Tulare County Grand Jury
2014-2015
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 (21)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Some school districts do not have alternative programs in place to recover revenues for student absences.
F2:
School districts are not closely monitoring and analyzing attendance data for cause and effects.
F3:
Not all school districts provide a monthly attendance report to their Boards of Trustees.
F4:
Nearly all school districts are not including Probation and Office of the District Attorney staff in their SARB Committee meetings.
F5:
Research indicates that the negative impacts of truancy falls on disadvantaged children disproportionately. This worsens the problem to Tulare County schools in light of the socio-economic conditions existing throughout the County.
F6:
Several schools the Grand Jury visited are in the process of completing their LCAP goals and action plans.
F7:
One school district had a truant student that missed in excess of 300 days in a three year time period, grades 6 – 8.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Office of the District Attorney develop an action plan to educate students and inform parents of resources and the consequences parents face if they violate California Truancy Laws. School District Cumulative Enrollment Truant Students Truancy Rate Woodlake Unified 2,464 419 17.00% Woodville Union Elementary 551 2 0.36% 4 5
R2:
The Office of the District Attorney participate in the school district SARB and court level mediation process.
R3:
The Office of the District Attorney consistently use their authority and discretion to increase pressure on parents/guardians to fulfill their legal obligations related to school attendance.
R4:
The Office of the District Attorney implement AB 2141 to provide information to school officials of the outcomes of truancy related referrals.
R5:
School districts develop alternative programs for recovering lost student attendance revenues.
R6:
School districts monitor and analyze student attendance data on a monthly basis to determine cause and effect.
R7:
School districts provide all School Board Trustees with a Monthly Attendance Report.
R8:
School districts upgrade their SARB Committee to include Probation and Office of the District Attorney staff members.
R9:
School districts design and implement additional programs to communicate to the community that school attendance is critical to the school and students success. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Office of the District Attorney 2. Tulare County Superintendent of Schools
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Some school districts do not have alternative programs in place to recover revenues for student absences.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Office of the District Attorney develop an action plan to educate students and inform parents of resources and the consequences parents face if they violate California Truancy Laws.
F2:
School districts are not closely monitoring and analyzing attendance data for cause and effects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Office of the District Attorney participate in the school district SARB and court level mediation process.
F3:
Not all school districts provide a monthly attendance report to their Boards of Trustees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Office of the District Attorney consistently use their authority and discretion to increase pressure on parents/guardians to fulfill their legal obligations related to school attendance.
F4:
Nearly all school districts are not including Probation and Office of the District Attorney staff in their SARB Committee meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Office of the District Attorney implement AB 2141 to provide information to school officials of the outcomes of truancy related referrals.
F5:
Research indicates that the negative impacts of truancy falls on disadvantaged children disproportionately. This worsens the problem to Tulare County schools in light of the socio-economic conditions existing throughout the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
School districts develop alternative programs for recovering lost student attendance revenues.
F6:
Several schools the Grand Jury visited are in the process of completing their LCAP goals and action plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
School districts monitor and analyze student attendance data on a monthly basis to determine cause and effect. 1
F7:
One school district had a truant student that missed in excess of 300 days in a three year time period, grades 6 - 8.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
School districts provide all School Board Trustees with a Monthly Attendance Report.
F59:
737-4378 We extend our gratitude to the Tulare County Grand Jury for their diligent efforts in compiling these reports. Our responses to your recommendations include Human Resources information gained through extensive research. (559) 733-6306 fax (559) 627-4670 If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Instructional Services (559) 733-6328 fax (559) 737-4378 Jim Vidak Tulare County Superintendent of Schools Special Services (559) 730-2910 JV:mm fax (559) 730-2511 Enclosure May 12, 2015 The Honorable Judge S. Mooney Boulevard County Civic Center, Room 303 Visalia CA 93277 221 S. Mooney Boulevard Visalia CA 93291 Tulare County Board of Supervisors 2800 W. Burrel Ave Visalia CA 93291 Written Response of the Tulare County Office of Education pursuant to Subject: California Penal Code § 933(c) Report Name: $21 Million Lost to County Schools FINDINGS F1. Some school districts do not have alternative programs in place to recover revenues for student absences. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding. F2. School districts are not closely monitoring and analyzing attendance data for cause and effects. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding. F3. Not all school districts provide a monthly attendance report to their Boards of Trustees. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding. F4. Nearly all school districts are not including Probation and Office of the District Attorney staff in their SARB Committee meetings. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding. F5. Research indicates that the negative impacts of truancy falls on disadvantaged children disproportionately. This worsens the problem to Tulare County schools in light of the socio-economic conditions existing throughout the County. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding. F6. Several schools the Grand Jury visited are in the process of completing their LCAP goals and action plans. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding. F7. One school district had a truant student that missed in excess of 300 days in a three year time period, grades 6 - 8. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
School districts upgrade their SARB Committee to include Probation and Office of the District Attorney staff members.
R9:
School districts design and implement additional programs to communicate to the community that school attendance is critical to the school and students success. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Office of the District Attorney 2. Tulare County Superintendent of Schools
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The City's contract administration and compliance monitoring relative to the lessee's adherence to the provisions of the lease as well as the lessee's compliance with the requirements of the "Bio-solids Management Plan," displayed confusion and/or misunderstanding on the part of staff as to which City Departments had primary responsibility for the timing and collection of lease payments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City implement a revised comprehensive performance evaluation process wherein the lessee(s) are more closely monitored.
F2:
Although there was no misunderstanding as to which City Department has responsibility for monitoring compliance with the BMP, there are acknowledged shortcomings to the development and maintenance of schedules for performance reviews and the documentation thereof.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City define and implement detailed accounts receivable policies and procedures. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. City of Porterville
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
For fiscal years 2010-2013, First 5 Tulare County did not include Innovation Grants or Capital Project Grants on the Local Annual Report, but they were included on the Financial Statements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
First 5 Tulare County be more transparent in the areas of reporting all Programs and Grants within the Local Annual Report.
