to each public defense contractor on the County budget, beginning with the 2019–2020 fiscal year. (F5)
F6:
The County’s duty to fund public defense services does not require the County to provide public defense contractors with free office space.
Related Recommendations (3)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not reimburse contractors for the cost of separate overhead items such as liability insurance, employee health insurance, or office space as one of the County’s obligations to the contractor. (F5, F6)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to prepare and present for approval a policy that the County will not provide goods or services to contractors in lieu of cash. (F5, F6)
R9:
The Board of Supervisors should instruct the County Administrative Officer to require, within the next 60 days, the public defense contractors to sign a customary use agreement with the County and, in the case of the alternative public defense contractors, pay reasonable compensation to the County for the use of the space. (F6)
F7:
When the County provides free office space to a contractor, the Controller’s Office does not know to ask whether the cost of the office space should be included in the contractor’s compensation for tax purposes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Auditor-Controller should within the next 60 days take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the County is reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the provision of office space, utilities, and janitorial services in Watsonville to the public defense contractors, as the law requires. (F7)
F8:
The County’s contract policies and standard forms are not integrated with each other, are difficult to use, are not available to the public, are incomplete, and in some cases are poorly written.
Related Recommendations (15)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12)
R12:
The Policies and Procedures Manual should include a statement identifying the policies and procedures that have been promulgated by the authority of the Board of Supervisors, citing the source of the authority for the Board of Supervisors to adopt the policies and procedures, and describing in reasonable detail the procedure for amending or revising the policies and procedures. (F8)
R13:
The County should present the online version of the Policies and Procedures Manual in a manner comparable to the online version of the County Code. (F8)
R14:
The Policies and Procedures Manual should include a “readability policy” (i.e., a statement that County policies and contracts should be understandable by the County employees who can reasonably be expected to have to use or understand them) to appear at the beginning of the Policies and Procedures Manual and apply to each Title of the Policies and Procedures Manual. (F8)
R15:
A County readability policy should include a requirement to the effect that (a) each paragraph of a policy or contract must have a unique reference number, (b) each paragraph of a policy or contract must have a descriptive heading, (c) each paragraph of a policy or contract should address only one idea, (d) any requirement of a policy or contract to do something must identify a party or person as being responsible for doing the thing, and (e) the organization of any policy or contract should be predictable. (F8)
R16:
The County Administrative Office and the Auditor-Controller should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to rewrite the provisions of Policies and Procedures Manual Title I Section 300 in accordance with a County readability policy and move the provisions into an appropriate place or places in the Policies and Procedures Manual Title III Section 100. (F8)
R17:
The County Administrative Office should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to integrate the Policies and Procedures Manual with the County’s contract templates, including department-specific templates. (F8)
R18:
The County Administrative Office should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to ensure that the County’s contract templates and contract rules are consistent with each other. (F8)
R19:
The County Administrative Office should work with the Purchasing Agent and County Counsel to include in the Policies and Procedures Manual a section that contains most of the County’s rules concerning the form and substance of a contract and that identifies the locations of any additional rules concerning the form and substance of a contract. (F8)
R20:
The County’s contract rules should identify, or have a procedure for identifying, an individual who, with respect to each contract, will be responsible for ensuring that the County’s contract rules are followed. (F8)
R21:
The County’s contract rules should (a) provide for a checklist of the County’s rules concerning the form and substance of a contract, which should remain in the contract’s electronic file, on which the person responsible for the contract, with respect to each such rule, certifies that the contract complies, states that the rule is inapplicable with an explanation why, or explains how the contract does not comply and why and (b) require the CAO Analyst to confirm that the checklist is complete, that any exceptions are appropriate, and that the reasons for any exceptions are sufficiently documented. (F8)
R22:
The County’s contract rules should include a policy (a price justification policy) that (a) applies to appropriations above an amount to be specified in the price justification policy (e.g., more than $300,000), (b) defines acceptable ways to evaluate cost, (c) requires that, when a contract is forwarded to the CAO Analyst, the department also submit a memo demonstrating that using one of the acceptable ways to evaluate cost establishes that the cost is justified, and (d) if possible, records the CAO Analyst’s acceptance of the cost justification memo on the SCZCM1000 Report. (F8)
R23:
The County’s contract rules should require that, for each service contract, the appropriate department has a written plan for measuring the performance of the contract that includes, as appropriate (a) one or more reports that the contractor will submit to the County, (b) other ways that the County will measure performance, (c) a description of how the department will analyze the performance data, and (d) a description of how the department will use the analysis. (F8)
R24:
The County’s contract rules should require that, with respect to any contract that provides for payments for different purposes, the department work with the Controller’s Office, at the time of contract initiation and each amendment or renewal, to agree upon a set of code phrases to distinguish one payment from the other, require the contractor to identify the appropriate code phrase on the contractor’s invoices, and instruct the Controller’s staff to include the appropriate code phrase in the description of the payment. (F8)
R25:
The duties of the Clerk of the Board with respect to contracts should include, in addition to verifying that all required signatures are present, confirming that the agreement is properly dated, that each page is numbered, and that there are no blank spaces in the document (other than for initials). (F8)
F9:
The County’s public defense contracts violated written County policies without consequences.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12)
F10:
Standard forms are an excellent way to implement some County policies, but they must be used to be effective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12)
F11:
County leaders misinterpret the meaning of County Counsel’s approval of a contract “as to form.”
