Gran Jurado del Condado de Ventura

2001-2002

16 informes

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 9 hallazgos
F1: All but one facility had an outside telephone connected to dispatch. Dis- patch may or may not be on-site.
F2: Only four of the ten offi ces visited had unlocked access to the lobby after hours.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: All law enforcement facilities should provide a safe haven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (C-1 through C-5)
R3: If unmanned and/or locked, a protected area such as access to the lobby and/or a loud, widely heard alarm system should be available and clearly marked at all facilities. (C-5)
F3: Three of ten offi ces were described as “hard to fi nd” by inspecting jurors.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: All law enforcement facilities should provide a safe haven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (C-1 through C-5)
R2: All law enforcement facilities should be easy to fi nd, clearly identifi able and well lit. (C-2)
F4: Six of ten had adequate to good lighting in the parking lot and at the entrance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: All law enforcement facilities should provide a safe haven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (C-1 through C-5)
R2: All law enforcement facilities should be easy to fi nd, clearly identifi able and well lit. (C-2)
F5: Three of ten could guarantee that a uniformed offi cer was on site at all times.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: All law enforcement facilities should provide a safe haven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (C-1 through C-5)
F6: Four of ten offi ces had no personnel on site after hours.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: All law enforcement facilities should provide a safe haven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (C-1 through C-5)
F7: Five of ten offi ces had 24-hour monitored and working cameras in the lob- bies, at entrances and in parking lots.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: All law enforcement facilities should provide a safe haven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (C-1 through C-5)
F8: No facility provided a protected environment or alarm system at the out- side telephone.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: All law enforcement facilities should provide a safe haven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (C-1 through C-5)
R3: If unmanned and/or locked, a protected area such as access to the lobby and/or a loud, widely heard alarm system should be available and clearly marked at all facilities. (C-5)
F9: Only one of the ten offi ces had personnel stationed within sight of the front door. Law, Justice & Public Safety 5-1 Conclusions (Also See Table 1) C-1. The majority of the law enforcement facilities in Ventura County are inac- cessible after usual business hours. (F-2) C-2. Some facilities are hard to fi nd and poorly lit. (F-3, F-4) C-3. Most facilities have no uniformed offi cers scheduled to be within the facil- ity after hours. (F-5) C-4. The locked, unmanned sites do not have 24-hour monitored camera sur- veillance of the outside area. (F-7) C-5. Locked and unmanned law enforcement facilities provide no safe haven. (F-8) Recommendations
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R4: Written procedures and policies should be in place to address minimal response time to calls for help at all facilities. (C-5) Reponses Required City Managers: (R-1 through R-4) Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark Ojai Oxnard Port Hueneme Santa Paula Simi Valley Thousand Oaks Ventura Police Departments of: (R-1 through R-4) Oxnard Port Hueneme Santa Paula Simi Valley Ventura Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-1 through R-4) Ventura County Sheriff (R-1 through R-4) Table 1 - After Hours Law Enforcement Facilities Visited CITY ENFORCEMENT ACCESS PHONE CAMERA LIGHTING MANNED OTHER Not moni- tored after business Camarillo Ventura Co. Sheriff LL Yes * PL, L, P Good No hours Fillmore Ventura Co. Sheriff LL Yes No Good No Hard to Moorpark Ventura Co. Sheriff LL Yes No Poor No fi nd Hard to Ojai Ventura Co. Sheriff LL Yes No Poor No fi nd Inad- equate Oxnard Oxnard P.D. LO Yes PL, L, P Good D Sign Dispatch within sight of front door Port Hueneme Pt Hueneme P.D. LO No* No Good U, D 24/7. Santa Paula Santa Paula P.D. LL Yes PL, L, P Good D Simi Valley Simi Valley P.D. LO Yes PL, L, P Good U, D Thousand Oaks Ventura Co. Sheriff LO Yes PL, L, P Good U, D Not Hard To Ventura Ventura P.D. LO Yes Working Poor D Find Legend: Co. - County LO - lobby open Camera On: U - uniformed PD - Police Department LL -lobby locked L - lobby D - dispatch PL -parking lot P - phone Response 1 - City of Port Hueneme Response 2 - City of Simi Valley Response 2 - City of Simi Valley (continued)

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos
F1: Ventura County has not been incarcerating §601 contempt cases and Juve- nile Judges have not been committing §601 contemnors for incarceration because Ventura County could not provide facilities to separate §601s from §602s.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: §601 incarceration should be used sparingly and with the utmost sensitiv- ity; however in a worst-case scenario and as a deterrent, the new Juvenile Justice Complex must be available to incarcerate contempt §601 minors as required. (C-1)
F2: In 1976 the juvenile law changed, requiring separation of §601 offenders from §602 offenders. As a result, the juvenile court stopped incarceration of §601 cases due to lack of space. The Probation Agency does provide services to these youth and families at the Youth Services level but does not have formal programs or staff allocated for this group as they do with delinquent offenders.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: §601 incarceration should be used sparingly and with the utmost sensitiv- ity; however in a worst-case scenario and as a deterrent, the new Juvenile Justice Complex must be available to incarcerate contempt §601 minors as required. (C-1)
R2: The Probation Agency needs to assign more personnel to deal with §601 juveniles. (C-2)
F3: The Probation Agency Director has indicated that when the new Juvenile Justice Center is completed, it will be possible to meet the legal require- ments to incarcerate §601 contempt offenders for short periods of time.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: §601 incarceration should be used sparingly and with the utmost sensitiv- ity; however in a worst-case scenario and as a deterrent, the new Juvenile Justice Complex must be available to incarcerate contempt §601 minors as required. (C-1)
F4: The number of §601 youth with mental health problems is a major factor. The Probation Agency Director stated that his department was recently pro- vided with funding from the Board of Supervisors to increase mental health services. The agency hired a psychologist and has a contract with a psy- chiatrist to assess cases, but cooperation and participation with the Ventura County Behavioral Health Department is required.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The Behavioral Health Department and the Probation Agency must cooper- ate to solve the mental health aspects for at-risk youth. (C-3)
F5: The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) has responsibility for set- ting juvenile policy and standards throughout Ventura County. The presid- ing Juvenile Judge and the Probation Agency Director are chairs of this committee. The JJCC includes the District Attorney, Sheriff, Public Defender, Human Services Agency Director, the Director of Behavioral Health Department, a representative from City Impact, Chief Executive Offi cer, a representative from the Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, two members of the Board of Supervisors, Chief of the Oxnard Police Department, a member of the Public Health Services, a representative of the ACTION organization, citizen representative of the Juvenile Justice/ Delinquency Prevention Commission and the Ventura County Superinten- dent of Schools.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Utilize the JJCC group to establish a countywide agency approach to han- dling at-risk youth. (C-4)
F6: The Human Services Agency provides Youth Services that coordinate educational and job search opportunities for young people. These feature individualized programs for participants working with police, probation and the schools. This agency has many programs for at-risk youth in the community, some voluntary and some mandated as terms of probation.
F7: The Self-Help Legal Access Center established a Teen Court as a compo- nent of the Juvenile Justice System. The purpose of Teen Court is to direct minors who have not yet entered the Juvenile Justice System away from formal court while holding them accountable for their actions before a jury of their peers. Teen Court suffered last year because it was not receiving referrals from the Probation Agency.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Continue the Teen Court program as an early intervention program. (C-6) Responses Required Ventura County Probation Agency (R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-6) Ventura County Behavioral Health Department (R-3) Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (R-4) Ventura County Sheriff (R-5) Police Departments of: (R-5) Oxnard Port Hueneme Santa Paula Simi Valley Ventura Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-5)
F8: A deputy district attorney, involved in truancy problems and handling at- risk minors, has related the seriousness of not having contempt §601 beds available and the necessity for them in the new Juvenile Justice Complex when it will be possible to separate §601 from §602 cases.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: §601 incarceration should be used sparingly and with the utmost sensitiv- ity; however in a worst-case scenario and as a deterrent, the new Juvenile Justice Complex must be available to incarcerate contempt §601 minors as required. (C-1)
F9: Following is a partial list of programs for at-risk youth with truancy prob- lems in Ventura County: 1. The School Attendance Review Board (SARB), along with the District Attorney’s Offi ce and Probation Agency, is a community and countywide program to address severe student attendance problems. 2. The Oxnard Police Department’s award winning Student Truancy Offender Program (STOP) is a program designed to keep kids in school, promote education and reduce the opportunity for them to become victimized or engaged in criminal acts. Juveniles are processed there and their parents are notifi ed, counseling services may be used, and the SARB and District Attorney’s offi ce for truancy mediation may be uti- lized. 3. The Truancy Habits Reduced Increases Vital Education (THRIVE) pro- gram works with SARB and conducts monthly mediations, participates in teaching truancy classes, coordinates with CalWORKs, formerly known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, incorporates job placement and vocational training services into SARBs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Institute a protocol program by law enforcement like VIDA countywide so all at-risk youth have the same type of program available. (C-5)
F10: Following is a list of what other counties in California are doing to try and prevent §601 offenders from becoming §602 offenders: 1. San Diego County has §601 space in their Juvenile Hall and uses the contempt proceedings for weekend custody. They also have paralegals monitoring student school attendance. They think it is important to at least have a credible threat of incarceration to get compliance. Final Report . Santa Barbara County’s District Attorney’s offi ce and Juvenile Probation are concerned about §601 wards that are not in compliance with court orders. Their Juvenile Court has the authority to secure non-school hours confi nement of a minor previously made a ward of the court under §601 if they are later found in contempt of court. These minors are detained at Juvenile Hall and do not have contact with §602 wards. 3. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department does not incarcerate §601 contempt cases, but their VIDA program deals with at-risk youth. This program is a structured sixteen-week non-custody youth intervention program, which is specifi cally designed to assist at-risk youth between 11 and 17 ½ years of age and their families. VIDA, overseen by law enforcement personnel, covers community service, physical train- ing, behavior modifi cation, career guidance, counseling the youth and parent(s), and drug and alcohol testing. The Grand Jury requested and received a power-point presentation about the program and visited the training area in Malibu Hills to observe that local “boot camp” portion and lecture. Grand Jury members also attended the ceremony in East Los Angeles for VIDA graduates from all of Los Angeles County. Conclusions C-1. It is imperative that the Juvenile Justice System be able to incarcerate Ventura County §601 contempt cases in the new Juvenile Justice Complex scheduled to open in 2003. (F-1) C-2. The Probation Agency needs more personnel assigned to adapt formal programs and staff to §601 juveniles. (F-2) C-3. In order to focus on the mental health aspect for at-risk youth, the Proba- tion Agency, Human Services Agency and Behavioral Health Department must coordinate and cooperate in their efforts. (F-4) C-4. The County needs to coordinate and utilize its resources cooperatively among all County agencies. The JJCC is an organization that coordinates and utilizes the resources of all agencies in the County. They are excel- lent in establishing effective programs for at-risk juveniles because of the variety and position of individuals belonging to the organization and their theme of juvenile justice. (F-5) C-5. Ventura County has at-risk youth programs in different communities in the County but there are none such as VIDA for a countywide effort. It is important that a solution for at-risk youth for the whole county be devel- oped. A “boot camp” and counseling program like VIDA is an outstanding way to accomplish this solution. (F-10, #3) C-6. The Teen Court is an underutilized, effective early intervention program. (F-7) Recommendations
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 12 hallazgos
F1: According to American Heart Association statistics, cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in United States. There are over 480,000 deaths each year from heart attacks and the complications from those heart attacks. Over half, or 250,000, of those are from Sudden Cardiac Death. There are more victims of Sudden Cardiac Death than there are of lung cancer, breast cancer and AIDS combined.