F2:
For fiscal years 2010-2013, First 5 Tulare County consistently had errors on the Program Reports within the Local Annual Report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
First 5 Tulare County officers and managers have additional training in reviewing and verifying reports before distribution to the public.
F3:
For fiscal years 2010-2013, First 5 Tulare County Program Report Interpretations on the Local Annual Report were not consistent leading to errors in the Cost per Client.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
First 5 Tulare County Program Officers have additional training in report writing for consistent Interpretations on the Program Reports.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
First 5 Tulare County create a check list for verifying information between Financial Statements and Local Annual Report to prevent errors before distribution to the public. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. First 5 Tulare County 2. Tulare County Board of Supervisors
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The biggest challenge to the operation of a landfill is containment, i.e. causing problems with the environment. Rates of Decomposition for Various Forms of Wastes 2-5 months Paper Orange Peels 6 months Milk Cartons 5 years Filter Tip Cigarettes 10-12 years Plastic Bags 10-20 years Leather Shoes 25-40 years Plastic Containers 50-80 years Disposable Diapers 75 years Tin Cans 100 years Aluminum Cans 200-500 years Styrofoam NEVER
F2:
Determining a landfill location requires an environmental impact study at the site. It can take up to twenty years and cost in excess of $15,000,000.00 before a landfill can be authorized or operational.
F3:
Recycling programs are in place at both Teapot Dome and Visalia Landfills. Recycling programs include wood and yard waste, tires, construction and demolition debris, metal, and appliances and, as of January 1, 2015, mattresses.
F4:
In place are constant measures to monitor for methane, ground water and any pollutants that may leak from the landfills. These systems are mandated by state, federal and county laws which are in place forever.
F5:
Equipment such as a new Caterpillar D-7 Dozer costs $800,000.00. This dozer is used for pushing, spreading, compacting waste and deploying Alternative Cover (ADC) Tarps (ADC reduces the amount of soil necessary for cover by use of tarps). RECOMMENDATIONS: None REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Solid Waste Department Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Section 924.2 and 929). COUNTY OF TULARE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT Phone: 559-624-7195 5955 S. Mooney Blvd. Fax: 559-624-1041 Visalia, CA 93277 BRYCE HOWARD, DIRECTOR March 26, 2015 The Honorable Judge Hillman County Civic Center, Room 303 221 S. Mooney Blvd. Visalia, CA 93291 S. Mooney Blvd. Visalia, CA 93277 Tulare County Board of Supervisors 2800 W. Burrell Ave. Visalia, CA 93291 RE: Department Response to 2014/2015 Tulare County Grand Jury Report, "Landfills – Technology of Waste Disposal" Dear Sirs and Madams, The Tulare County Solid Waste Department is pleased to have had the opportunity meet with members of the Tulare County Grand Jury at the County landfills and provide information for the preparation of their 2014/2015 report entitled, "Landfills - Technology of Waste Disposal." The Solid Waste Department has reviewed the final report and agrees with the findings presented with the exception of Finding F.3. The finding states incorrectly that mattress recycling began on January 1, 2015. The mattress recycling program began at the landfills on March 1, 2015. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (559)747-4907. Yours very truly, Bryce Howard, Director Solid Waste Department cc: Jean Rousseau, County Administrative Officer
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R25-40:
years Plastic Containers
R50-80:
years Disposable Diapers 75 years Tin Cans 100 years Aluminum Cans 200-500 years Styrofoam NEVER F.2. Determining a landfill location requires an environmental impact study at the site. It can take up to twenty years and cost in excess of $15,000,000.00 before a landfill can be authorized or operational. F.3. Recycling programs are in place at both Teapot Dome and Visalia Landfills. Recycling programs include wood and yard waste, tires, construction and demolition debris, metal, and appliances and, as of January 1, 2015, mattresses. F.4. In place are constant measures to monitor for methane, ground water and any pollutants that may leak from the landfills. These systems are mandated by state, federal and county laws which are in place forever. F.5. Equipment such as a new Caterpillar D-7 Dozer costs $800,000.00. This dozer is used for pushing, spreading, compacting waste and deploying Alternative Cover (ADC) Tarps (ADC reduces the amount of soil necessary for cover by use of tarps). RECOMMENDATIONS:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
There have been a number of activities (e.g. dances, concessions, etc.) tried in the park that have failed to generate adequate funds to continue their operations.
F2:
The current drought has created an environmental impact to the park.
F3:
The tree species diversity has increased. County Officials wish to make the park trees more of an arboretum with species labeled, as opposed to an oak preserve.
F4:
Based on the Mooney Grove Park 20-Year Master Plan, new Valley Oak trees are to be planted away from the heavily used areas. County Officials are concerned about the potential dangers of heavy oak limbs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
There should be more emphasis in planting Valley Oaks in the park.
F5:
Also addressed in the Mooney Grove Park 20-Year Master Plan, animals pose a problem with respect to the cleanliness of the sidewalks, tables, and benches.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should establish the optimum number of animals in the park, balancing Federal and State rules and the needs of the public for a healthy park environment.
F6:
Park fees, (entrance and arbor) only pay for part of the costs to operate the park; the rest is general funded. Entrance fees are collected only on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
F7:
There are currently a number of proposals for changes in Mooney Grove Park.
F8:
Presently, there are no food concessions or amusement rides within the park or museums.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Mobile vendors could be contracted to drive through the park to sell wares to give the public an opportunity to buy.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The County should try to increase public awareness that the park is there and what the park offers.