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12)
R26:
The County should change County Counsel’s certification on a contract from “Approved as to Form” to a phrase that is less likely to mislead anyone about the function of County Counsel, such as “County Counsel has advised the initiating department with respect to this Agreement.” (F11)
F12:
The County lost potentially valuable information when the County destroyed copies of contracts with, and reports submitted by, the public defense contractors.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
The Board of Supervisors should within the next 90 days instruct the County Administrative Officer to work with the Auditor-Controller, the Purchasing Agent, and County Counsel to propose a timeline for revising the County’s policies and procedures generally, including the implementation of the recommendations in this report concerning contract rules that Board of Supervisors decides to implement. (F8–F12)
R27:
The County’s contract rules should require the County to retain all records pertaining to the services of a contractor until such time as the County’s record retention policies permit the destruction of all the records. (F12)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R59:
They were not. After examining the work papers for Schedule 9, the Grand Jury prepared Figure 18, the Grand Jury’s understanding of the County’s public defense services. F igure 18: The Grand Jury’s Understanding of the County’s Unit 59 Budget Source: Schedule 9 work papers;
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Deputy Probation Officers’ (DPOs’) lack of safety equipment impedes their ability to do their assigned field visits without jeopardizing their own safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Department should provide Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) with standardized safety gear (individually fitted vests, functioning radios, tasers, OC spray, identifiable clothing, and Narcan™) for their field visits. (F1)
F2:
The Department collects and stores, but does not track serious incident reports involving DPOs with offenders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Department should commission a needs assessment by an independent consultant to ascertain the potential harm to unarmed officers doing field work with high-risk offenders, with a focus on developing an armed unit. (F2, F5)
F3:
The Department meets the minimum state requirements for annual DPO training, but does not provide sufficient safety training for DPOs in the field.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Department should provide all DPOs with mandatory initial and ongoing field safety training in collaboration with the Safety Committee. (F3)
F4:
Law enforcement is not always available to accompany DPOs in high-risk situations, resulting in fewer contact visits by DPOs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Department should coordinate with local law enforcement to develop policies and procedures for law enforcement officers to accompany DPOs during field visits. (F4)
F5:
The failure of the Department to include an armed unit supporting DPOs increases safety risks to DPOs in the field.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Department should commission a needs assessment by an independent consultant to ascertain the potential harm to unarmed officers doing field work with high-risk offenders, with a focus on developing an armed unit. (F2, F5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Deputy Probation Officers’ (DPOs’) lack of safety equipment impedes their ability to do their assigned field visits without jeopardizing their own safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Department should provide Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) with standardized safety gear (individually fitted vests, functioning radios, tasers, OC spray, identifiable clothing, and Narcan™) for their field visits. (F1)
F2:
The Department collects and stores, but does not track serious incident reports involving DPOs with offenders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Department should commission a needs assessment by an independent consultant to ascertain the potential harm to unarmed officers doing field work with high-risk offenders, with a focus on developing an armed unit. (F2, F5)
F3:
The Department meets the minimum state requirements for annual DPO training, but does not provide sufficient safety training for DPOs in the field.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Department should provide all DPOs with mandatory initial and ongoing field safety training in collaboration with the Safety Committee. (F3)
F4:
Law enforcement is not always available to accompany DPOs in high-risk situations, resulting in fewer contact visits by DPOs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Department should coordinate with local law enforcement to develop policies and procedures for law enforcement officers to accompany DPOs during field visits. (F4)
F5:
The failure of the Department to include an armed unit supporting DPOs increases safety risks to DPOs in the field.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Department should commission a needs assessment by an independent consultant to ascertain the potential harm to unarmed officers doing field work with high-risk offenders, with a focus on developing an armed unit. (F2, F5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries was inconsistent with the Library’s long-standing policy on Confidentiality of Library Records (policy 303, adopted February 2006; revised November 2010) and companion document, “Information We Keep About You.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7)
F2:
The use of Gale Analytics on Demand, or any other data analytics tool, by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is not clearly addressed in the Library’s newly revised policy, Confidentiality of Library Records & Patron Data Privacy Policy (policy 303, adopted June 6, 2019).