F2: Sudden Cardiac Death typically occurs within the fi rst one to two hours following a heart attack, before the victim arrives at a hospital. Sudden Cardiac Death, in most adult victims, is from ventricular fi brillation. Ven- tricular fi brillation is a chaotic quivering of the heart muscle, which ren- ders the pumping action of the heart useless.
F3: Children and teenagers can also be stricken with life threatening and life ending disruptions of cardiac rhythm. Though the AED is not recom- mended for use on young children, there are AED units on high school campuses throughout the country. They are on stand-by for use on campus and at sporting event locations in the event they may be needed for these adult sized young people. Health, Education and Welfare 3-1 Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury
F4: The only treatment for ventricular fi brillation is an administered shock called defi brillation. American Heart Association studies show Car- diopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), prompt defi brillation and timely transport to a hospital setting greatly increase the chance of survival. For each minute that defi brillation is delayed, the chance of survival is reduced by 7-10%. Defi brillation administered within the fi rst fi ve minutes after the onset of ventricular fi brillation increases the chance of survival by 50%. The survival rate is enhanced further if CPR has been administered.
F5: American Heart Association studies have shown that the cost to the taxpayer and/or to third party payers for a survivor of Sudden Cardiac Death is less than the expenses incurred for the post operative treat- ment of a cardiac transplant patient or for the monies expended for individuals on most cholesterol lowering medications.
F6: There are AEDs available for as little as $2,700.00 per unit. Additional costs are incurred to maintain equipment and train qualifi ed operators.
F7: All acute care medical facilities within Ventura County are equipped with defi brillators, which are not AEDs. All paramedic units within this County are equipped with defi brillators, which are not AEDs. Most of those units require a knowledge and interpretation of cardiac rhythm and disturbances before they can be safely used.
F8: The AED uses computer technology to analyze the cardiac rhythm and tell the trained operator when to use the machine appropriately. Therefore, the layperson does not have to be knowledgeable of cardiac rhythm to defi brillate a victim of Sudden Cardiac Death.
F9: The City of Thousand Oaks has 12 AEDs in place throughout their com- munity and has trained over 120 employee-volunteers to operate the equipment. Their forward thinking program was initiated in 1999. To date one life has been saved. Their commitment is serious and thor- ough. Maintenance of the defi brillator equipment and continuing educa- tion of the operators is ongoing. Locations of the Thousand Oaks’ AEDs include the library, the senior citizens’ center, the city hall, the civic auditorium and Los Robles Golf Course.
F10: Leisure Village in Camarillo was one of the fi rst in the County to utilize AEDs. There are three defi brillator units at Leisure Village. Two are kept in the security vehicles that patrol the community; one is in the recreation center. Both security and recreation center staff are trained to use the equipment. It is the Grand Jury’s understanding that the AEDs at Leisure Village have been utilized many times since their introduction in 1998.
F11: There are an unknown number of AED units throughout the County at various business locations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: Initiate the widespread placement of AEDs and CPR trained operators throughout all county and city facilities where large numbers of people or ‘at risk’ citizens congregate. Locations for consideration would include city halls, courthouses, jails, auditoriums, libraries, senior citizens’ centers, high schools and golf courses, as well as units available for use at concerts, fairs and other large events.
R3: The city and county governing bodies initiate an incentive program which would encourage the purchase of AED units and the training of employees in their use at business locations throughout the County.
F12: In January 2002, the Ventura County Emergency Medical System received funding from the Tobacco Settlement Program to purchase 50 AED units and train personnel in the use of those units through- 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report out Ventura County. The Emergency Medical System is also attempting to identify all of the AED units located at private businesses in the County to insure proper training of operators and systematic maintenance of equip- ment. Conclusions C-1. The technology of today provides the ability to save lives. Thousands could be saved if AEDs and trained operators were available in facilities and areas where large numbers of people congregate. (F-1 through F-10) C-2. By having AEDs readily available and the AED operators additionally trained in CPR, precious minutes toward survival can be gained prior to the arrival of advanced life support providers (fi re, police personnel and paramedics) and precedent to emergency room treatment. (F-1 through F-10) C-3. Considering the potential benefi t to be derived from planned and wide- spread placement of AED units throughout the County, the cost of the defi - brillators is certainly reasonable; their value in terms of a human life saved is inestimable. (F-5, F-6) C-4. While there are some fi ne examples of recognizing the need for AEDs and of their utilization within Ventura County, there is a defi nite need for more units throughout the County. (F-9 through F-12) C-5. In the future, the liability to municipalities and certain ‘at risk’ locations for not having AEDs and trained AED operators could be a serious consider- ation. (F-1 through F-12) Recommendations
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Support the Ventura County Emergency Medical System’s attempt to coor- dinate the utilization and training required for the proper use of AEDs throughout the County.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: Offi ce Work Flow The workload within the offi ce is associated with three services: PA functions, LPS and Probate Conservatorships and Representative Payee activities. Figure 1 illus- trates work fl ow and role responsibilities of employees associated with each service. a. Public Administrator Decedents are identifi ed to the PA by numerous agencies which include hospitals, the County Medical Examiner-Coroner, the Human Services Agency (HSA) and the courts. The PA’s offi ce prepares court documentation and a court investigation is performed to establish control of the assets and the body of the decedent. Ventura County Counsel acts as the attorney representing the PA to the court. The Assistant PA (Head of the Division) makes the initial attempt to contact any family of the decedent. A Deputy PA takes control of the assets of the individual, performs an inventory and appraisal of all assets and converts them into Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury cash. The Probate Referee provides an assessment of the non-fi nancial assets in order to establish an initial appraisal of the value of the estate. Final bills are paid and burial is arranged. If there is no family (of the deceased), the remainder of the estate (if there is any) is then passed to the State of California. The PA offi ce’s legal clerk aids in the preparation of court documentation and a PA offi ce fi scal clerk (through the in- house computer system), tracks the fl ow of funds and prepares the necessary fi nancial documents. b. LPS and Probate Conservatorships Pre-conservatorship Activities: The many administrative activities associated with LPS and Probate conservatorships are similar. These are illustrated in Figure 1. Potential conservatorships are identifi ed by one of three LPS hospitals in the County: St. Johns, Community Memorial or Ventura County Mental Health Department’s In-Patient Facility. Recommendations for conservatorship may also come from the Ventura County HSA’s Adult Protective Services or the courts. An investigative report is prepared and presented to support the court decision to establish a conservatorship. The conservatee, who is typically resident in one of the three hospitals, is then transferred to an appropriate facility. This facility might be a nursing home, a convalescent hospital, an institution for the mentally disabled, a board and care facility or an independent living facility. These facilities are located throughout Southern California, though in one instance one conservatee was as far away as Colorado. The Assistant PG (Division Head) and the intake Deputy PG, supported by legal and fi scal clerks, have the primary role in establishing the documentation of the conservatorship. The cases are then transitioned to one of the other Deputy PGs. Probate Conservatorship Activities: The County Counsel represents the PG to the court and the Ventura County Public Defender represents the individual at a hearing to determine whether a conservatorship will be established. The court approves the establishment of the conservatorship and re-establishes the renewal or review of the conservatorship on either a one-year (LPS) or two-year (Probate) cycle. The primary responsibility for managing the conservatorship lies with the Deputy PGs. They perform the Initial Inventory and Appraisal (in conjunction with a Probate Referee). The deputy converts most of the non-fi nancial assets to cash, which are placed in an account in the County Treasury. Some fi nancial assets may be kept in original investment accounts unless they are needed to pay expenses. Personal items are placed in a County warehouse. Tracking of individual accounts is established in the PA/PG computer system which is maintained by the fi scal clerks. The Deputy PG approves all recurring and nonrecurring bills and County checks are printed by the PA/PG system. These checks 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report are then brought to the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce for signing. Income for individuals from Social Security and other sources is received and deposited (in the name of the conservatee) into County accounts. The Deputy PG, an HSA Community Service worker, Ventura County Behavioral Health and the residence facility all monitor the health and personal needs of the conservatee. Occasionally, due to health or behavioral changes in a conservatee, a change in placement of the individual to another facility is necessary. Either the Behavioral Health Department or the residence facility may initiate these changes. Such placement changes are approved by the deputy and reviewed by the court and the Public Defender. The Community Service worker ensures that the conservatee is physically present (if medically possible) at an annual or semi-annual conservatorship hearing. c. Representative Payee Accounts At the request of the Behavioral Health Department, the PG establishes a revenue collection and bill paying support process for individuals who can live independently but are not able to handle their fi nances. Once an account is established in the PA/PG computer system, the Behavioral Health case manager reviews and approves bills that are processed by the PA/PG fi scal personnel. d. Caseload A Deputy PA, four Deputy PGs and a person assigned by the HSA (to handle special cases), manage the caseload of the division. The caseload breakdown is illustrated in Table 1. Table 1. Caseload of the Public Administrator / Public Guardian WORKLOAD ELEMENT NUMBER OF DEPUTIES NUMBER OF CLIENTS Public Administrator 1 153 Public Guardian-Conservatorships 4 376 Assigned Human Services Agency Staff 1 18 Representative Payee accounts N/A 319
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: That the Public Administrator/Public Guardian create a standard for develop- ing and maintaining both electronic and paper case fi les. (C-1) Audit
F2: Audit Review a. An interim audit performed in 1991 by the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce identifi ed defi ciencies in the separation of duties, controls and accountability over deposit and disbursement vouchers and safeguards against unauthorized disbursements. b. The latest audit by the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce of the PA/PG was performed in 1992. The report noted an area for improvement was internal controls for cash receipts and disbursements. c. There is no record of any thorough audit by the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce of any individual conservatee account. Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Auditor-Controller should increase the frequency of reviews of the PA/ PG. (C-4, C-5)
F3: Information System review a. The PA/PG offi ce utilizes a stand-alone information system whose software is leased from a private commercial business. It consists of a number of COBOL programs that run on a County-owned server. Modifi cation and maintenance of the software is performed by the commercial business as part of the lease. b. This system accepts billing and income data, prints checks and generates reports. Check data are passed to the County fi nancial management system as an interface mechanism using a single, miscellaneous vendor code. Due to the single, miscellaneous vendor code used by this interface, there is no practical way of cross checking accounts for duplicate payments to vendors. c. The PA/PG system is completely independent of the County fi nancial system, and its disbursements do not require the same approvals from the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce as other vendor payments require. d. There is no mechanism within the PA/PG system to check for duplicate payments. The County fi nancial system does have the capability to check for duplicate payments, but this function is not used in the PA/PG interface. e. Documentation of the system consists of a single binder which provides a description of the structure of the system and identifi es canned screens and reports. Detailed desk procedures are not included with the system documentation. f. The County person most knowledgeable in the operation of this system is a former employee who now works in another area. There is no one with special skills in data administration or systems administration currently assigned to the PA/PG Division. g. The software contractor is the defacto system administrator and has complete password authority over the PA/PG system. h. The small staff and heavy caseload preclude the development of other than a rudimentary knowledge of this computer system. i. The total of payments processed by the PA/PG system is illustrated in Table 2. j. There are several databases or fi le systems related to the conservatorship programs. In each of the database fi les surveyed there was resident information that was not current. 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Table 2. Yearly Volume of Payments YEAR AMOUNT COMMENTS 1999 $9,844,742.97 2000 $12,148,809.73 2001 $13,440,058.91 2002 $12,678,848.86 As of 04/05/02 (3/4 fi scal year)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The Auditor-Controller should perform detailed reviews of individual conser- vatee accounts. (C-4)