R5:
Increase marketing of the park for special events. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Board of Supervisors 2. Tulare County General Services 3. Tulare County Department of Parks and Recreation
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The (60) day initial evaluation process of students having special education needs may be overly lengthy. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The time consumed by the initial evaluation process should be reduced. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Office of Education 2. Lindsay Unified School District 3. Cutler-Orosi Unified School District 4. Tulare City School District 5. Dinuba Unified School District 6. Exeter Unified School District 7. Strathmore Elementary School District 🗸 8. Three Rivers Elementary School District
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The majority of teen pregnancies in Tulare County are occurring with mothers 18-19 years of age. While still included in teen demographics, this age group is also considered adults.
F2:
While having a significantly higher rate than the state average, teen pregnancy rates have been steadily dropping in Tulare County.
F3:
The HHSA has numerous programs in place for pregnant teens and teen mothers. The majority of these programs assist teens after they are pregnant. Less focus was apparent in teen pregnancy prevention.
F4:
Although it may be difficult to prove a direct link, it is widely recognized that economic inequality, social marginalization and other structural factors affect teens' sexual behavior patterns. How these behaviors are linked with teens' race or ethnicity, educational achievements or family income is difficult to prove.
F5:
There was a wide disparity in race and ethnicity, with rates among both African Americans and Hispanic teens remaining twice as high as among other ethnic groups. f \rightarrow
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Increased coordination between public agencies within Tulare County involved with the teen pregnancy issue.
R2:
School Districts increase outreach for educating parents on more direct participation on the teen pregnancy issue. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Office of Education 2. Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The County may have prevented the occurrence of a significant overpayment discrepancy provided the appropriate quality controls were in place at the time. However, there is no evidence to support intentional impropriety. The complainant had equal opportunity to register concerns regarding the additional monies received. As such, attachment B of California Constitution, Article 16, Public Finance, and Section 6, previously referenced in this report, stands as the deciding factor in determining the complainant's obligation to reimburse the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Tulare County continue to implement and monitor financial safety measures for eligible employee benefit calculations.
F2:
The County has since required its employees, specifically in departments where the overpayments and underpayments occurred, to acknowledge by signature verification per Tulare County Section 125 Participation Form. This form outlines the terms and expectations for both County officials and employees pertaining to the deduction of premiums and/or fees from employee paychecks. CONCLUSION: The complainant is required to repay the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Tulare County Auditor undertake procedures to ensure that periodic comprehensive payroll audits of each county department are monitored. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Auditor/Controller 2. Administrator, Human Resources & Development Department
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Adherence to the provisions of California's "open meetings" laws requires diligence on the part of public officials; vigilance on the part of those they serve; and good faith on the part of both.
F4:
Board of Supervisors Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Section 924.2 and 929). • . Fire/Ambulance Services City Manager 559/591-5904 559/591-5931 Parks & Community Services City Attomey 559/437-1770 559/591-5940 Administrative Services Police Services 559/591-5900 559/591-5914 Together, A Better Community Development Services Public Works Services 559/591-5906 559/591-5924 CALIFORNIA • 1906 June 18, 2015 To: The Honorable Judge Bret Hillman Tulare County Grand Jury From: City of Dinuba City Council Subject: Tulare County Grand Jury Report: Transparency - Open Meeting Law Thank you for your interest in the City of Dinuba. The Tulare County Grand Jury provided a report to the City of Dinuba City Council titled "Transparency - Open Meeting Law" and, requires a response. In regard to the City of Dinuba's practices concerning the recent 2014-2015 Tulare County Grand Jury Report, here is the "City's" response: FINDINGS F1: Adherence to the provisions of California's "open meetings" laws requires diligence on the part of public officials; vigilance on the part of those they serve; and good faith on the part of both. The City of Dinuba City Council agrees with the finding.
F5:
A complete copy of the agenda packet for the City Council, Board of Public Utilities and Planning Commission [the three major decision making authorities for the City] are available for public viewing at their respective meetings. D)ECEIVE 6-8-2015 Fax 559.366-1701 559.684.4200 411 East Kern Avenue Tulare, California 93274
F59:
737-4378 fá. Human Resources (559) 733-6306 fax (559) 627-4670 Instructional Services (559) 733-6328 fax (559) 737-4378 Special Services (559) 730-2910 fax (559) 730-2511 ---- June 26, 2015 The Honorable Judge Hillman Tulare County Grand Jury County Civic Center, Room 303 5963 S. Mooney Boulevard 221 S. Mooney Boulevard Visalia CA 93277 Visalia CA 93291 Tulare County Board of Supervisors 2800 W. Burrel Ave Visalia CA 93291 Written Response of the Tulare County Office of Education pursuant to Subject: California Penal Code § 933(c) Report Name: Transparency - Open Meeting Law FINDINGS F1. Adherence to the provisions of California's "open meetings" laws required diligence on the part of public officials; vigilance on the part of those they serve; and good faith on the part of both.