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7)
R2:
SCPL should implement a system for obtaining and managing patron consent for data analytics and other tools that use patron information. (F 3)
F3:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries did not adequately inform its patrons about the Library’s use of Gale Analytics on Demand or obtain their consent for this use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7)
F4:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately considering the patron privacy aspects of current California law.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7)
R3:
SCPL management and staff, in coordination with LAC and the JPA board, should stay abreast of changes to state law, especially as it concerns patron privacy and evolving technology, and update Library policies and practices in response to such changes. (F4)
R4:
SCPL should review the contracts for all third-party digital services used by the Library, including those provided by library consortia. (F 5, F6)
F5:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without examining the contract for this service, thus raising potential liability issues related to data ownership, data breaches, and patron privacy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
SCPL should adopt guidelines and practices suggested by the American Library Association with regard to patron privacy and data analytics services. (F 7)
F6:
The contract is unclear and does not contain language that protects the interests of the Pacific Library Partnership, its member libraries, and their patrons.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
SCPL should designate a data privacy officer and give this officer full authority and responsibility to implement and enforce the privacy policy, and to periodically report to the SCPL director, JPA board, LAC, and the public. (F 7)
F7:
The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is inconsistent with best practices in the library community regarding patron privacy.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7)
R7:
SCPL should perform a meaningful evaluation of any tool that uses patron information to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks to patron privacy. (F 8)
F8:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately evaluating the effectiveness of the tool.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
SCPL should offer workshops for patrons to explain how the Library uses patron information and to explore related privacy issues. (F 3, F4)
F9:
The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries has created disagreement among Library staff concerning the traditional responsibility of libraries to protect patron privacy, the validity of data analytics as a planning tool, and potential security vulnerabilities of the system.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries was inconsistent with the Library’s long-standing policy on Confidentiality of Library Records (policy 303, adopted February 2006; revised November 2010) and companion document, “Information We Keep About You.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7)
F2:
The use of Gale Analytics on Demand, or any other data analytics tool, by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is not clearly addressed in the Library’s newly revised policy, Confidentiality of Library Records & Patron Data Privacy Policy (policy 303, adopted June 6, 2019).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7)
F3:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries did not adequately inform its patrons about the Library’s use of Gale Analytics on Demand or obtain their consent for this use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7)
F4:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately considering the patron privacy aspects of current California law.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7)
R3:
SCPL management and staff, in coordination with LAC and the JPA board, should stay abreast of changes to state law, especially as it concerns patron privacy and evolving technology, and update Library policies and practices in response to such changes. (F4)
F5:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without examining the contract for this service, thus raising potential liability issues related to data ownership, data breaches, and patron privacy.
F6:
The contract is unclear and does not contain language that protects the interests of the Pacific Library Partnership, its member libraries, and their patrons.
F7:
The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries is inconsistent with best practices in the library community regarding patron privacy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries (SCPL), in coordination with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA) board, should revisit the Library’s revised privacy policy (adopted June 6, 2019) to specifically address the use of data analytics and other tools utilizing patron information. (F1–F4, F7)
F8:
Santa Cruz Public Libraries used Gale Analytics on Demand without adequately evaluating the effectiveness of the tool.
