Gran Jurado del Condado de Ventura
1999-2000
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
Statistics from the police agencies indicate a substantial drop in domestic violence crime in Ventura County. The criteria used to report domestic violence crimes in the State of California changed in 1996 and this accounts for the substan- tial increase in cases reported during the 1996-1997 period. (See Figure 1)
F2:
Statistics from the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office show a corresponding drop in cases of domestic violence. (See Figure 2)
F3:
The Ventura County Superior Court System indicates that the inventory of current cases has not decreased.
F4:
According to Judge Campbell, the new Domestic Violence Court has early indications that compliance has increased.
F5:
There is hope that the county may find a way to subsidize counseling for victims of domestic violence at some point in time. 202 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report 203 -99/1/7 99/03/6-89/1/7 89/03/6-79/1/7 79/03/6-69/1/7 69/03/6-59/1/7 59/03/6-49/1/7 209 5023 2384 4614 7911 0971 dranxO fo ytiC AN 661 AN 161 AN AN emeneuH troP fo ytiC AN 993 875 206 107 766 yellaV imiS fo ytiC 23 79 831 931 081 18 aluaP atnaS fo ytiC AN 7111 2641 9821 943 AN arutneV fo ytiC AN ffirehS ytnuoC arutneV AN 253 153 443 624 474 olliramaC AN 711 99 901 38 601 detaroprocninU ytnuoC tsaE AN 521 761 771 881 761 eromlliF AN 911 921 611 611 621 kraprooM AN 37 69 801 311 411 iajO AN 865 875 945 025 644 skaO dnasuohT AN 315 336 606 126 866 detaroprocninU ytnuoC tseW 1586 4509 4638 4944 9864 detropeR semirC # latoT %42 NWOD %8 PU %68 PU* %4 NWOD detropeR semirC ni egnahC % 99/03/9 fp sa ataD 79-69 esaercni citamard rof stnuocca hcihw degnahc gnitroper fo dohteM * ecneloiV citsemoD - sllaC latoT ytnuoC arutneV . 1 erugiF Final Report 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Number 3040 2751 3326 3010 2449 Figure 2. Domestic Violence cases submitted to the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office Conclusion C-1 The new Domestic Violence Court provides an innovative structure that will allow Ventura County to improve compli- ance in mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders in Ventura County. C-2 The Domestic Violence Court has the ability to address non- compliance in a timely manner that will better protect victims of domestic violence in this county. C-3 The goal to find a way to provide counseling, at no cost, to the victims of domestic violence crime is appropriate. Recommendation The Grand Jury supports and encourages the Domestic Violence Court in their search for ways to fund counseling for victims of domestic violence crime in Ventura County. Responses None required. 204
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R79-69:
esaercni citamard rof stnuocca hcihw degnahc gnitroper fo dohteM * ecneloiV citsemoD - sllaC latoT ytnuoC arutneV . 1 erugiF Final Report 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Number 3040 2751 3326 3010 2449 Figure 2. Domestic Violence cases submitted to the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office Conclusion C-1 The new Domestic Violence Court provides an innovative structure that will allow Ventura County to improve compli- ance in mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders in Ventura County. C-2 The Domestic Violence Court has the ability to address non- compliance in a timely manner that will better protect victims of domestic violence in this county. C-3 The goal to find a way to provide counseling, at no cost, to the victims of domestic violence crime is appropriate. Recommendation The Grand Jury supports and encourages the Domestic Violence Court in their search for ways to fund counseling for victims of domestic violence crime in Ventura County. Responses None required. 204
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
The former CAO’s position and authority were greatly weak- ened by the fact that he was selected and hired on the basis of a 3 to 2 vote of the Supervisors. County Department heads reporting to the CAO could circumvent his decisions by appealing to one or more Supervisors for support to reverse or modify the CAO’s decision.
F2:
The most noteworthy problem in recent County history resulted from the merger of the Behavioral Health Depart- ment with the Public Social Services Agency against the recommendations of the CAO and outside consultants. The problems started from a deeply divided Board voting 3 to 2 on a decision affecting over 500 County employees without adequate discussion and voting.
F3:
Many Board of Supervisor agenda items already require a 4⁄5 ths or supermajority vote for passage. These items are generally in 95 Final Report 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury the areas of budget/finance, planning, leasing, eminent do- main, and other Board agenda items. Most items requiring a 4⁄5 ths vote are dictated by State law and can include rela- tively inconsequential matters.
F4:
The present Board has acknowledged the problems that can be caused by simple majority votes on major items and has agreed that the new CAO hired for the County will be selected on the basis of a 5 to 0 vote.