F210:
N. Church St., Suite B, Visalia, CA 93291 Phone: (559) 623-0450 FAX: (559) 733-6720 C COMMISSIONERS: 0 Juliet Allen, Chair Rudy Mendoza, V-Chair Allen Ishida Cameron Hamilton Steve Worthley June 10, 2015 ALTERNATES: Mike Ennis TO: The Honorable Judge Bret Hillman Dennis Mederos Tulare County Grand Jury Craig Ve/voda Tulare County Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Ben Giuliani FROM: Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) SUBJECT: Tulare County Grand Jury Report: "Transparency - Open Meeting Law" On May 26th, 2015 the Tulare County Grand Jury provided a report to Tulare County LAFCo titled "Transparency - Open Meeting Law". The Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code §933(c) LAFCo by July 13th, 2015. Tulare County LAFCo required a response from Tulare County reviewed the Grand Jury report at its June 10th, 2015 meeting. The following are LAFCo's responses: Findings F1. Adherence to the provisions of California's "open meetings" law requires diligence on the part of public officials; vigilance on the part of those they serve; and good faith on the part of both. Tulare County LAFCo agrees with this finding. Recommendations R1. All Tulare County public agencies strictly adhere to the provisions of California open meetings law. Tulare County LAFCo agrees with this finding. R2. All elected/appointed members of Tulare County special districts, school boards, planning commissions, etc. participate in Tulare County Counsel's annual board training. Tulare County LAFCo partially agrees with this finding. School boards and planning commissions are not in the purview of LAFCo. Also, special district board members will have varying levels of knowledge regarding open meetings law and all may not need training. However, the Tulare County Counsel's annual board training is a valuable resource for those that need it. R3. The eight incorporated cities in Tulare County convey the findings of this report to all public boards within their jurisdiction. Tulare County LAFCo neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. This finding is not in the purview of LAFCo. R4. Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) convey the findings of this report to all public boards within their jurisdiction. Tulare County LAFCo will convey the findings of this Grand Jury report to all special districts for which Tulare County LAFCo is the principal county. R5. Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) convey the findings of this report to all school districts within their jurisdiction. Tulare County LAFCo neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. This finding is not in the purview of LAFCo. If there are any questions regarding this response, please contact me at 623-0450 or bgiuliani@tularecog.org. Sincerely, the birt Ben Giuliani Executive Officer Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Cc: Tulare County Office of Education The eight incorporated cities in Tulare County ( Tulare County Office of Education Committed to Students, Support and Service June 25, 2015 Jim Vidak County Superintendent of Schools Tulare County Board of Supervisors The Honorable Judge Hillman 2800 W. Burrel Avenue County Civic Center, Room 303 2637 W. Burrel Ave. Visalia CA 93291 221 South Mooney Boulevard P.O. Box 5091 Visalia CA 93291 Visalia, California 93278-5091 Tulare County Grand Jury (559) 733-6300 5963 South Mooney Boulevard www.tcoe.org Visalia CA 93277 RESPONSES TO 2015 TULARE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORTS Administration (559) 733-6301 Enclosed is the following: fax (559) 627-5219 Transparency - Open Meeting Law 1. Business Services (559) 733-6312 59) 737-4378 ŤΕ We extend our gratitude to the Tulare County Grand Jury for their diligent efforts in compiling these reports. Our responses to your recommendations include information gained through extensive research. Human Resources (559) 733-6306 fax (559) 627-4670 If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Instructional 1.00 Services (559) 733-6328 fax (559) 737-4378 Jim Vidak Tylare County Superintendent of Schools Special Services (559) 730-2910 JV:mm fax (559) 730-2511 Enclosure June 26, 2015 The Honorable Judge S. Mooney Boulevard County Civic Center, Room 303 Visalia CA 93277 221 S. Mooney Boulevard Visalia CA 93291 Tulare County Board of Supervisors 2800 W. Burrel Ave Visalia CA 93291 Written Response of the Tulare County Office of Education pursuant to Subject: California Penal Code § 933(c) Report Name: Transparency - Open Meeting Law FINDINGS F1. Adherence to the provisions of California's "open meetings" laws required diligence on the part of public officials; vigilance on the part of those they serve; and good faith on the part of both. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. All Tulare County public agencies strictly adhere to the provisions of California open meeting laws. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools currently adheres to and will continue to adhere to the provisions of California's "open meetings" laws as according to The Brown Act. We will make note of your recommendation suggested. Once again, we extend our gratitude to the Tulare County Grand Jury for their diligent efforts in compiling these findings and recommendations. PECEIVE Tulare County Office of Education Committed to Students, Support and Service Jim Vidak County Superintendent of Schools Tulare County Grand Jury TO: 2637 W. Burrel Ave. Marlene Moreno, Administrative Assistant to FROM: P.O. Box 5091 Superintendent Jim Vidak Visalia, California 93278-5091 July 15, 2015 DATE: Corrected Grand Jury Report Response to: RE: (559) 733-6300 Transparency - Open Meeting Law www.tcoe.org Attached you will find a corrected Response to the Grand Jury Report: Transparency - Administration Open Meeting Law. I failed to enclose the correct edited copy when I mailed the (559) 733-6301 fax (559) 627-5219 response on Monday, July 13, 2015. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Business Services (5EM 733-6312 Thank you. 59) 737-4378 fá. Human Resources (559) 733-6306 fax (559) 627-4670 Instructional Services (559) 733-6328 fax (559) 737-4378 Special Services (559) 730-2910 fax (559) 730-2511 ---- June 26, 2015 The Honorable Judge Hillman Tulare County Grand Jury County Civic Center, Room 303 5963 S. Mooney Boulevard 221 S. Mooney Boulevard Visalia CA 93277 Visalia CA 93291 Tulare County Board of Supervisors 2800 W. Burrel Ave Visalia CA 93291 Written Response of the Tulare County Office of Education pursuant to Subject: California Penal Code § 933(c) Report Name: Transparency - Open Meeting Law FINDINGS F1. Adherence to the provisions of California's "open meetings" laws required diligence on the part of public officials; vigilance on the part of those they serve; and good faith on the part of both. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. All Tulare County public agencies strictly adhere to the provisions of California open meeting laws. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools currently adheres to and will continue to adhere to the provisions of California's "open meetings" laws as according to The Brown Act. R2. All elected/Appointed members of Tulare County special districts, school boards, planning commissions, etc. participate in Tulare County Counsel's annual board training. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding because we lack sufficient information or belief to the contrary. R3. The eight incorporated cities in Tulare County convey the findings of this report to all public boards within their jurisdiction. 1000 Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of - Schools agree with this finding because we lack sufficient information or belief to the contrary. R4. Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) convey the findings of this report to all the agencies within their jurisdiction. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools agree with this finding because we lack sufficient information or belief to the contrary. R5. Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) convey the findings of this report to all the school districts within their jurisdiction. Response: The Tulare County Office of Education and County Superintendent of Schools will convey the findings of this report to all school districts within the Tulare County jurisdiction. We will make note of your recommendation suggested. Once again, we extend our gratitude to the Tulare County Grand Jury for their diligent efforts in compiling these findings and recommendations.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All Tulare County public agencies strictly adhere to the provisions of California open meetings laws.