F4: Property Review a. Personal belongings of nine out of the ten cases sampled were found in the locations as indicated in the “Warehouse Storage Log.” The belongings (identifi ed as “misc. pers. prop.”) of one conservatee were not found. b. Personal belongings of an additional nine individuals not listed on the “Warehouse Storage Log” were found in various locations. Two of these nine were part of the Grand Jury’s sample of thirty-seven cases being reviewed. Four of these nine were not listed on either the PG’s Conservator or PA’s Trust Fund listings. c. Personal belongings of conservatees stored in the same storage containers were segregated and not co-mingled with other conservatees’ personal property. d. One shotgun listed as being located in the warehouse safe was visually verifi ed in that location. e. Several pieces of miscellaneous jewelry belonging to one conservatee were annotated on the “Warehouse Storage Log” as being stored in the Administration Building large safe. The jewelry was not in the safe. Grand Jury members and the assigned Deputy PG reviewed the case fi le. There was documentation in the case fi le to indicate that the jewelry had been released to an ex-spouse. f. Photographs were not taken to show the condition of the property when received or any items of value that needed to be stored in County safes or the warehouse. g. There is no evidence to indicate that at least two County employees were present when personal property was acquired from a conservatee. h. Four procedural documents for warehouse storage and accounting were reviewed: 1. Assistant Public Administrator/Public Guardian Memo of 10 April 1979 2. Assistant Public Administrator/Public Guardian Memo of 19 April 1979 3. Assistant Public Administrator/Public Guardian Procedure of 2 July 1991 4. Assistant Public Administrator/Public Guardian Procedure of 3 February 1993 Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury The fi rst two memos contained very explicit instructions for handling of estate property and warehouse duties. At the time the documents were issued there was one individual solely responsible for the warehouse operations. Apparently, due to staff reductions, this responsibility was eventually distributed to all the deputies. The documents cited as 3 and 4 added new forms for ”Warehouse Storage and Removal” and “Inventory and Auction Recap” sheets for clients with estates. It was not clear whether these later documents elaborated on or superceded the former procedures.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Auditor-Controller should have approval authority over the PA/ PG inventory procedures to ensure accountability for conservatees’ property. (C-6) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Information System
F5: Workload Comparison a. The median LPS and Probate conservatorship caseload per PG Deputy for a representative twenty-two California Counties was fi fty-fi ve cases per Deputy. In Ventura County the average LPS and Probate conservatorship caseload is ninety-four cases per PG Deputy. b. The median number of assigned PA/PG employees per 100,000 population for the twenty-two counties in the survey was 3.6 employees per 100,000 population. Ventura County has assigned 1.5 employees per 100,000 population. c. Other counties perform the PA/PG function using different organizational approaches, and the sample size is too small to warrant an attempt at a more complete statistical analysis.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Vendor and conservatee accounts should be maintained on the County fi nancial system in order to allow checking for duplicate payments and identifi cation of anomalies in conservatee accounts. (C-9)
F6: Account Review Document Review: a. During the review of the thirty-seven case fi les selected from a PG/ Conservator, dated 09/24/01, it was discovered that three of the conservatees were deceased. The dates of death were ten months, fi ve months and four months prior to the date of the report. One person died during the case review. b. Several duplicate payments for a variety of services were discovered during the case fi le review. All were the result of vendors’ duplicate billing invoices. The documentation in the fi les indicated that for all except one of the duplicate payments either the County (in discovering the error) had cancelled the duplicate checks, or the vendor (in discovering the error) had simply returned the overpayment to the County. c. In the sample cases, the County used two different fi rms for tax return preparation. Each fi rm was used about equally. Only fourteen of the thirty-seven conservatees required a tax return because of the value of their estates, incomes or investments. The accuracy of the tax returns was not reviewed. There was a drastic difference in the appearance of the tax returns submitted by the two tax preparers. One set of returns was hand annotated, while the other was neatly and orderly prepared on a computer. The fees charged by the service with a professional 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report appearance were about half that of the fees of the one whose work was hand written. d. In two of the sample cases, duplicate tax returns were prepared for the same year by different tax return preparers. e. One of the conservatees owned a home when he came under the conservatorship of the PG. There was no documentation in the case fi le regarding any home furnishings. The house was sold six months after the conservatorship was established. The Court- required “Inventory and Appraisal” was submitted three months late. There was a paid invoice in the fi le indicating that a locksmith had been employed to open four safes belonging to the conservatee. It was determined that the locksmith did drill open four safes at the County warehouse. There was nothing in the case fi le to indicate the contents of the safes, the disposition of the safes or who was present when the safes were opened. f. One of the conservatees was receiving a substantial bi-weekly payroll check from his employer based on accrued sick and annual leave. Without notifi cation this bi-weekly amount had been reduced by nearly 50 percent in August 2001 (prior to the Grand Jury noticing the discrepancy in December 2001). There was no evidence in the case fi le that the employer had been contacted to question the sudden large pay reduction. A pay stub that was received from the employer showed that the employer had been given no change of address for the conservatee, though the individual had been under Conservatorship for eleven months. The Grand Jury contacted the conservatee’s supervisor to determine why the pay reduction had occurred. The Grand Jury learned that an error in the employer’s Payroll Department had brought about the incorrect reduction in pay to the conservatee. Subsequently, the mistake was rectifi ed and a check for the missing sick leave pay was deposited to the conservatee account. g. Each conservatee has at least two case folders containing documentation pertaining to their individual background, court documentation, history of paid invoices, copies of correspondence relating to all sources of income and a record of conversations held with the conservatee or about the conservatee. In the review of sample cases, it was noted that some folders contained a very comprehensive chronology of conversations held, and that in other case fi les the chronology appeared incomplete, not documented or there were very few telephone conversations on behalf of the conservatee. h. There were very few documents in the sample case reviews refl ecting accountability for the personal belongings and home furnishing of the clients. Although many of the conservatees are homeless and penniless, some conservatees have substantial investment assets as well as real property. Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury i. There was no photographic evidence of valuable belongings (i.e. jewelry, weapons) in the conservatees’ fi les or a signature trail identifying who took original possession of the property. Visits to Conservatees: j. Grand Jury members visited twenty-four of the thirty-seven conservatees selected for review at their place of residence. Two were at separate independent living locations in the County and the remainder were at various facilities in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. Nine were not personally visited because of scheduling diffi culties or because they were located at distant facilities. k. Only three of the facilities visited challenged Grand Jury members when they asked to review patient records. l. Most of the facilities were clean and the staff appeared to be conscientious in their care of and concern for their patients. Generally, the Board and Care facilities were older and some were showing wear and tear. m. At a facility located outside of Ventura County, the odor of cigarette smoke was detected by the Grand Jury members. At the same facility, a staff member was seen eating lunch in view of the patients and when asked by a patient when lunch would be served, the patient was told it would be served in half an hour. n. The Grand Jury was provided a “Placement List” dated 12/27/01 which listed conservatees and probate case clients by health care facility in which they were located. Three out of the sample of thirty-seven were not listed on the “Placement List”, and their location had to be ascertained from another database fi le or from the case fi les. o. The staff at the facilities contacted in Los Angeles County indicated that most contact by the PG Deputies was by telephone rather than on-site visits. p. A fourteen-year-old conservatee was transferred from a Ventura County facility to a facility in Colorado without the knowledge or approval of the PG. Conclusions General Offi ce C -1 The Public Administrator/Public Guardian is performing adequately in the guardianship of the persons under care, but due to an excessive workload, there are defi ciencies in the record keeping and procedures associated with the guardianship of the estate of the persons under care. (F-1d, Table 1, F- 3b, F-3h) C-2 Public Administrator and Public Guardian functions share similar duties for Inventory and Appraisal and property management. (F-1, Figure 1) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report C-3 Due to the large caseload for each deputy, individual attention to each of the conservatees is limited. Contact with some conservatees is by phone in many instances rather than face-to-face. This is especially the case with conservatees domiciled outside of the County of Ventura. This limitation precludes a quick response in identifi cation of defi ciencies in institutional care. (F-6m, F-6o) Audit Issues C-4 There is an excessive time between reviews by the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce of the Public Guardian/Public Administrator. (F-2a, F-2b) C-5 Defi ciencies in internal controls exist within the Public Guardian’s Offi ce. (F-3d) C-6 The procedures for controlling the property of conservatees do not estab- lish proper controls, neither do they provide for an adequate audit trail. (F-4g, F-4h) Information System C-7 The staff is inadequately trained on the computer system. It appears that there is neither suffi cient training materials nor time for staff to develop an intricate knowledge of the computer system because of workload. (F-3e,
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Because the PA/PG system is a fi nancial system, the Auditor-Controller should take the responsibility for system administration, data administration and overall change management of this system. (C-8)
Recomendaciones adicionales 6

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R7: A software interface should be developed between the PA/PG system and the County fi nancial system to allow payment of checks by the County fi nan- cial system and the automated crosscheck of transactions. (C-8)
R8: Training should be funded and implemented immediately for both PA/PG and Auditor-Controller personnel in the administration and operation of this system. (C-7) Property
R9: A standard set of procedures needs to be published for two-person accountability for conservatees’ personal property. This standard procedure must be enacted immediately upon the PG or PA’s initial assumption of possession of the property and its subsequent storage in the County Ware- house. Such procedures should be approved by the Auditor-Controller. (C- 2, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13)
R10: Photographic evidence of the condition of personal property or items of value needs to be included in the case fi les for each conservatee. (C-6, C-12) Workload
R11: Additional personnel should be assigned to the Public Guardian to address an excessive and increasing caseload. (C-1, C-3, C-14, C-18) Conservatee Visits
R12: The Public Guardian should prepare and implement a monthly schedule of visits to all facilities for face-to-face meetings with conservatee patients to ensure that the patients are being treated appropriately and are in a healthy environment. (C-16, C-17, C-18) Responses Required Ventura County Chief Executive Offi cer: R-4, R-6, R-9, R-11 Ventura County Auditor-Controller: R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9 Ventura County Public Administrator/Public Guardian: R-1, R-8, R-9, R-10,
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 14 hallazgos
F1: A review of the public school districts in Ventura County shows an average attendance rate of approximately 95%, and the school districts have pro- grams to improve these fi gures.