F9:
The use of Gale Analytics on Demand by Santa Cruz Public Libraries has created disagreement among Library staff concerning the traditional responsibility of libraries to protect patron privacy, the validity of data analytics as a planning tool, and potential security vulnerabilities of the system.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
SCPL should implement a system for obtaining and managing patron consent for data analytics and other tools that use patron information. (F3) Published June 24, 2019 56 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
R4:
SCPL should review the contracts for all third-party digital services used by the Library, including those provided by library consortia. (F5, F6)
R5:
SCPL should adopt guidelines and practices suggested by the American Library Association with regard to patron privacy and data analytics services. (F7)
R6:
SCPL should designate a data privacy officer and give this officer full authority and responsibility to implement and enforce the privacy policy, and to periodically report to the SCPL director, JPA board, LAC, and the public. (F7)
R7:
SCPL should perform a meaningful evaluation of any tool that uses patron information to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks to patron privacy. (F8)
R8:
SCPL should offer workshops for patrons to explain how the Library uses patron information and to explore related privacy issues. (F3, F4)
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Drugs continue to come into all facilities undetected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department should research and evaluate body scanning equipment to detect drugs coming into facilities. (F1)
F2:
Overcrowding continues to be an issue at the Main Jail with no-long term solution in place. (See Grand Jury reports from 2013–2014, 2014–2015, and 2016–2017.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Department and Board of Supervisors should evaluate long-term solutions to the overcrowded Main Jail, including bond measures to replace or renovate the facility. (F2)
F3:
Ongoing staff shortages and unfilled positions result in mandatory overtime.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Department and Board of Supervisors should address the effects of mandatory staff overtime. (F3)
F4:
Many detention facility staff commute long distances because local housing is unaffordable, increasing staff stress.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department and Board of Supervisors should explore options for subsidized housing to reduce the number of staff commuting long distances due to unaffordable local housing. (F4)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
The Sheriff’s Department should, within the next six months, set a target date for implementing the recommendations in this report.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Drugs continue to come into all facilities undetected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department should research and evaluate body scanning equipment to detect drugs coming into facilities. (F1)
F2:
Overcrowding continues to be an issue at the Main Jail with no-long term solution in place. (See Grand Jury reports from 2013–2014, 2014–2015, and 2016–2017.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Department and Board of Supervisors should evaluate long-term solutions to the overcrowded Main Jail, including bond measures to replace or renovate the facility. (F2)
F3:
Ongoing staff shortages and unfilled positions result in mandatory overtime.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Department and Board of Supervisors should address the effects of mandatory staff overtime. (F3)
F4:
Many detention facility staff commute long distances because local housing is unaffordable, increasing staff stress.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Sheriff’s Department and Board of Supervisors should explore options for subsidized housing to reduce the number of staff commuting long distances due to unaffordable local housing. (F4)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
The Sheriff’s Department should, within the next six months, set a target date for implementing the recommendations in this report.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Most respondents to the 2015-16 Grand Jury investigations fulfilled or partially fulfilled the commitments they made to analyze a recommendation within six months, or to implement a recommendation at a specified time in the future.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors fulfilled its commitment to provide a summary of retirement costs and obligations in the Management Discussion and Analysis section of the CAFR.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors fulfilled its commitment to provide estimated pension costs and obligations in clear and understandable language in the 2018-19 Proposed Budget through an online version.
F4:
The Board of Supervisors and the Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled their commitments to fill all MHAB Board vacancies and to train both incoming and continuing members.
F5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled its commitment to hold annual strategy meetings and address strategic plans and priorities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should hold an annual meeting to establish and evaluate strategic goals, prioritize those goals by focusing on problem areas, and establish committees to develop plans for problem resolution. The MHAB responded that it would hold annual meetings to evaluate and prioritize strategic goals. The MHAB held a strategy meeting in February 2017. It provided the Grand Jury with materials demonstrating that it had created strategies and priorities for resolving problem areas. The MHAB held a similar meeting in June 2018. The 2015-16 Grand Jury also found that the MHAB did not have an effective mechanism for sharing information on available programs and services with the community or local mental health professionals.