F5:
Other than those items specified by State statute, the Board has the power to enact an ordinance defining and specifying the conditions for a 4⁄5 ths vote. (Reference: 1983 opinion by California Attorney General) Conclusions The County has not been served well by some past Board of Super- visor decisions resulting from simple majority votes on controversial matters. A requirement for a 4⁄5 ths or supermajority vote for passage of these items should lead to more dialogue, more vetoing, and more balanced ordinances. The supermajority vote items should be narrow and limited in scope to avoid unnecessary delays due to absenteeism or recusals on “normal” matters before the Board. Recommendations The Board of Supervisors should consider passing rules of order each year to provide for a 4⁄5 ths or supermajority vote requirement for a narrowly defined field of Agenda items. One major area to be considered for supermajority voting is the reversal of CAO’s deci- sions in matters that have been delegated to him/her. Typically, the CAO has been given responsibility for certain County departments and their operations including budgets, plans, programs, and per- sonnel. Any effort by the Board of Supervisors to overrule the CAO decisions and/or recommendations in these areas should require a 4⁄5 ths vote. This action by itself will support the present CAO position and eliminate the need for further ongoing discussions of CAO versus CEO formats. Responses Required Board of Supervisors Chief Administrative Officer 96
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
13 hallazgos
F1:
Camarillo residents are part of the Ventura County tax base, although no County medical or behavioral health clinics are located in Camarillo, the County’s fifth largest city.
F2:
The current CHCD mission statement states that the District “…is dedicated to meeting the health and wellness needs of District residents by promoting, coordinating, integrating and managing quality health and wellness related services.”
F3:
A study of the organization and financial status of CHCD and related Little Hoover Commission recommendations found that: • CHCD is an enterprise special district, which allows it to collect property tax revenue and still charge fees. • The CHCD in 1999 collected $1,012,285 in property taxes paid by homeowners in Camarillo, received $29,295 in legacies and bequests, and an additional $17,165 in grants, for a total of $1,058,745. In 1998 the district earned $58,126 in interest income and in 1999 reported $51,807 of interest income. The Soares, Sandall, Bernacchi and Petrovich Independent Auditors’ Report dated September 28, 1999, stated that the District’s investments are all in insured accounts. [The CHCD financial statements are available through the Ventura County Auditor-Controller.] • The Little Hoover Commission report recommended that enterprise districts be scrutinized more carefully on the 167 Final Report 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury state level to determine if property tax revenues should continue to be collected and in the same amounts. • The Hoover Commission report also stated, “Property tax bills should identify for taxpayers the independent special districts that provide services to them, along with the tax allocation, reserves and other financial information about those districts.” • Five elected directors, who meet bimonthly, govern the CHCD. • The CHCD Board in 1998-1999 was budgeted to receive $21,000 in stipends, $9,000 in continuing education fees, and $6,950 in election costs and D & O insurance, according to its most recent financial statement filed with the County Auditor-Controller. • The CHCD has a staff of 11, which includes a Chief Executive Officer, a Chief Operating Officer, a Chief Financial Officer (position not currently filled), a Chief Administrative Officer, and a Human Resources specialist. An outside contractor currently fulfills the CFO function. • The only trained medical professional on the district’s full time staff of 11 is one registered nurse. • The Little Hoover Commission noted in its report that property tax revenues continue to fund districts that no longer provide the service for which they were originally formed. “In 1998-99, approximately $17 million in property taxes were allocated to 14 health care districts that no longer operate hospitals. Five of those districts report spending less than 25 percent of their revenue on direct services in their community.” [Pages 71-72.] • In analyzing the basis for property tax allocation, the Little Hoover Commission also stated: “Allocations of the one- percent property tax rate to special districts are based on policies adopted by the Legislature in the weeks following the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. At the time, remaining property tax revenues were allocated based on shares of the property tax that agencies received from 1975-1978. Those agencies that had levied the higher rates to provide enhanced services prior to the passage of the initiative captured and continue to receive higher 168 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report revenues. Agencies that levied lower or no taxes received lower or no revenues. The allocation formula, which cemented the differences in place, continues today. In 1997-98, special districts received 8.8 percent of property tax revenues. Independent special districts received $437 million in 1996-97 - $420.6 million was allocated to enterprise districts and $16.7-million to non- enterprise districts, such as park and recreation and library districts.” [ -69] • Classes at CHCD are run as “cost neutral,” which was explained to mean at no cost to the district. At a minimum, a nominal fee is charged for almost all classes and services offered by the district.