F2: Charles Weis, Ventura County Superintendent of Schools, estimates that truancy costs Ventura County public schools between $25 million and $40 million a year in lost revenue because annual state education allocations are based on a district’s average daily attendance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: A protocol attendance measurement for all County school districts should be utilized by the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools to assure there is an accurate way to standardize truancy rates and costs. (C-9)
F3: SARBs became operative in the state in 1975. It was the intent of the legislature that intensive guidance and coordinated community service be provided to meet the special needs of pupils with school attendance and/or behavior problems. The school district SARB consists of representa- tives from each school; police agencies, the Probation Agency, the Health Services Agency, the Parks and Recreation Department, Social Services and organizations in the community at large, such as Interface. The parent(s) and truant student are also required to attend. Failure to comply with the directives of SARB can result in additional steps being taken.
F4: STOP is a truancy program in the Oxnard area. This program is in con- junction with the U.S. Department of Justice “Weed and Seed” Program, the District Attorney’s Offi ce, Juvenile Probation, Oxnard School Districts and local non-profi t organizations. The police have the power to go to homes of students with at least four unexcused absences and cite them for truancy. In the fi rst year of operation, Oxnard police issued 2,747 cita- tions for truancy compared to 434 the previous school year. In the STOP program the parents are called, informed of the truancy and are required to pick up their child at the STOP Center and return him/her to school. STOP utilizes fi rm sanctions on truants. It holds parents accountable and has ongoing prevention programs in schools. STOP addresses underlying issues and provides counseling services and referrals.
F5: All law enforcement agencies have assigned offi cers to high schools, and some offi cers are also responsible to cover middle and elementary schools. Some police agencies also have Community Oriented Policy and Problem Solving (COPPS) and Sheriff’s Truancy Education Program (STEP). The city of Thousand Oaks had an excellent program in which every truant was cited and required to appear in court, but the program proved to be too costly and was discontinued.
F6: The Ventura County Probation Agency Youth Services Unit is responsible for handling citations issued to minors for truancy throughout the County. The Probation Agency also handles minors cited for daytime curfew in Thousand Oaks and Fillmore. The agency also requires truants and their parents to attend a class on Teen Responsibilities (referred to by the Pro- bation Agency as “601 Class”). The program covers truancy, curfew and runaway laws, responsibilities and consequences, and requires the minor to perform eight hours of community service or contribute $25 to a charity of their choice.
F7: Many truant children have serious mental health problems that are not being addressed by their parents or the schools.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Parenting and counseling classes should be provided for parents of truant children and an accessible mental health system should be cre- ated to provide services to truant youth. (C-4, C-5)
F8: The County does not have the “teeth” to deal with habitual truants (those in contempt of § 601 court orders). For the court to order incarceration, the juvenile must have been given suffi cient notice to comply with the order and have understood its provisions, the violation of the court order must be egregious and less restrictive alternatives must have been considered and found to be ineffective. There also is a statutory provision barring intermin- gling with delinquent minors or criminal adults. F-.9 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s program, VIDA, is for at-risk youth. This is a 16-week all-day program on Saturdays staffed by Sheriff personnel and volunteers. It also includes Thursday evening counseling and learning ses- sions for the youth, counseling for parents, in-school checking and drug testing of all youth attending.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: The County must incarcerate § 601 contemnors in our Juvenile Justice Center when it opens in 2003 and there is room to separate the § 601s from the § 602s. (C-2)
R4: A “boot camp” type program like VIDA needs to be established countywide to reach at risk youth before incarceration becomes neces- sary. (C-7)
F10: Chronic truancy has been determined to be a symptom of deeper prob- lems within the family whether it is the juvenile who is skipping class and displaying anger or the parents who just cannot get life together enough to send their child to school.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The STOP Program, TRPP, THRIVE and SARBs should be supported and additional personnel, energy and resources should be devoted to the programs. (C-1)
F11: Truancy Habits Reduced Increases Vital Education (THRIVE) augments the STOP program and the Truancy Referral and Prosecution Program (TRPP). Existing social and preventative services are provided to the truant children and their family members through the SARB process and at the STOP site in Oxnard. Follow-up investigation and monitoring of habitual truants is conducted to ensure that attendance improves or that additional resources, including formal court action, are delivered. The District Attorney works with local police, probation offi cers, school offi cials, the Ventura County SARB, Interface, Palmer Drug Abuse Program, City Impact and those agen- cies which provide services to CalWORKs (the fi nancial aid agency).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The STOP Program, TRPP, THRIVE and SARBs should be supported and additional personnel, energy and resources should be devoted to the programs. (C-1)
F12: The Probation Agency and District Attorney’s offi ce are working with SARBs and local police by instituting the TRPP, a get-tough approach to getting youth in school. This program was started in March 2000 and won a state- wide award for its effectiveness and creativity. Students and parents have been fi ned or sentenced to community service and some parents have been sent to parenting classes and ordered to volunteer at their child’s school.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The STOP Program, TRPP, THRIVE and SARBs should be supported and additional personnel, energy and resources should be devoted to the programs. (C-1)
F13: CalWORKs can cut parents’ benefi ts if their children do not regularly attend school.
F14: Poor attendance often develops in elementary schools and middle schools.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: Stringent standards of excellent attendance should be stressed and measured in elementary and middle schools. (C-6) Commendation All agencies mentioned in this report are to be commended for their con- cern about truancy and for the many excellent programs they offer. Responses Ventura County Superintendent of Schools (R-2, R-5, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-1, R-3, R-4, R-5) Ventura County Behavioral Health Department (R-3) Ventura County Sheriff (R-4) Police Departments of: (R-4) Oxnard Port Hueneme Santa Paula Simi Valley Ventura Ventura County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (R-6) Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-4)
F15: Multi-agency cooperation is very important, and the Juvenile Justice Coor- dinating Council (JJCC) has responsibility for setting juvenile policy and standards throughout Ventura County. The Presiding Juvenile Court Judge and the Probation Agency Director are co-chairs of this committee. The JJCC also includes the District Attorney, the Sheriff, the Public Defender, the Human Services Agency Director, the Director of Behavioral Health Department, a representative of City Impact, Ventura County Chief Execu- Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury tive Offi cer, a representative of the Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, two members of the Board of Supervisors, Chief of the Oxnard Police Department, a member of the Public Health Services, an ACTION member, citizen representative of the Juvenile Justice/Delinquency Preven- tion Commission and the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools. Conclusions C-1. It is necessary to continue the SARB programs in individual school districts and countywide. STOP, THRIVE and TRRP are also effective programs which should be continued. (F-3, F-4 and F-11) C-2. It is necessary to ensure that students face fi rm sanctions for truancy. It is imperative that the County incarcerate status § 601 offenders who are in contempt of court when these youth can be separated from § 602s in the new Juvenile Justice Center in 2003. (F-8) C-3. There must be an accessible mental health system that will provide ser- vices to youth who have chronic mental health issues and control the misuse of narcotics and alcohol. Detoxifi cation and treatment programs must be available for youth with the need. (F-7) C-4. Anger management, education and training should be made more widely available with the possibility of negotiating with elementary, middle and high schools to add these programs to their course content. (F-7) C-5. Parenting/counseling sessions should be provided for parents unable to control the actions of their children due to lack of training, education or concern, thereby creating meaningful incentives for parental responsibility. (F-10) C-6. Strict attendance standards and programs must be enforced in grade schools and middle schools so high school students will obtain the basic education necessary to keep up and so that youth will learn responsibility at an early age. (F-14) C-7. VIDA is an excellent program and should be started in Ventura County to reach at-risk youth before they become § 602s. (F-9) C-8. JJCC has the responsibility for setting juvenile policy and standards throughout Ventura County. (F-15) C-9. Individual school districts have different methods of determining truancy. This makes it diffi cult to compare the individual district’s rates and costs of truancy. (F-1) Recommendations
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Because interagency cooperation is necessary to combat truancy, the JJCC should be continued, and additional personnel, energy and resources would be helpful. (C-8)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
F1: Since the offi cial date of receipt is the date the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court received the response, that date was used to determine the date of response. There were a total of 31 responses from the agencies or departments with 27 (87%) responses in agreement with the Grand Jury’s recommendations and 4 (13%) in disagreement for reasons, determined by the Grand Jury, to be valid. Any attempt to determine the total actual implementation of Grand Jury recommen- dations prior to the conclusion of the current Grand Jury’s term is futile in that the timetable for implementation of some recommendations falls after the term ends. The act of verifying implementation of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury’s remaining open