R2:
All elected/appointed members of Tulare County special districts, school boards, planning commissions, etc. participate in Tulare County Counsel's annual board training.
R3:
The eight incorporated cities in Tulare County convey the findings of this report to all public boards within their jurisdiction.
R4:
Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) convey the findings of this report to all the agencies within their jurisdiction.
R5:
Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) convey the findings of this report to all the school districts within their jurisdiction. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) Eight incorporated cities in Tulare County; Dinuba City Council,
R59:
737-4378 ŤΕ We extend our gratitude to the Tulare County Grand Jury for their diligent efforts in compiling these reports. Our responses to your recommendations include information gained through extensive research. Human Resources (559) 733-6306 fax (559) 627-4670 If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Instructional 1.00 Services (559) 733-6328 fax (559) 737-4378 Jim Vidak Tylare County Superintendent of Schools Special Services (559) 730-2910 JV:mm fax (559) 730-2511 Enclosure June 26, 2015 The Honorable Judge S. Mooney Boulevard County Civic Center, Room 303 Visalia CA 93277 221 S. Mooney Boulevard Visalia CA 93291 Tulare County Board of Supervisors 2800 W. Burrel Ave Visalia CA 93291 Written Response of the Tulare County Office of Education pursuant to Subject: California Penal Code § 933(c) Report Name: Transparency - Open Meeting Law
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Since Corizon Correctional Healthcare took over, there has been a decrease in inmate medical grievances.
F2:
Changes in kitchen management are also responsible for a significant decrease in grievances.
F3:
Correctional Staff now resolve grievances through outlined process and procedures for grievances of inmates. This has contributed to the decrease in grievances received by the Grand Jury. 7 8
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
With the given limitations of a rural setting, riders can still transfer between various transit systems and services with a reasonable amount of effort. 3 4
F2:
As a whole, the transit system within Tulare County is providing fundamental transportation service for its citizens. The majority of transit users are able to move about within the county with a reasonable level of service. For citizens who do not own or drive a vehicle, public transit within Tulare County is a necessity for their commuting needs.
F3:
Because of the rural nature and lower levels of ridership in many locations, the public transit system does not provide comprehensive fixed-route service for the entire county. Dial-A-Ride provides a reasonable stop-gap for those not served with a fixed-route within close proximity. Reasonable expansion of the system as demand increases is expected.
F4:
Due to variables in traffic and rider demand, it is not always possible to arrive as scheduled. As per transit staff, due to riders setting their schedules based on bus arrivals, riders may miss their bus if it arrives and leaves earlier than published schedule.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
TCAT may consider revisions in rural schedules so as not to exclude certain south county unincorporated communities. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Association /of Governments 2. Tulare County Area Transit 3. Visalia Transit
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Private offices are crucial for the interview process of the veterans.
F2:
The Tulare County Veterans Medical Clinic has also overgrown its current location in Tulare and is searching for new facilities.
F3:
It is the goal of the TCVSO to relocate within close proximity of the Tulare County Veterans Medical Clinic. According to the TCVSO, these two veterans facilities need to remain in close proximity.
F4:
TCVSO facility is for the exclusive use of veterans with its own entrance and exits.
F5:
Benefits to all veterans are available, but a portion of the veterans are unaware of what they are entitled to.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Drinking fountain or water dispenser to be provided for the clients visiting the TCVSO.
R2:
Once the relocation of the Medical Clinic is determined, a search for a new TCVSO facility shall be in close proximity with private offices for counseling. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Director, Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Adherence to the provisions of California’s “open meetings” laws requires diligence on the part of public officials; vigilance on the part of those they serve; and good faith on the part of both.
F2:
Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE)
F3:
Eight incorporated cities in Tulare County; a. Dinuba City Council, b. Exeter City Council c. Farmersville City Council d. Lindsay City Council e. Porterville City Council f. Tulare City Council g. Visalia City Council h. Woodlake City Council 3 7
F4:
Board of Supervisors Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Section 924.2 and 929). 3 8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK EDUCATION
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All Tulare County public agencies strictly adhere to the provisions of California open meetings laws.
R2:
All elected/appointed members of Tulare County special districts, school boards, planning commissions, etc. participate in Tulare County Counsel’s annual board training.
R3:
The eight incorporated cities in Tulare County convey the findings of this report to all public boards within their jurisdiction.
R4:
Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) convey the findings of this report to all the agencies within their jurisdiction.
R5:
Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) convey the findings of this report to all the school districts within their jurisdiction. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) 2. Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) 3. Eight incorporated cities in Tulare County; a. Dinuba City Council, b. Exeter City Council c. Farmersville City Council d. Lindsay City Council e. Porterville City Council f. Tulare City Council g. Visalia City Council h. Woodlake City Council 3 7 4. Board of Supervisors
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
In Tulare County many Judges were giving a straight sentence for the term in jail.
F2:
Due to overcrowding in the jail, split sentencing is encouraged versus straight sentence.
F3:
According to Governor Brown, Tulare County was used as the model for CCP.
F4:
Courts need more funding and the funding allocation will come later into play.
F5:
A study was conducted of 2008-2010 violators who went to prison and are profiled – common denominators were substance abuse.