F4:
CHCD leases office space at 3639 East Las Posas Road, but it also owns and continues to buy additional properties at this location. It currently owns 9,000 square feet at this site. The District’s investment in property is reflected in its decline in interest on investments from 1998 to 1999. [See Finding #3.] • According to the 1998-99 Independent Audit, the District subleased to Hospice of the Canyon/June Ebensteiner Foundation a portion of the Las Posas Road facility at an annual rent payment of $6,840 as of June 30, 1998. The lease and sublease were terminated in September of 1998 when the now defunct for profit Hospice of the Canyon ran into financial difficulty. Throughout this period the not-for-profit Hospice of Camarillo served the community. • Other agencies provide many of the services offered by CHCD, with CHCD serving as the landlord and providing the facilities, e.g., the once-per-month immunization clinic and Hospice counseling.
F5:
A search of Healthy Attitudes for March-April and May-June found only the following medical services offered on a regular basis with most of them charging fees: • Shots for Kids offered on the second Tuesday of each month with funding from Catholic Health Care West and Ventura County Public Health. An appointment is necessary through St. John’s Regional Medical Center. Cost is $5 per child with a family maximum of $15. • Adult immunizations are offered through St. John’s and Ventura County Public Health. Tetanus/diphtheria boosters and first mumps, measles and rubella 169 Final Report 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury immunizations are $5; other adult immunizations are $30. • TB tests are available with an appointment for a $5 fee on the second Tuesday of each month from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. through St. John’s. • Blood pressure screening and consultations are available with an appointment through the staff nurse. Donations are accepted. • Blood sugar testing is done by appointment with the staff nurse for a $5 fee. • CHCD provides testing kits for colon cancer screening for a $3 fee. This program is conducted in cooperation with the Ventura County Gastroenterology Physicians. • Alcohol screening is a free service in conjunction with the National Screening Program. • Cholesterol screening is done by appointment with the staff nurse for an $8 fee.
F6:
CHCD offers some “scholarship” aid for those who qualify.
F7:
Various screenings are offered on a one-time basis, frequently by individuals or organizations soliciting business. Those found in the monthly offerings for March through June 2000 were: • Eye, glaucoma, and diabetic screening offered, with an appointment from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. for a $5 fee. • Foot Screening Clinic offered, with an appointment from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. for a $5 fee. • Skin Cancer Screening Clinic, with an appointment from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for a $5 fee. • Respiratory Screening through American, offered from 9:00 a.m. to noon with a $5 fee. • Osteoporosis Screening Bone Density Scan, offered by the California Osteoporosis Institute from 9:00 a.m. to noon for a $30 fee.
F8:
CHCD offers many alternative treatment classes such as Swedish Massage ($45 for one-hour session), Reflexology ($20 for 30 minute session), and Reiki – An Ancient Healing Art ($140 for two-day workshop).
F9:
The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District also offers 170 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report many services that duplicate those offered by the CHCD. • Many classes and services offered by CHCD are also offered by Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District, e.g., blood pressure testing, diabetes counseling, health insurance counseling, exercise classes, and Grey Law consultations. • Many CHCD for-fee classes were also available through Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District at comparable prices. These included Yoga classes, weight control and nutrition. • Club Camarillo is an elder day care program, although open to those over 18 years. The Club is an approved facility and serves a number of clients with Alzheimer’s. The cost is $36.75 per day, which includes lunch. The County does not offer care for Alzheimer’s patients. • Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District offers a Senior Center on Monday-Friday from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. and Saturday from 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. with drop-in activities such as billiards, cards, table games and music at no cost. • In 1999, CHCD helped in founding the Camarillo Public Agencies Council created to negate duplication of efforts by various agencies. The Council, made up of representatives from the City of Camarillo, Camrosa Water District, Pleasant Valley School District, Oxnard Union High School District and Pleasant Valley Recreation and Parks District, meets annually to consider a topic. The topic of its May 2000 second annual meeting is Disaster Response Collaboration.
F10:
CHCD is working to expand its sphere of influence and tax base. It recently annexed into its district the California State University Channel Islands (CSUCI) site and is preparing to annex additional property in the near future, including portions of the Santa Rosa Valley and the Sterling Hills Development. When asked about annexation of the CSUCI site, the CEO indicated that CHCD is working with the County to place a clinic for the citizens of Camarillo at that location. When questioned, County officials knew of no proposed clinic for Camarillo.