F6:
The Board of Supervisors and Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled their commitments to make more meeting materials and services information available online.
F7:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District did not provide documentation confirming that it had analyzed the Grand Jury’s recommendation within six months; however, in 2018 it took steps to address the complaint form issue identified in the recommendation.
F8:
The Board of Supervisors followed through on its commitments to analyze Grand Jury recommendations related to Domestic Violence Commission meeting times and reporting practices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The District Attorney (or their designee) should be the Domestic Violence Commission’s chair for at least the first year. The BOS committed to implementing these two recommendations in the future, although it did not provide a timeframe for implementation. During the three January - March 2017 meetings, the DVC working group considered these two recommendations. The ordinance drafted to address Recommendations 1 and 4 also addressed Recommendations 2 and 3 – it proposed to streamline the membership and make the District Attorney (or a designee) the first chair. The BOS has not adopted the draft ordinance as of June 2018, as it is still assessing Commission procedural issues.[28]
F9:
A District Attorney designee met with the presiding judge of the Superior Court to explore the re-establishment of a Domestic Violence Court, thus fulfilling the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The District Attorney (or their designee) should be the Domestic Violence Commission’s chair for at least the first year. The BOS committed to implementing these two recommendations in the future, although it did not provide a timeframe for implementation. During the three January - March 2017 meetings, the DVC working group considered these two recommendations. The ordinance drafted to address Recommendations 1 and 4 also addressed Recommendations 2 and 3 – it proposed to streamline the membership and make the District Attorney (or a designee) the first chair. The BOS has not adopted the draft ordinance as of June 2018, as it is still assessing Commission procedural issues.[28]
F10:
The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office analyzed the Grand Jury’s Facility Risk Report
F11:
The Sheriff-Coroner‘s Office fulfilled its commitment to build a fence to enclose the entire Main Jail.
F12:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office honored their commitments to make changes to the September 2016 provider contract for medical services for County detention facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Sheriff-Coroner and Board of Supervisors should require in the contract that the medical services provider for detention facilities obtain and maintain accreditation from the California Medical Association- Institute for Medical Quality for adult detention facilities. In their responses to Recommendations 5 and 7, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner committed to changes to the medical services provider contract scheduled to go into effect in September 2016. The September 2016 contract eliminated the clause requiring the service provider to pay up to $15,000 per inmate admitted to a hospital[29] and added language that required CMA-IMQ accreditation.[30] CFMG received accreditation for the period June 21, 2017 through June 21, 2019.[31] The 2015-16 Grand Jury report also found that the Health Services Agency’s 2015 inspection did not address whether the Main Jail was in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
F13:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office fulfilled their commitment to do a Title 15 inspection of the Main Jail in 2016.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Health Services Agency should complete the annual 2016 Title 15 inspection and identify if the facility is in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Title 15, Section 1213), as required by state law. In their responses, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner committed to implementing Recommendation 6 in the future, indicating that the Health Services Agency would inspect the Main Jail by the end of 2016. The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office provided the 2017-18 Grand Jury with confirmation that a 2016 Title 15 inspection had taken place and that the Main Jail was in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Section 1213) in 2016.[32] Report: “Jails in Transition: 2015-2016 Jails Inspection Report” This 2015-16 report found that the Crisis Intervention Team’s Facility Risk Report lacked specific recommendations for inmates. The Facility Risk Report is a daily report for staff that provides alerts for inmates deemed “at-risk for suicide, escape, assault, medical issues, and other destabilizing behaviors.”[33]
F14:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office confirmed that the Main Jail was in compliance with Title 15 Detoxification Treatment requirements in 2016.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Health Services Agency should complete the annual 2016 Title 15 inspection and identify if the facility is in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Title 15, Section 1213), as required by state law. In their responses, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner committed to implementing Recommendation 6 in the future, indicating that the Health Services Agency would inspect the Main Jail by the end of 2016. The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office provided the 2017-18 Grand Jury with confirmation that a 2016 Title 15 inspection had taken place and that the Main Jail was in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Section 1213) in 2016.[32] Report: “Jails in Transition: 2015-2016 Jails Inspection Report” This 2015-16 report found that the Crisis Intervention Team’s Facility Risk Report lacked specific recommendations for inmates. The Facility Risk Report is a daily report for staff that provides alerts for inmates deemed “at-risk for suicide, escape, assault, medical issues, and other destabilizing behaviors.”[33]
F15:
The Felton Fire Protection District’s submission to the current Grand Jury of written policy and procedures regarding the acquisition and sale of real property contradicts the facts established in the 2016 Grand Jury report that the District lacked such documents, and is inconsistent with the District’s 2016 commitment to the public to adopt such policies and procedures in the future.