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Since the offi cial date of receipt is the date the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court received the response, that date was used to determine the date of response. There were a total of 31 responses from the agencies or departments with 27 (87%) responses in agreement with the Grand Jury’s recommendations and 4 (13%) in disagreement for reasons, determined by the Grand Jury, to be valid. Any attempt to determine the total actual implementation of Grand Jury recommen- dations prior to the conclusion of the current Grand Jury’s term is futile in that the timetable for implementation of some recommendations falls after the term ends. The act of verifying implementation of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury’s remaining open recommendations, therefore, must pass to the incoming Grand Jury should it be their choice to do so. Conclusions Considering the number of reports issued, the record of responses, while allow- ing room for improvement, is not altogether unreasonable. Just over half of the responses were received in a timely manner. If responses received by the Grand Jury prior to the deadline but not received by the Presiding Judge until after the deadline are included, the percentage of timely responses rises accordingly. A number of responses from county departments were compiled by the offi ce of the Chief Executive and, after review by the County Board of Supervisors, were forwarded together under one transmittal letter. This caused some reports to appear to be from 8 to 38 days late, depending on the respective department’s required timeframe in which to respond, as stated in the Penal Code, section 933 (c). This practice, while causing some tardiness, is acceptable in that it enables the responses of county departments to be of a more comprehensive nature when combined into one package. All responses were reviewed by the 2001-2002 Grand Jury, and in two cases, a further follow-up visit was required in order to determine the degree of compliance to the respective department’s acceptance of Grand Jury recommendations. Responses to 2000-2001 Grand Jury Reports REPORT NAME/RESPONDING AGENCY RELEASE DATE RESPONSE DUE/REC’D DAYS LATE G.J. ACCEPT COMMITTEE BEHAVORIAL HEALTH BILLING FOLLOW-UP REPORT 6/5/01 AUDIT FINANCE Responses: VCHC Agency Director R-1 8-5-01/6-28-01 7/19 Director Behavioral Health R-1 8-5-01/10-4-01 7/19 Director Human Resources Div R-1 8-5-01/9-18-01 43 9/27 SHERIFF’S DEPT. CRIME LAB 6/6/01 8-6-01/ LAW & JUSTICE Responses: Sheriff’s Dept. R-1,R-2,R-3 8-6-01/8-2-01 11/15 CEO R-1,R-2,R-3 8-6-01/10-9-01 11/15 GSA R-1,R-2,R-3 8-6-01/10-9-01 63 11/15 Board of Suprevisors R-1,R-2,R-3 8-6-01/8-3-01 11/15 RACIAL PROFILING 6/11/01 LAW & JUSTICE Responses: Ventura County Sheriff’s Dept.R1,2,3,4 8-11-01/7-10-01 11/15 TOBACCO TAX MONEY 6/12/01 COUNTIES Responses: Director VCHC Agency R-1,3 8-12-01/6-28-01 7/11 V.C. CEO R-1,2,3 8-12-01/10-9-01 57 10/17 V.C. Auditor Controller R-1,2 8-12-01/8-3-01 8/15 V.C. Transportation Commission R-4 9-12-01/7-20-01 8/1 SHERIFF’S DEPT WOMEN’S DETENTION FACILITY 6/13/01 8-13-01/ LAW & JUSTICE Responses: Sheriff’s Dept. R1,2,3 8-13-01/6-20-01 7/18 Director Wos Detention Ctr. R-1,2 8-13-01/6-20-01 7/18 GSA R-3 9-13-01/10-9-01 26 11/15 Board of Supervisors R-4 8-13-01/10-9-01 56 11/15 OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES IN V.C. GOVERNMENT 7/1/01 AUDIT FINANCE Responses: Board of Supervisors 9-1-01/10-9-01 38 10/18 CEO (CAO) R-3,4 9-1-01/10-9-01 38 10/18 Auditor-Controller R1 9-1-01/8-3-01 8/16 Responses to 2000-2001 Grand Jury Reports (continued) REPORT NAME/RESPONDING AGENCY RELEASE DATE RESPONSE DUE/REC’D DAYS LATE G.J. ACCEPT COMMITTEE RAIN PROJECT 7/1/01 COUNTIES Responses: CEO (CAO) R-1,2 9-1-01/10-9-01 38 10/17 Rain Project Director R-3,4 9-1-01/10-9-01 38 10/17 COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPTION FEES 7/1/01 AUDIT FINANCE Responses: CEO R-1 9-1-01/10-9-01 38 10/17 District Attorney R-2 10-1-01/10-9-01 8 10/17 NOV. 2000 VENTURA COUNTY ELECTION 7/1/01 AUDIT FINANCE County Clerk-Recorder R-1 thru R-7 9-1-01/8-24-01 8/30 Assistant Registrar of Voters R-1 Thru R-7 9-1-01/8-24-01 8/30 OXNARD HARBOR DISTRICT 7/1/01 COUNTIES No Responses Required Chief Roper Responded 7/10/01 VENTURA COUNTY DEPT. OF ANIMAL REGULATION 7/1/01 COUNTIES Responses: CEO R-1 9-1-01/10-9-01 38 10/17 Board of Supervisors R-1 9-1-01/7-16-01 7/17 AN INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED RACIAL PROFILING BY THE V.C SHERIFF’S DEPT.. 6/11/01 LAW & JUSTICE Responses: Ventura County Sheriff’s Dept. R-1,2,3,4 8-11-01/7-3-01 7/3 RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY 1999-2000 GRAND JURY REPORT 7/1/01 REVIEW Responses: Board of Supervisors 9-1-01/10-9-01 38 11/27

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 8 hallazgos
F1: SCAT and Laidlaw have entered into a contract; part of which deals with incentives that may be earned by Laidlaw employees.
F2: The contract between SCAT and Laidlaw provides for two incentive plans under which employees of Laidlaw shall be compensated for service that exceeds performance standards and goals.
F3: The fi rst incentive program describes how operators (bus drivers) who have no preventable accidents, no validated complaints, perfect attendance and conform to the uniform policy may receive as much as six hundred dollars ($600) per year in bonuses. This plan is paid by Laidlaw and is intended to provide a strong recruitment program and retain drivers that are already employed.
F4: A second incentive program is funded by SCAT and paid to Laidlaw for ser- vice that exceeds performance standards and goals that are described in the contract.
F5: Proceeds from the second incentive program are distributed to Laidlaw non- managerial staff, and include reservationists, dispatchers, drivers, clerical and maintenance personnel.
F6: The performance incentives for the month of July 2001 were divided among 39 employees. Two of the 39 employees were managers and were not intended by the contract to be included in the distribution. Cities and Joint Powers 2-1 Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Any contract violations by Laidlaw should be corrected immediately. (C-1) Commendations All contracts and documents requested of SCAT were provided in a timely manner. Laidlaw corrected distribution errors in a timely manner. Responses Required South Coast Area Transit (R-1, R-2, R-3) Response 1 - SCAT Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - SCAT (continued) Response 1 - SCAT (continued)
F7: As a result of the distribution error, each of the 37 operations personnel was given an additional distribution to compensate for the shortage that each had incurred.
F8: Some Laidlaw employees have asked for, but not received, a copy of con- tract provisions that deal with how incentives are earned and how those incentives are distributed. Conclusions C-1. It is the Grand Jury’s opinion that Laidlaw employees are not well informed of contract provisions that deal with bonuses. We also believe that well informed employees would work hard to earn extra money and that their improved morale and performance would provide better service to SCAT, their patrons and the citizens of Ventura County. (F-1, F-2, F-3,
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: Laidlaw employees should be well informed of all contract provisions that pertain to their wages and bonuses. (C-1)
R2: The manner in which Laidlaw distributes bonuses to its employees should be available to any interested employee. (C-1)

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 18 hallazgos
F1: The Five Year Capital Improvement Plan contains sections for New Space Requests ($118M), Remodel Requests ($1.2M), General Activity Requests($0.49M) and Equipment Requests ($52.7M). The bulk ($52M) of the equipment requested in the capital improvement plan is Information Tech- nology (IT) related.
F2: The IT element of the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan is supported by a process composed of an IT committee representing each of the major County departments, chaired by a senior offi cial, with a strategy approved by the Board of Supervisors articulated in the E-Government strategy and Technology Infrastructure Strategic Plan.
F3: The GSA is responsible for maintaining approximately two million six hundred seven thousand (2,607,000) square feet in one hundred fi fty-four (154) buildings (one hundred thirty-six (136) of which are County-owned and eighteen (18) are leased), in addition to leased space in approximately seventy (70) other buildings. GSA also leases some properties to other than County agencies.
F4: In 2001 a Sheriff’s forecast was made of Ventura County’s detention needs for years 2005, 2010, and 2015. The highest projected use in 2015 is one thousand eight hundred sixty-fi ve (1,865). These forecasts are illustrated in Table 1. These projections assume: (cid:127) Crime trends and judicial practices will generally follow the same pattern as the last decade. Changes in these trends and practices will alter the accuracy of the estimate. (cid:127) Civilian population in the County will generally follow the same patterns as the last decade. (cid:127) Proposition 36 will be implemented and will impact the number of offenses leading to confi nement in jail, but the true impact on Ventura County is unknown.
F5: Current jail capacity is one thousand nine hundred seventy-one (1,971) beds with an average daily population of one thousand three hundred eighty-three (1,383). Details are illustrated in Table 2.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The CEO and Sheriff evaluate the economic benefi t to the County of rent- ing excess jail bed space to other counties. (C-11) Responses Board Of Supervisors (R-1, R-2, R-3) Chief Executive Offi cer (R-1, R-2, R-3) Ventura County Sheriff (R-3) Table 1. Forecast of Detention Needs for County of Ventura YEAR LOWER ESTIMATE UPPER ESTIMATE 2005 1,153 1,605 2010y 1,683 1,735 2015 1,813 1,865 Table 2. Current Jail Capacity FACILITY BOC RATED ACTUAL BED AVERAGE DAILY CAPACITY CAPACITY POPULATION Pre-Trial Detention 412 896 648 Facility Ojai Women’s Facility 248 259 156 Todd Road Jail 782 784 567 East Valley-Olsen Rd 31 32 12 Total 1,473 1,971 1,383 Table 3. Major Ventura County Land Holdings LAND LOCATION ACREAGE Camarillo Airport 637 Camarillo Court House 1 Camarillo Regional Park 327 Channel Islands Harbor 294 College Park 75 East Valley Court House 80 Government Center-Ventura 80 Happy Camp Park 3,700 Koeingstein Rd. Matilija Reservoir 443 Oak Park 80 Ojai Debris Basin 33 Ojai Woman’s Facility 141 Old Sheriff’s Station -TO 5 Oxnard Airport 207 River Ridge 73 Saticoy Regional Golf 158 Soule Park 390 Steckel Park 142 Tapo Canyon Park 204 Todd Road Jail 157 Toland Park 213 VCFCD Storage Yard 10 Ventura City Hall 12 Ventura County Hospital 33 Vineyard Road 15 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Table 4. Population Projections CITY 2010 2020 DRIVING TIME TO COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER (ONE WAY) IN MINUTES WEST COUNTY San Buenaventura 114,636 123,830 17 Santa Paula 33,296 37,963 20 Fillmore 16,502 20,929 37 Ojai 8,640 9,213 38 Total 173,074 191,935 EAST COUNTY Thousand Oaks 128,649 131,358 37 Moorpark 35,829 40,395 40 Simi Valley 125,926 138,800 55 Total 290,404 310,553 CENTRAL COUNTY Oxnard 171,831 186,539 11 Camarillo 68,076 76,092 22 Port Hueneme 23,260 23,369 29 Total 263,167 286,000 UNINCORPORATED 106,294 116,668 TOTAL COUNTY 832,939 905,156 Sources: SCAG Population Projections & DeLorme Street Atlas V9.0 Table 5. Major County Owned Buildings USE/AGENCY NUMBER OF SIZE BUILDINGS (SQUARE FEET) Government Center Complex 4 1,094,640 Todd Road Jail 1 277,633 Ojai Women’s Facility 2 106,597 Multi Use Buildings 9 461,694 Fire Stations 27 127,190 Fire Hq, Comm.and Sheriff Air 2 34,751 Human Services Agency 3 78,011 Probation Agency 7 109,546 Animal Regulation 2 36,820 Sheriff’s Academy & Patrol 5 63,072 Health Care Agency 5 18,878 Libraries 13 N/A Miscellaneous 7 N/A Total 87 2,408,832 (estimate) Table 6. Major County Leased Buildings USE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS SIZE (SQUARE FEET) Human Services Agency 11 156,974 Health Care Agency 1 24,150 Sheriff Firing Range 1 10,000 District Attorney 1 4,080 Courts 1 3,300 Libraries 2 N/A Total 17 198,504 (estimate)
F6: The Ojai Woman’s Facility consists of one hundred forty-one (141) acres that include one hundred two thousand eight hundred fi fty-one (102,851) square feet of buildings. It serves a female prison population averaging one hundred fi fty-six (156) prisoners. Only a small portion of the acreage is necessary to support this inmate population.