F6:
Statistical data has shown that the administration of programs to be effective in reducing recidivism rates.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
CCP continue to provide the current services available to its clients. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Community Corrections Partnership 7 5
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
LAFCO intent was to create county (or area) agencies that could bring order and planning into overlapping jurisdictional and service boundaries that were becoming common circa 1963.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Tulare County Special Districts are required to comply with minimum auditing requirements as set forth by the State Controller. Records of such audits are to be filed with the County Auditor as further required by CGC §26909.
F2:
During its research of independent special districts, the Grand Jury learned that reviews and investigations of special districts are not uncommon.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Tulare County Special Districts should undertake an audit conducted by the County Auditor or a Certified Public Accountant/public accountant: a. Have sufficient knowledge and training to enable compliance with both generally accepted auditing standards and generally accepted government auditing standards. b. Have a thorough knowledge of the fundamental principles of governmental accounting, including both fund accounting and enterprise accounting. c. Comply with Government Auditing Standards as promulgated by the United States General Accounting Office when applicable (e.g., Single Audit Act, required by agreement or contract, etc.). REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Local Agency Formation Commission 2. County of Tulare Auditor-Controller 3. The following Districts which have not filed their audit report with the County by the required due date: DISTRICT ONE Eshom Valley Public Cemetery District ( ) Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District Lemon Cove Sanitary District Lewis Creek Water District Lindsay Local Hospital District Lindsay-Strathmore Memorial District Poplar Community Services District Sequoia Memorial District Three Rivers Memorial District Three Rivers Public Cemetery District DISTRICT TWO Allenworth Community Services District Alpaugh Community Services District Atwell Island Water District Deer Creek Storm Water District Friant Power Authority Teviston Community Services District Tipton Community Services District Tipton-Pixley Public Cemetery District Tulare Irrigation District Tulare Local Healthcare District Kaweah River Power Authority District Visalia Memorial District DISTRICT FOUR Dinuba Veteran's Memorial District Ivanhoe Public Utility District Kingsburg Hospital District Orosi Public Utility District St. John's Water District Woodlake Veterans Memorial District DISTRICT FIVE Porterville Memorial District Springville Veteran's Memorial District Terra Bella Memorial District Vandalia Water District
F3:
Many special districts are not complying with State mandated annual audits conducted by the County Auditor or a Certified Public Accountant.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
None. Response 3: The District generally agrees that this finding could be correct but does not have specific independent information to corroborate it. No recommendation was made and hence no recommendation can be implemented as to this finding. However, the District has historically complied with state mandated annual audit requirements by having a Certified Public Accountant undertake such audits and then submit the resulting audit report to the California State Controller's Office (SCO) and the County Auditor. If you have any questions or concerns, please advise us and we will respond as expeditiously as possible. Respectfully, Michael L. Farley Moses Diaz Enclosure(s): (none) (KHD) CC: Lemon Cove Sanitary District Lemon Cove Water P. O. Box 44374 Lemon Cove, CA 93244-0151 June 1, 2015 TO: The Honorable Judge Bret Hillman Tulare County Grand Jury FROM: Lemon Cove Sanitary District SUBJECT: Special Districts - Audit Failures Report On May 28, 2015, the Tulare County Grand Jury provided a report to the Lemon Cove Sanitary District, including it, in F3 of its Report, on a list of twenty special districts in Tulare County which allegedly had failed to file audit reports with the County of Tulare by the required due date. For purposes of subdivision (b) of §933.05 of the Penal Code, the directors of the Lemon Cove Sanitary District do respond as follows: The Lemon Cove Sanitary District has complied with California Government Code §26909, and therefore, disagrees with the finding that it has failed to conduct annual audits. The District officers have no proof that such filing was accomplished, and therefore know nothing of the timeliness of such, but have been assured that it was done. The District is in contact with the Auditor's Office monthly, and were never informed by them that the audit reports were not filed. Audit Reports are customarily sent directly from the C.P.A. performing them, according to Government Auditing Standards protocol, as are the State mandated Local Government Financial Transactions and Compensation Reports, which are sent directly to the State Controller's Office. In future years, an aspect of a "thorough review of reliable documents" should include an inquiry there, as those reports contain all pertinent data with respect to the officers of record and finances of special districts, and should be considered to be reliable. If there are any questions regarding this response, please contact me at (559) 597-2504, or e-mail me at pensar3@netzero.com. William Pensar, Secretary CELVE Lemon Cove Sanitary District enail 505 405 47 401 17 Lemon Cove Sanitary District Lemon Cove Water P. O. Box 44374 Lemon Cove, CA 93244-0151 June 1, 2015 TO: The Honorable Judge Bret Hillman Tulare County Grand Jury FROM: Lemon Cove Sanitary District SUBJECT: Special Districts – Audit Failures Report On May 28, 2015, the Tulare County Grand Jury provided a report to the Lemon Cove Sanitary District, including it, in F3 of its Report, on a list of twenty special districts in Tulare County which allegedly had failed to file audit reports with the County of Tulare by the required due date. For purposes of subdivision (b) of §933.05 of the Penal Code, the directors of the Lemon Cove Sanitary District do respond as follows: The Lemon Cove Sanitary District has complied with California Government Code §26909, and therefore, disagrees with the finding that it has failed to conduct annual audits. The District officers have no proof that such filing was accomplished, and therefore know nothing of the timeliness of such, but have been assured that it was done. The District is in contact with the Auditor's Office monthly, and were never informed by them that the audit reports were not filed. Audit Reports are customarily sent directly from the C.P.A. performing them, according to Government Auditing Standards protocol, as are the State mandated Local Government Financial Transactions and Compensation Reports, which are sent directly to the State Controller's Office. In future years, an aspect of a "thorough review of reliable documents" should include an inquiry there, as those reports contain all pertinent data with respect to the officers of record and finances of special districts, and should be considered to be reliable. If there are any questions regarding this response, please contact me at (559) 597-2504, or e-mail me at pensar3@netzero.com. W. Muis William Pensar, Secretary Lemon Cove Sanitary District South Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93277 (559) 624-7295 • Fax (559) 733-6078 July 30, 2015 Lemon Cove Sanitary District Lemon Cove Water P. O. Box 44374 ····································· Lemon Cove, CA 93244-0151 Attn: William Pensar RE: 2014-2015 Final Report Special Districts - Audit Failures Dear Mr. Pensar, Thank you for your response in regards to the above mentioned Grand Jury report. However, in your response you did not adequately address the following items:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