F11:
CHCD’s Care-A-Van Program offers door-to-door transportation service for individuals unable to use a fixed- route bus service and non-emergency transportation to medical appointments from the West San Fernando Valley to Ventura. The program is partially funded through the 171 Final Report 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Ventura County Transportation Commission and in addition a fare is charged each way, ranging from $3.50 ($7.00 R/T) to anywhere in Camarillo to $9.00 to West San Fernando Valley ($18.00 R/T). Transportation is available Monday through Friday by appointment.
F12:
CHCD offers for-fee short-term counseling for depressions, loss, and transitional life changes by appointment, but does not offer comprehensive behavioral health services.
F13:
An Administrative Community Leaders Advisory Panel was established by the CHCD in 1995 to serve “as a rich resource in determining the health and wellness needs of District residents.” • The Panel of 69 includes six MD’s, one optometrist, two dentists, one RN, one retired psychiatrist, and three psychologists among its 69 members. • Many of the members of the Panel are prominent county residents, but are not residents of Camarillo. Conclusions C-1 Camarillo’s need for a “safety net” of low cost medical and mental health services for all ages is not met by the CHCD or the County. It would be ineffective to pursue a County medical clinic for Camarillo located at the California State University, Channel Islands site, because of problems of accessibility for Camarillo’s citizens including inconvenient and expensive transportation from Camarillo. C-2 When Pleasant Valley Hospital was sold, the PVHD was dissolved and CHCD was created. LAFCO did not conduct a study to determine if the Pleasant Valley Hospital District should continue to exist as the Camarillo Health Care District. However, a LAFCO official made reference to the CHCD as an example of a district that should have been dissolved. C-3 The CHCD has outgrown its original mission of health care for the senior population of the local area and has expanded its mission to “womb to tomb” care. Its present mission statement is ambiguous. No study has been conducted to date by the CHCD or the County to determine the medical and mental health care needs of Camarillo’s citizens. C-4 As an enterprise district which charges fees and collects property tax revenues, CHCD will continue to amass capital, 172 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report allowing the District to acquire more property. This capital accumulation has the following effects upon the District’s constituents: 1. Property tax revenue is used to buy real estate. 2. Real estate purchased is taken off the property tax rolls. 3. Fees are charged for most services. C-5 There is duplication of many services by the CHCD and other agencies. • Duplication of tax- supported services, such as those of CHCD and Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District, continues to exist. • It may be more cost- effective for taxpayers to have one district providing all combined services. C-6 Medical professionals are underrepresented on the CHCD staff and Administrative Community Leaders Advisory Panel. Of the 11 full time employees of the District, only one is a medical professional. Currently listed as serving on the panel are 14 medical professionals out of 69 members. This large number of non-medical professionals results in the large percent of alternative treatment programs offered by the District. C-7 The Administrative Community Leaders Advisory Panel includes many members who are not constituents of the CHCD. These members are not aware of the unique needs of the Camarillo community. C-8 By the 1975-1978 formula created after Proposition 13 to allocate one percent of property taxes, enterprise special districts such as CHCD deprive other districts, e.g., libraries, which cannot charge fees, of vital tax receipts. Recommendations
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
LAFCO should conduct a study and make a recommendation regarding the viability of CHCD as a health care district without a hospital or medical clinics. If dissolution is called for, this should be clearly and publicly stated, and the process initiated.
R2:
A study should be conducted to determine Camarillo 173 Final Report 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury residents’ health care needs and what County entity can provide these services most efficiently and cost effectively. Camarillo should be provided with “safety net “ medical and behavioral health care. Subsequently, the mission of the CHCD should be modified to be more specific, reflecting the results of this study.
R3:
A study should be conducted to assess the benefits of merging districts with similar services, e.g., CHCD and Pleasant Valley Recreation and Parks District. This may result in savings from elimination of elected board stipends, benefits, overhead expenses, etc.
R4:
An independent financial audit and analysis of the CHCD should be conducted.
R5:
Medically trained professionals should have a much larger presence on the CHCD staff and in determining District offerings.
R6:
Until low cost medical and behavioral health care services are offered in Camarillo, convenient transportation should be offered to neighboring County clinics without charge or for a nominal fee. The CHCD, the County, or both should underwrite transportation.
R7:
Inasmuch as the CHCD is showing a surplus each year, consideration should be given to reducing or eliminating the tax rate and reducing or eliminating the fees charged for services. The cost benefits to taxpayers of the CHCD acquiring real estate should also be reassessed. Responses Required Camarillo Health Care District R- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 Ventura County Health Care Agency R- 2 and 6 LAFCO R- 1, 2, 3 and 7 174
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Fees associated with Work Furlough participation are: a. Board Fee $48.00/day b.Screening Fee $19.00 one-time charge c. Administration Fee $39.00 one-time charge d.Booking Fee $35.00 one-time charge paid to Sheriff
F2:
Fees are recommended by the Probation Department and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
Board fees collected in September 1999 totaled $79,406.04.