F7: Probation Department Work Furlough Facilities are located at the Camarillo Airport and portions of this facility’s workload will be transferred to the new Juvenile Justice Center.
F8: Todd Road Jail contains one hundred fi fty-seven (157) acres with two hun- dred two thousand nine hundred twenty-three (202,923) square feet of jail facilities with a development occupying twenty (20) acres. It was designed in a modular manner to allow expansion without the added cost of kitchen, laundry and heating systems. The remaining one hundred thirty-seven (137) acres is County-owned farmland which is currently leased and is available for future detention needs.
F9: The East County Olsen Road Sheriff’s facility in Thousand Oaks is located on eighty (80) acres. The facility itself has a twelve-acre development. This facility is used as a collection point for people arrested by State, County and City law enforcement in the East County prior to their transfer to the Main Jail. Three thousand seventeen (3,017) people were presented for book- ings during January through December of 2001. The number of bookings refused because of psychiatric conditions, medical conditions or unique situations (and therefore requiring direct transportation to the Main Jail or hospital facilities in Ventura) was one hundred eighty-four (184).
F10: East County Court House - The existing court facilities cannot be used to try criminal cases due to the lack of a nearby pre-trial detention facility.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The County of Ventura should implement a strategic infrastructure devel- opment process which will have cognizance over the non-IT aspects of the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as well as be responsive to near- term interdepartmental space needs. This should consist of a committee of County department senior managers chaired by the Chief Executive Offi cer. Support staff responsibilities could include (1) coordination and investment analysis and population projections from the CEO’s offi ce, (2) analysis of contracts and legal restrictions from County Counsel, (3) analysis of zoning and covenants from RMA and (4) detailed facility analysis from GSA. It would have the following responsibilities: a. Rationalize County facility planning with the vision of the County General Plan. b. Coordinate and adjudicate space and facility issues across County departments. c. Develop a biannual infrastructure strategy for internal County use by consolidating demographic and public need projections currently being performed by individual County departments and soliciting forecasts for the demands for County services from the Board of Supervisors, the ten cities within the County, LAFCO and major employers such as Amgen and the Department of Defense. d. Assess the consolidation of facilities for improved services, particularly in the East County. e. Assess the use of existing land assets such as the unused land at the Ojai Woman’s Facility and the Todd Road Jail for disposition or development. f. Develop consolidated projections of the demand for County services. g. Sponsor the evaluation of the use of technology as an alternate to facility investment, i.e., video conferencing (Probation Department, Sheriff’s Department and Human Services Agency); remote sensing and monitoring technology (Probation Department and Sheriff’s Department). h. Review the benefi ts of land leased by the County to commercial activities as well as facilities leased by the County from commercial entities. Based on the long-term strategy terminate or renegotiate leases. i. Task the RMA and County Counsel to review the constraints on selected County assets. Some County properties may have restrictions, constraints or covenants that should be changed in order to facilitate better use of existing assets. (C-2 through C-10) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report
F11: As a result of a recently received 2002 Federal Grant, the District Attorney’s Offi ce will be able to enhance prosecutorial services to support police agen- cies in the East County. Space will be provided for a Deputy District Attor- ney within the Simi Valley Police Department facility and at the Sheriff’s East Olsen Road location.
F12: The old Sheriff’s station on East Olsen Road, Thousand Oaks, has been unoccupied and for sale for over a decade.
F13: The land owned by the County is extensive. There are approximately nine hundred separately owned parcels belonging to the County which comprise over eleven thousand acres of land with an estimated value in excess of one billion dollars. The scope of most of this real estate is illustrated in Table 3.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The County real property assets need to be monitored at the highest level possible with a centralized review consolidating department recommenda- tions in order that short-term and long-term plans will be based on strategic considerations. (C-1)
F14: The Southern California Association of Governments projects greater popu- lation increases for the Central and East portions of the County. The largest increases are forecast to be in the cities of Oxnard and Simi Valley. (Table 4).
F15: Out of one hundred thirty-six (136) County-owned buildings, there are eighty-seven (87) major buildings with over two million square feet of fl oor space. The major owned buildings are illustrated in Table 5.
F16: The County leases four hundred eighty-thousand (480,000) square feet of space at a cost of fi ve hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) per month. The major leased buildings are illustrated in Table 6.
F17: The Sheriff’s Department has installed video teleconferencing in the jails in order to reduce the need for added transportation of suspects and thereby reduce facility costs.
F18: The driving time from East County population centers to the County Gov- ernment Center ranges from thirty-fi ve to fi fty-four minutes. The East County is projected to represent thirty-fi ve percent of the County popula- tion in the year 2020. (Table 4) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Conclusions C-1. Ventura County Government is relatively immortal. It existed a hundred years ago and it will exist a hundred years from now. Acquisitions, dispositions and development of land and facilities have long-term effects. While there is an adequate midterm review process at the department level, there does not exist at the executive level a strategic planning process to address the major long-term infrastructure investments or a mechanism to resolve interdepart- mental space needs. (F-1) C-2. The County IT investment process provides a model that could be utilized to address other major investments in the County. (F-2) C-3. The demands on the County infrastructure and space are dynamic. They are driven by demographic changes, changes in the nature of County services and changes in law. County departments have responded by developing a prepared need (wish list) for renovations and midterm capital improvements. These needs are documented in the County Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. (F-1) C-4. Some of the County-owned properties are irreplaceable and necessary for cultural, recreation, safety, health and education reasons. Some are not irre- placeable or have portions of their acreage which are not of signifi cant value to the County. (F-6, F-8, F-12) C-5. The County, as a result of demanding fi nancial needs, can no longer have the luxury of properties remaining without specifi c economic use or long-term need. Some of the properties may not be generating a positive or a useful cash fl ow and require a business case analysis for their management while others could be sold, leased or improved in other ways. (F-6, F-8, F-12, F-15, F-16) C-6. There are a variety of population projections to be drawn upon for planning the future of Ventura County. Population projections for the County need to factor numerous issues in order to be useful for facility planning. Key issues like Proposition 36, the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiative, and the relative high cost of housing must be considered by the County and factored in to such projections. (F-4, F-14) C-7. Due to the driving time from the East County, additional measures need to be taken to ensure that citizens of the East County have better access to County services. Individual County agencies have responded to this issue. (F-10, F-17,
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: Supervisor Flynn served on the Ventura County Assessment Appeals Board until January 28, 2002. This board meets weekly and stipends amount to $100-$200 per meeting. Thirty-six meetings were held last year.
F2: Supervisor Schillo currently serves on the Retirement Association Board which meets twice monthly and pays $100 per meeting.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: The amendment to Ordinance 4191 should be removed.
R2: If attendance at these exempted boards is so onerous, it would be better to alternate membership on the two boards among all Supervisors on an annual basis. Commendations Supervisors Long, Mikels and Bennett do not elect to receive stipends from the Boards and Commissions they attend. Responses Required Supervisor Flynn Supervisor Schillo Supervisor Long Supervisor Mikels Supervisor Bennett
F3: The current board member compensation: $85,000 annual salary; full package or standard county fringe benefi ts; and transportation allowance: choice of either the IRS-approved $.365 per mile reimbursement or full cost of car lease, fuel and operating expenses.
F4: Supervisors Long, Mikels and Bennett do not elect to receive stipends.
F5: Stipends paid do affect Supervisors’ retirement pay. Conclusions C-1. Stipends are intended to reimburse citizens for disruption of work, time and revenue. C-2. The Board of Supervisors should not receive stipends for attending meet- ings of Boards or Commissions, which are part of their supervisorial duties. Recommendations
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos
F1: Dates to visit the Grand Jury were proposed to offi cials of NAACP and LULAC, but those dates passed with no response.
F2: Of the fi ve individuals who submitted declarations to the NAACP, one was the subject of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury Report, one is deceased and his death is the subject of a pending lawsuit, and no means of contacting the other three individuals, by telephone or mail, was provided.
F3: A spokesperson for LULAC informed the Grand Jury that the agency had no complaining parties from the Hispanic community, and that all the citizens’ complaints he knew of were in the NAACP’s fi les.
F4: The Ventura County Sheriff’s Academy uses materials published by POST to train all new deputies, and new police offi cers for all police departments. One section of this series, entitled Cultural Diversity/Discrimination, is a workbook study of over 100 pages, with chapter headings such as “Recog- 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report nizing Diversity,” “Prejudice and Discrimination,” and “Effective Law Enforce- ment Contacts.” A typical chapter will contain a subject overview, legal defi - nitions, defi nitions of prejudice, discrimination, perceptions and stereotypes, examples of acceptable police procedures, and workbook learning activities. This training manual was published in 1999.
F5: The cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, and Thousand Oaks contract with the Sheriff’s Department for police services. Hence offi cers employed by these agencies follow Sheriff’s Department policies and procedures. The Ventura County Sheriff’s Academy trains its personnel using the POST materials described above.
F6: Oxnard Police Department’s POST training on racial profi ling is being developed, and will not be ready until January of 2002. The agency’s policy on racial profi ling is, “This Department rejects racial profi ling as a law enforcement tactic and we will not encourage or condone its use.” Further information on this statement is available on the agency’s website at www.oxnardpd.org/rp.htm.