program for special district board members posted at: http://tularecounty.ca.gov/board/index.cfrn/governance/
R30:
Recommendations numbered R1 and R2 for the District's 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 fiscal years require further analysis. 1705702v1 / 18699.0001 5108325695 Waterfront Hotel Oakland 12:06:24 p.m. 2/2 09-10-2015 As the District was inactive, it does not appear from the records in my possession that there has been an independent audit for the District completed in at least four or five years. We have some financial information, but I do not believe it is enough to satisfy an audit. I have requested additional information from a past board trustee of the District. Otherwise, I have no knowledge as to whether or not an audit was conducted. If we receive no additional information by December 30, 2015, these recommendations will not be implemented because we do not have the necessary information. Date: September 9, 2015 Signed: Matthew H. Hurley General Manager Deer Creek Storm Water District 1705702v1 / 18699.0001 DELTA VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT Michael W. Alburn Yolanda M. Lourenco Manager Post Office Box 310 * Visalia, California 93279-0310 Assistant Manager 1737 West Houston Avenue * Visalia, California 93291 Phone (559) 732-8606 * (877) 732-8606 * Fax (559)-732-7441 Paul D. Jobe Sheri D. Davis Superintendent www.deltavcd.com Administrative Assistant Mark D. Dynge Systems Administrator June 12, 2015 Chuck White, S. Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93277 RE: Special District Audit Failures - Delta Vector Control District Response Dear Mr. White: The Delta Vector Control District disagrees wholly with the finding that financials for the years ending 6/30/10, 6/30/13 and 6/3014 were not provided to the County of Tulare Auditor Controller. In each of these instances the District Audit performed by Michael Oxenreider, CPA was provided to the front desk staff at the Auditor Controller office by the hand of Sheri Davis, Administrative Assistant, Delta Vector Control District, in the timely manner required (CGC §26909 (a)(2)). The District has resubmitted the financials to Rita Woodard, Auditor Controller by Certified Mail through the U.S. Postal Service on June 11, 2015. Going forward the District will submit the financial report each year in the same manner ensuring a receipt of such submission when requested by outside authority. The Delta Vector Control District takes seriously its responsibility for ensuring proper accountability and annually contracts an audit of its accounts. The current year ending June 30, 2015 audit will be performed by the firm of Price Paige & Company, selected after an RFP found them to be the most qualified for our needs. If I can be of any further assistance please do contact me. Sincerely, Evan D. Long Delta Vector Control District President Michael W. Alburn DELTA VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT Yolanda M. Lourenco Post Office Box 310 * Visalia, California 93279-0310 Manager Assistant Manager Paul D. Jobe 1737 West Houston Avenue * Visalia, California 93291 Sheri D. Davis Superintendent Phone (559) 732-8606 * (877) 732-8606 * Fax (559)-732-7441 Administrative Assistant Mark D. Dynge www.deltavcd.com Systems Administrator August 3, 2015 Chuck White, S. Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93277 RE: Special District Audit Failures - Delta Vector Control District Response Dear Mr. White:
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
米 During the first inspection, the Grand Jury found the showers, toilet areas, and BOARD STAFF common areas in poor condition. Julieta Martinez Response: The Board agrees with this finding. Allison Pierce
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Continue to follow the new policies and procedures as established by the Tulare County Sheriff's Office. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Tulare County Main Jail has continued with its established cleaning procedures for all housing floors. The shower curtains were replaced with new ones, as have the floor mats in all showers. Staff members have continued to utilize "Bathroom Brite E-San 64" for the daily cleaning of all showers and a pressure washer has been purchased to assist in cleaning of the shower 4 25 35 mats. All shower mats are cleaned on a weekly basis, unless specific cleaning is needed earlier.
R3:
Continue to pursue contract process for Main Jail improvements. Response: The recommendation is in the process of being implemented under the interpretation that the recommendation refers to the bid process to perform specified improvements. On 02/16/15, repairs and refurbishment were started on the inmate showers at the Main Jail. Upon starting the repairs and painting on the showers, an unforeseen issue with the paint not adhering to the tile in the showers was discovered. There has been a temporary pause in painting until a solution for these issues can be corrected, which we anticipate will be soon. Sincerely, Steven Worthley, Chairman Tulare County Board of Supervisors Julare County Office of MIKE BOUDREAUX Sheriff-Coroner 2404 W. Burrel Ave Visalia, CA 93291-4580 Proudly Serving Since 1852 (559) 636-4716 April 14, 2015 Administration The Honorable Brett D. Hillman (559) 636-4690 Tulare County Superior Court Magistrate County Civic Center, Room 303 Detentions 221 S. Mooney Boulevard (559) 735-1700 Visalia, CA 93291 Investigations Re: Main Jail Inspection (559) 735-1898 Dear Judge Hillman, Operations (559) 636-4625 The following is my response concerning the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report regarding the Tulare County Main Jail Inspection.
F2:
Melissa Withnell During the second inspection, the Grand Jury found the showers, toilet areas and common areas had minimal improvements. 米 Response: The Board agrees with this finding. CLERK OF
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Continue to follow the new policies and procedures as established by the Tulare County Sheriff's Office. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Tulare County Main Jail has continued with its established cleaning procedures for all housing floors. The shower curtains were replaced with new ones, as have the floor mats in all showers. Staff members have continued to utilize "Bathroom Brite E-San 64" for the daily cleaning of all showers and a pressure washer has been purchased to assist in cleaning of the shower 4 25 35 mats. All shower mats are cleaned on a weekly basis, unless specific cleaning is needed earlier.