F4:
The average daily work furlough population in the month of September 1999 was 160 inmates.
F5:
Approximately 70 inmates included in the September popula- tion were in the following non-paying categories: a. Stages (Alcohol/Drug recovery for a minimum of 6 weeks.) b. Look For Work Program (unemployed inmates who are al- lowed to seek employment three days each week and perform work in the Work Release program three days per week.) c. Janitor 192 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Figure 1. Financial Statement Form (side 1) 193 Final Report 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Figure 1. Financial Statement Form (side 2) 194 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Intake Process for Work Furlough Inmates – September 1999
F6:
At the time of the Grand Jury visit, the intake process which determined the fee assessed for participation in the Work Furlough Program was described as follows: • The inmate was asked to provide a pay stub and, if the amount indicated was sufficient in the judgment of the intake employee, the $48.00 fee was assessed. • If an inmate requested an appeal, he/she filled out a Finan- cial Statement. (See Figure 1) • The means test was described as a loose sliding scale. • There were no written guidelines or procedures in place. • None of the intake documents gave notice to the inmate that an appeals process was available. Staff stated that procedures for fee assessment had been de- layed because of work required to get a new computer system up and running.
F7:
In response to our request for clarification, the Probation Department’s letter (November 16, 1999) provided a sliding scale (see Figure 2) and stated that during the month of Sep- tember 1999 the 88 new inmates were given an automatic means test. Rates shown in first two columns are assumed to be hourly dollar amounts. FROM TO DAILY CHARGE 5.75 6.75 14.25 6.76 8.50 18.00 8.51 10.25 21.75 10.26 12.00 25.50 12.01 13.75 29.25 13.76 15.50 33.00 15.51 17.25 36.75 17.26 19.00 40.50 19.01 20.75 44.25 20.76 48.00 Figure 2. Ventura County Probation Agency Work Furlough Program - Sliding scale for fiscal year 1999-2000 195 Final Report 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Conclusions C-1 The Work Furlough Program serves both the inmate partici- pants and the County of Ventura. C-2 Ventura County Probation Department response to Grand Jury questions, dated November 16, l999, indicates that procedures and forms are now in place to provide means testing assistance to English speaking, non-English speaking and illiterate inmates. C-3 The response from Ventura County Probation Department dated November 16, l999, indicates appropriate changes have been made in the procedures used to assess “ability to pay” and assign fees for Work Furlough participants: “Although we believe the sliding scale in combination with the inmates being able to request a financial evaluation addresses the ‘ability to pay’ requirement set forth in the Penal Code, we have recently assessed this practice and decided to implement a new methodology for determining the ‘ability to pay’ by an individual in the program. This new rate determination meth- odology involves the sending of three (3) forms (copies at- tached—English and Spanish) to participants accepted to the Work Furlough Program prior to their arrival. These forms are: 1) Instructions for Financial Evaluation; 2) Financial Statement; and 3) Authorization to Release Information/Authorization To Disclose Information to a Governmental Agency. The evalua- tion of this information in combination with the credit reports we will run, will allow us to better assess that individual’s total household income and their total household expenses. The overall results will be a rate determination that is reflective of that individual’s “ability to pay.” The full implementation of this new methodology will coincide with the implementation of our new computer system on November 1, l999.” Recommendations The Ventura County Grand Jury recommends:
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
That the Ventura County Probation Department monitor the financial means assessment and the process of appeal of those assessments to ensure compliance with the Penal Code;
R2:
That Probation Department Work Furlough Program Policy and Procedure Manual reflect these changes and that those policies and procedures be available for review by any citizen; 196 1999-2000 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report
R3:
That the Senior Accountant, Probation Department, be charged with the task of internal oversight and that such oversight include an annual compliance review;
R4:
That any increase in fees, approved by the Board of Supervi- sors and assessed to inmates participating in the Work Fur- lough Program, be part of the annual budget review process and that any increase in fees accurately reflect costs to the county for the participating inmates. Commendation Work Furlough staff interviewed by the Grand Jury were profes- sional county employees interested to having the proper tools to do their job well. We commend them for their open response to the concerns of the Grand Jury. The response of the Probation Department was to review current procedures and forms and improve them. We commend them for the timeliness and completeness of their response. Responses Required By Chief Administrative Officer (R-4) Director/Chief Probation Officer (R-1, R-2, R-3) 197 Final Report
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports, not grand jury reports or responses.