F16:
The Felton Fire Protection District has not yet fulfilled its commitment to post policies and procedures on its website.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
R7 Inspection Report[14] [15] Coroner Felton Fire Felton Fire Protection District’s Protection District – R3 Surplus Land Sale[16] [17] Board of Directors Investigation In this section we summarize the findings, recommendations, and responses from each 2015-16 Grand Jury investigative report listed in Table A. We then analyze the documents submitted to the current Grand Jury to determine what actions, if any, recipients ultimately took with respect to the 2016 recommendations. Figure 1 and Figure 2 provide summary views of how respondents fulfilled their commitments to analyze or implement Grand Jury recommendations as of June 2018. Report: “Reporting Santa Cruz County Retirement Costs and Obligations” This 2015-16 report focused on the presentation of information on Santa Cruz County retirement costs and obligations, and made the following recommendations:
R2:
– Supervisors Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board[4] [5] [6] Mental Health – R2, R5, R8 Advisory Board Soquel Elementary School Board: SUESD Board of
R4:
– Full Disclosure Not Optional[7] [8] Trustees Santa Cruz County Domestic Board of Violence Commission: Missing In R1, R4 R2, R3, R5 Supervisors Action[9] [10] Board of – R6, R7 Supervisors Another Death in Our Jail[11] [12] [13] Sheriff-Coroner – R5, R6, R7 Jails in Transition: 2015-2016 Jails Sheriff-
R8:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should increase efforts to raise community awareness of mental health issues through public announcements, publications, speaking engagements, and other forms of community outreach. The MHAB responded that this recommendation would be implemented in the future. The MHAB engaged with the public, beginning in the summer of 2017, through a public town hall meeting in August 2017; a televised presentation of the MHAB’s 2016-17 biennial report to the BOS in April 2018;[22] and online postings of monthly summaries from the Director of Behavioral Health.[23] In sum the BOS and MHAB have fulfilled their commitments to address the 2015-16 Grand Jury’s recommendations. Report: “Soquel Union Elementary School Board – Full Disclosure Not Optional” This 2015-16 report found that the Soquel Union Elementary School District (SUESD) did not provide guidance on how to file a complaint. The report made the following recommendation:
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Santa Cruz County has not chosen to quantitatively measure contract public defender performance to ensure adequate representation for defendants who cannot afford an attorney, and therefore has no experience in doing so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should establish a commission that includes qualified stakeholders to identify performance measures the County should collect with respect to public defender performance. (F1, F2)
F2:
Without measuring the performance of the current contract public defender system, Santa Cruz County will not be able to meaningfully compare the result of transitioning to a different public defender system.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should establish a commission that includes qualified stakeholders to identify performance measures the County should collect with respect to public defender performance. (F1, F2)
R2:
The County should begin to collect performance data on contract public defender performance, ideally within one year, so that the County has a baseline on which to measure future public defender performance. (F2) Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By Santa Cruz County 90 Days
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
As promised in their responses to the 2016-17 Grand Jury report, the COE and CSO collaborated with local law enforcement agencies to produce a thorough and well-written Countywide Threat Assessment Plan.
F2:
The Plan’s detailed flow chart, assessment protocol, and related documents will be valuable resources for school districts to use in threat situations.
F3:
The Santa Cruz County Professional Development Plan for School Safety demonstrates the COE and CSO’s commitment to adequately preparing school staff and local law enforcement to respond to future threats in our schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
F4:
Neither the Countywide Threat Assessment Plan nor the Professional Development Plan for School Safety explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in a non-threat situation, which may compromise the responders’ readiness in a threat situation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
R2:
The COE should mandate rehearsals of the threat assessment process in every school district to improve the schools’ ability to determine the existence of a credible threat before violence actually occurs. (F4)