F7: Port Hueneme Police Department’s racial profi ling policy is in print in the form of a department directive. The directive states in part: “This Department rejects racial profi ling as a law enforcement tactic and we will not encourage or condone its use…Racial Profi ling of any type will not be tolerated in this Department.” The agency uses the Sheriff’s Academy to train new offi cers. Supervisors also do training during briefi ngs.
F8: Santa Paula Police Department’s Chief Bob Gonzales states that racial profi ling is not a problem in Santa Paula. In a memorandum to all person- nel dated March 5, 2001, Chief Gonzales commended his staff for dealing with the public in a professional manner, and directed them to continue this standard of conduct. Santa Paula’s police offi cers are trained at the Sheriff’s Academy, and would use the POST materials described above.
F9: Simi Valley Police Department also uses the Sheriff’s Academy for train- ing, and they informed us that there is a 16-week program that every offi - cer attends that touches on racial profi ling. The department has no specifi c directives on this issue in print.
F10: Ventura Police Department’s racial profi ling policy is covered in the fol- lowing VPD Manual sections: Section 101.1.4: “…the Department rejects tactics based solely upon assump- tions of race, ethnicity, national origin, or other protected attributes…” and Section 102.13.2: “Proactive traffi c enforcement that is racially or ethnically based is neither legal, consistent with democratic ideals… nor…a legitimate and defensible public protection strategy. It is not, cannot, and will not be tolerated by the Department.” Ventura police offi cers are trained at the Sheriff’s Academy using POST materials. Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Conclusions C-1. No conclusions can be reached regarding complaints of racial profi ling in Ventura County due to lack of information and inability to interview those with potential information. (F-1, F-2, F-3) C-2. The Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over matters before the court; hence this body cannot investigate the incident involving the person who is now deceased. (F-2) C-3. While the Ventura County Sheriff’s Academy has implemented POST train- ing as mandated in Penal Code Section 13519.4(f)(I), there is nothing in the training materials that addresses specifi c procedures to avoid racial profi l- ing. For example, the material does not answer the question of whether it is racial profi ling to stop a black male in an predominately white neighbor- hood, if the only thing that makes the offi cer suspicious is that the man looks “out of place.” Instead, the material focuses on cultural differences and how to effectively deal with them. Recommendation The Sheriff’s Academy and all Police Departments should continue to train offi - cers and deputies on identifying those actions that constitute bias based policing. A mere understanding of cultural diversities is not enough to prevent racial profi l- ing. There must be specifi c guidelines in writing, and active, ongoing training for all law enforcement personnel as to what constitutes probable cause to detain a citizen, so that there is no question in the individual offi cer’s mind as to what tac- tics are and are not acceptable. If such guidelines do not appear in POST training materials by January 1, 2002, then all Ventura County training facilities should provide further materials to make these guidelines clear. Responses Required Ventura County Sheriff’s Academy Ventura County Sheriff Oxnard Police Department Port Hueneme Police Department Santa Paula Police Department Simi Valley Police Department Ventura Police Department Note To The Public: The Grand Jury will continue to be available to any citizen or organization that has a complaint against any government agency. Citizen’s may submit their complaints in writing, with address, telephone number, and signature, and mailed to Ventura County Grand Jury, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-3751 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - City of San Buenaventura Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 2 - City of Port Hueneme Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - City of Simi Valley 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - City of Simi Valley (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Ventura County Sheriff’s Department 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (continued)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 33 hallazgos
F1: All high schools have the required School Safety manuals and are in com- pliance with the Education Code.
F2: All high schools have a condensed and localized safe school plan.
F3: Most high schools have an emergency evacuation/lockdown plan and con- duct emergency practice drills; however not all schools detail in the plan the procedures to follow in the event that an incident occurs during a time when students are not in class, i.e. during lunch period or during passing periods.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: All high schools should have regular emergency practice drills with some drills occurring during a lunch or passing period, and evaluate the effi - ciency of such drills. (C-2, C-3)
F4: All high schools use a parent notifi cation form that defi nes school and district policies, rules and regulations. This is distributed to parents at the start of the school semester.
F5: All high schools provide a student handbook that includes district and school policies, and rules and regulations. This is distributed to each stu- dent during the enrollment process.
F6: Of the 20 high school campuses visited by the Grand Jury, 5 were open with no security fences around the perimeters and 15 were closed and fenced, limiting access to school grounds during and after hours.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: All high schools should have perimeter fencing enclosing the entire school campus. (C-4, C-5)
F7: Most high schools have a procedure to screen visitors entering or leaving the campus.
F8: One school district requires that the schools in the district do random weapon searches, maintain a log of the searches and report the results to the district on a scheduled basis.
F9: Some high schools use police K-9s, or a private company that provides dogs, to do random checks for weapons in lockers, student backpacks and cars in the parking lot and school perimeters. Students are not personally subjected to search by the dogs.
F10: Some high schools use a system of peer mediation or counseling to resolve student confl icts.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F11: Some high schools are involved in “Teen Court,” a method whereby stu- dent offenders are required by the Juvenile Probation Agency to appear Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury before the Teen Court to participate in a “Peer Trial.” A panel of his or her peers then sentences the teen defendant. A judge or a judge pro-tem of the Superior Court presides over the trial and student participators serve as court staff and jury. The teen defendant must also agree to serve on a teen jury at a future date. Personnel Findings
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R8: All districts with high schools should implement the “Teen Court or Peer Court” program in at least one of the high schools. (C-13)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F12: All high schools have an administrator in charge of school safety.
F13: Most high schools have either a school nurse, nurse’s assistant or health aide on staff full or part time.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F14: At one school the school nurse has compiled information on how many of the school’s staff are current in fi rst aid and CPR training and which are not currently certifi ed. This information is then used to provide training for staff in need of certifi cation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F15: Most high schools have a local law enforcement SRO assigned to the school during school hours.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2: All high schools should have a full time law enforcement SRO present on campus during school hours. (C-9) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F16: All high schools employ full or part time campus security personnel who work staggered schedules for added campus security.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R3: All high schools should staff campus entrances with campus security per- sonnel. (C-10)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F17: All high schools have increased supervision at home athletic events. Security Equipment Related Findings
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F18: Some high schools have replaced older fencing with newer, more attrac- tive, and taller iron fences surrounding portions of the campus.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F19: Some high schools use metal detectors to do random weapons checks.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F20: Some high schools use breathalyzer type equipment to detect alcohol use by students.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F21: All high schools use hand held radios for communication and in some school districts the radios are able to be tuned to a district-wide frequency enabling inner district communication should the need arise.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F22: Some high schools have security surveillance cameras installed however not all cameras are of the newer digital type.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R6: All high schools should have an up to date security camera system. (C-8)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F23: Some high schools use electric carts to enable security staff to patrol large areas more effi ciently.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F24: At one high school, some of the security staff and an administrator use bicycles to cover the school’s large campus.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F25: At least two school districts are in the process of having all of the build- ings at schools in their districts identifi able by aircraft surveillance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R9: All school districts should have school buildings in their districts identifi ed on each building’s rooftop to facilitate easier identifi cation by law enforce- ment air surveillance. (C-15)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F26: Several high schools have digital camera equipment and computer software that is used to produce student picture ID badges. This eliminates the use of an outside photographer and the system eventually pays for itself. The system also allows the school to maintain a “mug shot” type fi le for security or emergency use by the school or local law enforcement as needed. 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F27: Some schools maintain an “Emergency Disaster Bin” stocked with emer- gency supplies i.e., food packs, water, sanitary supplies, fi rst aid supplies, rope, tools, etc., for use in the event of a major disaster. In addition, some schools have small disaster packs located in classroom areas. Specifi c Findings By School Or District
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F28: Members of the Grand Jury were able to drive their vehicles onto the school grounds of Oak Park High School with no restriction or detection.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: All high schools should have perimeter fencing enclosing the entire school campus. (C-4, C-5)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F29: Members of the Grand Jury were able to walk onto the school grounds of Nordhoff, Buena, and Ventura High Schools during school hours with no detection. A staff person at Ventura High School eventually challenged us.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: All high schools should have perimeter fencing enclosing the entire school campus. (C-4, C-5)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F30: Ventura, Buena, Oak Park and Nordhoff High Schools have no programs established for conducting random checks for weapons.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R5: All high schools and districts should have in place procedures for conduct- ing random searches of school property for weapons. (C-16, C-17)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F31: Nordhoff High School does not have a school nurse or medical aide/ assistant on staff.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R10: All high schools should have a certifi ed school nurse, nurse’s assistant, or health aide on duty during school hours. (C-11)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F32: Simi Valley and Royal High Schools in Simi Valley, in partnership with the Simi Valley Police Department, have taken the attitude of “we are Colum- bine”, and have prepared accordingly.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R7: All school districts, high schools, and local law enforcement, should adopt the attitude of “we are Columbine”, and prepare accordingly. (C-6)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
F33: The fence surrounding Rio Mesa High School is not tall enough to be effective. Conclusions C-1. All high schools the Grand Jury visited have Safe Schools plans in place and do the required notifi cation ofparents and students of the school’s and district’s rules and regulations. (F-1, F-2, F-4, F-5) C-2. Although all visited high schools have the required evacuation, lock down, and disaster plans, some of these schools need to factor into their plans specifi cally what students and staff are to do in the event of an incident happening during lunch or a passing period. (F-2) C-3. Emergency or disaster drills held and evaluated by the school’s safety com- mittee at various times throughout the school year help to prepare for the “real thing”. (F-3) C-4. Although all visited high schools have procedures in place to screen visi- tors and restrict campus entry by unauthorized persons, some of the schools the Grand Jury visited were open campus schools with no fencing and were not as secure from unauthorized entry as schools with a closed or fenced campus. (F-6, F-7, F-29) C-5. Effective perimeter fencing surrounding school property enables the campus to be more secure from unauthorized entry both during and after school hours. (F-6, F-18, F-28, F-29) C-6. Schools in locations that are perceived to be safer locations by both school administration, school district and the community are not as safe as schools where the school administration, district, local law enforcement and community have taken the attitude of “we are Columbine,” and have prepared accordingly. (F-28, F-29, F-33) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury C-7. High schools where safety and security are a lower priority are located in areas where demographics and location make them “seem safer”. (F-28, F-29) C-8. Some high schools that are of older construction lack the equipment nec- essary to come to the same degree of safety as other schools in the same school district and need funding to be brought up to parity. (F-18, F-22,
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Where school districts lack the funds to make their schools as safe as other schools within their district, or within Ventura County, these districts should align their budgets to accomplish parity by July 1st 2004. (C-5, C-6, C-10, C-11, C-15) Responses Required Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Offi ce, County Superintendent of Schools (R-1 through R-11) Conejo Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Newbury Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Thousand Oaks High School (R-1 through R-10) Westlake High School (R-1 through R-10) Fillmore Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Fillmore Senior High School (R-1 through R-10) Moorpark Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Moorpark High School (R-1 through R-10) Oak Park Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Oak Park High School (R-1 through R-10) Ojai Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Nordhoff High School (R-1 through R-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Oxnard Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Adolfo Camarillo High School (R-1 through R-10) Channel Islands High School (R-1 through R-10) Hueneme High School (R-1 through R-10) Oxnard High School (R-1 through R-10) Pacifi ca High School (R-1 through R-10) Rio Mesa High School (R-1 through R-10) Santa Paula Union High School District (R-1 through R-11) Santa Paula High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Royal High School (R-1 through R-10) Simi Valley High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura Unifi ed School District (R-1 through R-11) Buena High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura High School (R-1 through R-10) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (R-2, R-7, R-9) Oxnard Police Department (R-2, R-7) Santa Paula Police Department (R-2, R-7) Simi Valley Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura Police Department (R-2, R-7) Ventura County Probation Agency (R-8) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Conejo Valley School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 2 - Santa Paula Union High School District 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 1 - Santa Paula Union High School District (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Oxnard High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Oxnard High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - Hueneme High School 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - Hueneme High School (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of San Buenaventura (continued)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: The project director, Deputy Director of the Ventura County Flood Control District, conducted the on-site meeting and explained how the Lang Dam project became necessary. Since the surrounding area’s new development has caused large parcels of land to be paved, rainwater is no longer able to soak into the ground and instead runs off in large torrents to inundate and damage anything downstream. The dam is necessary to manage and control such large torrents, thereby protecting downstream property and environment from fl ood damage.