R3:
Continue to pursue contract process for Main Jail improvements. Response: The recommendation is in the process of being implemented under the interpretation that the recommendation refers to the bid process to perform specified improvements. On 02/16/15, repairs and refurbishment were started on the inmate showers at the Main Jail. Upon starting the repairs and painting on the showers, an unforeseen issue with the paint not adhering to the tile in the showers was discovered. There has been a temporary pause in painting until a solution for these issues can be corrected, which we anticipate will be soon. Sincerely, Steven Worthley, Chairman Tulare County Board of Supervisors Julare County Office of MIKE BOUDREAUX Sheriff-Coroner 2404 W. Burrel Ave Visalia, CA 93291-4580 Proudly Serving Since 1852 (559) 636-4716 April 14, 2015 Administration The Honorable Brett D. Hillman (559) 636-4690 Tulare County Superior Court Magistrate County Civic Center, Room 303 Detentions 221 S. Mooney Boulevard (559) 735-1700 Visalia, CA 93291 Investigations Re: Main Jail Inspection (559) 735-1898 Dear Judge Hillman, Operations (559) 636-4625 The following is my response concerning the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report regarding the Tulare County Main Jail Inspection.
F3:
THE BOARD Michelle Baldwin Distinct odor gave problems with air quality during the second inspection; several Chief Clerk members of the Grand Jury inspection team experienced eye irritation, difficulty breathing and coughing during and for a short time after leaving the facility. 米 Administration Bldg. 2800 West Burrel Visalia, CA 93291 1.00 Response: The Board cannot agree or disagree with this finding since the Board does not know what the members of the Grand Jury experienced or the cause of any experiences.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Tulare County Sheriff's Office needs to follow-up on systematic monitoring of air quality. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Sheriff has purchased and installed additional fans to assist the air circulation for each of the housing floors. Our maintenance staff are also inspecting the air filters at the Main Jail every 30 days and replacing them if needed, but filters will be replaced regardless at 60 days. Main Jail maintenance staff have also increased the air purging system at the Main Jail and cleaned numerous vents and vent shafts to assist with the air quality.
F4:
Tulare County Grand Jury is also concerned about air quality within the building for the inmates and Sheriff's Deputies. Response: The Board cannot agree or disagree with this finding since the Board does not have knowledge of the concerns of the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Tulare County Sheriff's Office needs to follow-up on systematic monitoring of air quality. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Sheriff has purchased and installed additional fans to assist the air circulation for each of the housing floors. Our maintenance staff are also inspecting the air filters at the Main Jail every 30 days and replacing them if needed, but filters will be replaced regardless at 60 days. Main Jail maintenance staff have also increased the air purging system at the Main Jail and cleaned numerous vents and vent shafts to assist with the air quality.
F5:
Prior to the third inspection, the Sheriff Department had developed Weekly and Daily Maintenance Logs due to the request of the Grand Jury following the second inspection. Response: The Board agrees with this finding.
F6:
During the third visit there were noticeable improvements in the air quality of the showers and toilet areas. Response: The Board cannot agree or disagree with this Finding since the Board does not have knowledge of what the members of the Grand Jury experienced on either visit.
F7:
During the inspection, the Grand Jury discovered conditions had dramatically improved. Response: The Board agrees with this finding.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The majority of teen pregnancies in Tulare County are occurring with mothers 18-19 years of age. While still included in teen demographics, this age group is also considered adults.
F2:
While having a significantly higher rate than the state average, teen pregnancy rates have been steadily dropping in Tulare County.
F3:
The HHSA has numerous programs in place for pregnant teens and teen mothers. The majority of these programs assist teens after they are pregnant. Less focus was apparent in teen pregnancy prevention.
F4:
Although it may be difficult to prove a direct link, it is widely recognized that economic inequality, social marginalization and other structural factors affect teens’ sexual behavior patterns. How these behaviors are linked with teens’ race or ethnicity, educational achievements or family income is difficult to prove.
F5:
There was a wide disparity in race and ethnicity, with rates among both African Americans and Hispanic teens remaining twice as high as among other ethnic groups.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Increased coordination between public agencies within Tulare County involved with the teen pregnancy issue. 7 0
R2:
School Districts increase outreach for educating parents on more direct participation on the teen pregnancy issue. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Office of Education 2. Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
A portion of the Tulare County community is not aware of the operations of the Office of the District Attorney.
F2:
The Tulare County community has a right to know about the cases in the Tulare County court system. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. District Attorney 🗸 2. Board of Supervisors Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Section 924.2 and 929). County of Tulare BOARD OF May 19, 2015 SUPERVISORS The Honorable Judge Hillman Allen R. Ishida Tulare County Superior Court, Room 303 District One 221 South Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93291 Pete Vander Poel Dear Judge Hillman: District Two On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, the following are the Board's responses to Phillip A. Cox the findings and recommendations included in the 2014/2015 Tulare County Grand District Three Jury Report titled DA - We Are Your Investigative Arm. The Board of Supervisors has no independent basis by which to respond to the specific findings and
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
In Tulare County many Judges were giving a straight sentence for the term in jail.
F2:
Due to overcrowding in the jail, split sentencing is encouraged versus straight sentence.
F3:
According to Governor Brown, Tulare County was used as the model for CCP.
F4:
Courts need more funding and the funding allocation will come later into play.
F5:
A study was conducted of 2008-2010 violators who went to prison and are profiled - common denominators were substance abuse.
F6:
Statistical data has shown that the administration of programs to be effective in reducing recidivism rates.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
CCP continue to provide the current services available to its clients. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Community Corrections Partnership
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
* 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.