F2: The Agreement between the City of Thousand Oaks, the Lang Ranch Company, the County of Ventura and the County of Ventura Flood Control District was signed on December 19, 1995. The Project Description for Lang Ranch Basin, a part of the Agreement, describes the project as the con- struction of an 11.5-acre stormwater retention basin, debris basin, access roads and related drainage structures. The permanent detention facility will be constructed to protect downstream property from a “100-year frequency storm fl ow,” a storm of epic proportions, as well as the usual storm runoff.
F3: Concerns regarding the impact of building a dam on unstable landslide materials were put to rest with the explanation that: a. the landslide was located about two to three hundred yards to the southwest and downstream from the site, and b. the Ventura County Flood Control District had the composition of bedrock to which the dam will be attached test drilled for stability in multiple locations under the direction of geologists. County Services, Special Districts 4-1 Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury
F4: Necessary permits and waivers required for the construction of the project have been applied for, approved and are a matter of public record at the Ventura County Recorder’s offi ce.
F5: The 1995 Agreement contains a clause entitled “Oak Tree Protection and Removal.” It provides a detailed plan for the removal of 60 trees and the preservation of the remainder of the grove. Citizen concerns about the number of oak trees that would be destroyed as a result of the dam con- struction and fi ll behind the dam were addressed. The Grand Jury learned that the original estimate of trees to be destroyed was reduced in number from approximately 140 to approximately 40. An arborist hired by the County determined that of the trees being removed, most had lived well beyond their projected life span and many were also diseased.
F6: In the event of a 100-year storm, water collected behind the dam will be dispersed within 24 hours, and no permanent lake will be formed. There- fore trees and environment upstream from the dam will also be protected. Conclusions C-1. The Lang Ranch Debris and Retention Basin project has been in existence since at least 1995, and in that time every effort has been made to identify and resolve any issues of environmental impact raised by its construction. C-2. Concern about the building of the dam on unstable land was based on misinformation, and the fact is that all required studies have been made, and safety issues have been settled. C-3. Regarding the destruction of old growth oak trees, the fact is that the purpose of the project is to protect the environment, and environmental impact has been properly addressed. Recommendations None Responses Required None 4-2
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos
F1: Since August 3, 1992, thirty-two (32) suspects have been fatally wounded by police gunfi re in Ventura County. At least seventeen (17) of those shootings involved the mentally ill. (See Appendix)
F2: Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code provides for peace offi cers to take into custody individuals who as a result of a mental disorder pose a threat to others or themselves. They must be taken to an approved mental health facility and remain for a 72 hour period for treatment and evaluation.
F3: The Grand Jury became aware of the “Memphis Plan” which was devel- oped and implemented by the community and the police department in Memphis, Tennessee. 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report
F4: The “Memphis Plan” calls for the formation of Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) of police offi cers and mental health providers specifi cally trained to respond to situations involving the mentally ill.
F5: Under the “Memphis Plan” police offi cers are taught techniques for de- escalating a crisis situation and how to increase their personal profi ciency in non-violent crisis intervention techniques.
F6: The “Memphis Plan” deems it critical that offi cers take a mentally ill person to a place of safety that is not a standard lock-up or jail.
F7: Cities such as Seattle, Washington; San Jose, California; and Albuquerque, New Mexico have developed and implemented their own plans based on the “Memphis Plan.”
F8: The Ventura County Sheriff and Police Chiefs’ Association in conjunction with the Ventura County Mental Health Department has developed a 40 hour Crisis Intervention Training Academy based on the “Memphis Plan.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R1: Each police agency within Ventura County should determine how many CIT offi cers are needed to adequately serve their jurisdiction. (C-1, C-2, C- 3, C-4, C-5, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10)
R2: The offi cers needed to adequately serve each jurisdiction should receive 40 hours of training at the CIT Academy. This training should be completed by July 1, 2003.
R3: A refresher course should be implemented as part of the Police Offi cers Supplemental Training.
R4: Train all dispatchers and/or call takers to have increased awareness of known or suspected mentally ill persons and to respond appropriately to such calls. (C-6, C-7) Commendations The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department; the Police Departments of Oxnard, Ventura, Simi Valley, Port Hueneme, and Santa Paula; and the Ventura County Mental Health Department are commended for developing and implementing the CIT Academy. Responses Required Ventura County Sheriff’s Academy (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) Ventura County Sheriff (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) Oxnard Police Department (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) Port Hueneme Police Department (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) Santa Paula Police Department (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) Simi Valley Police Department (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) Ventura Police Department (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Table 1 Fatal Shooting in Ventura County by Law Enforcement Offi cers 1992-2001 NUMBER DATE NAME AGENCY MENTAL ILLNESS* 1. 8/3/92 James Graham Oxnard Police Dept. Yes 2. 10/2/92 Donald Scott Los Angeles Sheriff Dept. No 3. 1/7/93 Steven Gutierrez Ventura Co. Sheriff Dept. No 4. 10/1/93 Nicholas Partee Oxnard Police Dept. Yes 5. 11/11/93 Santos Arias Port Hueneme Police Dept. No 6. 12/2/93 Alan Winterbourne Oxnard Police Dept. Yes 7. 4/25/94 Alfonso Bravo Oxnard Police Dept. No 8. 4/29/95 James Zendejas Ventura Police Dept. No 9. 5/21/95 Ernesto Garcia Ventura Police Dept. Yes 10. 6/27/95 David Soly Los Angeles Police Dept. No 11. 8/29/95 Robert Sterling Oxnard Police Dept. Yes 12. 3/13/96 James Jensen Oxnard Police Dept. No 13. 1/13/97 Larry Pankey Oxnard Police Dept. No 14. 1/26/97 Jack Sexton Ventura Co. Sheriff Dept. No 15. 6/14/97 William Ramos Ventura Police Dept. Yes 16. 1/6/98 Albert Flores Oxnard Police Dept. Yes 17. 3/25/98 Francis Brazenor Ventura Co. Sheriff Dept. Yes 18. 4/18/98 Jason Hayley Ventura Police Dept. No 19. 5/24/98 Derek Myers Ventura Co. Sheriff Dept. Yes 20. 9/9/98 Nicholas Nelson Ventura Police Dept. Yes 21. 9/22/98 Han Huynh Ventura Sheriff Dept. Yes 22. 12/4/98 Roland Bourdeau (Sheehan) Ventura Police Dept. No 23. 1/18/99 Steven Bayer Simi Valley Police Dept. Yes 24. 10/1/00 Jonathan Baker Ventura Police Dept. Yes 25. 1/10/01 Richard Lopez Oxnard Police Dept. Yes 26. 1/18/01 Charles Valdez Oxnard Police Dept. No 27. 5/7/01 Rutilio Castillo Oxnard Police Dept. Yes 28. 5/12/01 Alfonso Delgado Ventura Police Dept. No 29. 6/9/01 Beau Blain Los Angeles Police Dept. Yes 30. 7/13/01 Larry Brown Oxnard Police Dept. No 31. 8/24/01 Robert Jones Oxnard Police Dept. Yes 32. 10/13/01 Thomas Patton Ventura Sheriff Dept. Yes * Determined by the Ventura County District Attorney. Not to be condsidered medically accurate. Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 1 - City of Port Hueneme 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 2 - City of San Buenaventura Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 3 - Ventura County Sheriff’s Department 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 3 - Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 4 - City of Oxnard 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 4 - City of Oxnard (continued) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Response 5 - City of Simi Valley 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Response 5 - City of Simi Valley (continued)
F9: The Ventura County Mental Health Department has personnel trained to back up police offi cers in stand-off crisis situations.
F10: All of the Ventura County law enforcement agencies are sending line and support personnel to the CIT Academy. The fi rst class graduated on December 6, 2001. Conclusions C-1. The “Memphis Plan” has proved successful in de-escalating crisis situations and increasing police profi ciency in non-violent crisis intervention tech- niques. (F-4, F-5, F-6) C-2. Police offi cers are not adequately prepared to deal with the mentally ill (5150 subjects). (F-1, F-2) C-3. Police offi cers should be trained to increase their ability to recognize situa- tions where mentally ill (5150 subjects) are involved. (F-1, F-2) C-4. Police offi cers should be trained to recognize and understand various forms of mental illness. (F-1, F-2) C-5. Police offi cers need to increase their understanding of how a person with a mental illness will respond to different approaches. (F-1, F-2) C-6. Indications are that 5150 situations will increase due to the decrease of mental health care facilities. (F-1, F-2) C-7. Since the CIT Academy is new to Ventura County, emergency dispatchers and/or call takers need increased training to recognize calls from or about known or suspected mentally ill persons so that they can dispatch CIT offi cers as the fi rst responders. (F-8, F10) C-8. A CIT program is not the answer for all police involvement with the men- tally ill, but a beginning for necessary adjustments that law enforcement must make from traditional police responses. (F-7, F-8, F-10) Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury C-9. A CIT program will decrease the number of police shootings. Lives of citizens and police offi cers will as a consequence be saved. (F-4, F-5, F-6,

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.